Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2014/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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

William of Wrotham

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

William of Wrotham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/William of Wrotham/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I would like some military-type eyes on things, as well as more people's eyes on any missing context or problems with the prose. He's destined for FAC shortly. Has had a copyedit, but suggestions always welcomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I did my thing, but found nothing to do. Good to see you at A-class! - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yay! I've been wanting to see this article at A- or FA-class for a while. Thoughts:

• "Little is known of the background of William or his family" - I might simplify that to "Little is known of William's background or family".
• "£1100" - "£1,000"?
• "As part of his work with the stannaries, he became the first warden of Lydford Castle after it was constructed in the 1190s.[6][a] He was involved in a dispute in 1199 with another official, Hugh Bardulf, over the stannaries. In 1200 William lost his office as sheriff and temporarily lost control of the stannaries. " - stannaries in three successive sentences. I might suggest "As part of his administrative work, William became the first warden of Lydford Castle following its construction in the 1190s. In 1199 he was involved in a dispute over the stannaries another official, Hugh Bardulf, temporarily losing control of them - along with his office as sheriff - in 1200."
• The second paragraph of "royal service" uses "William" to trigger five sentences in a row; maybe replace with "he" a couple of times for some variation?
• "directing the efforts of the Cinque Ports in naval affairs and the seaports of south-western England" - I can't parse this. Was he distinctly directing the Cinque Ports and the seaports of south-western England, or..?

Otherwise, perfect as always :). Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done the first, the second - I usually go with no commas in thousand-level numbers. Took your suggestion on the third. Varied that second paragraph some. On the last ... changed to "In late 1213 William was directing the efforts of the seaports of south-western England as well as the Cinque Ports in naval affairs." .. he was directing both groups - which are distinct. Does that help? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmn. What about "The seaports of south-western England and the Cinque Ports in naval affairs"? A bit tighter. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Took that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth55

Lovely article. I too have some prose questions, plus a few content questions.

• William's main administrative work was naval. He was in charge of the royal fleet in the south of England in 1205, and was one of those responsible for the development of Portsmouth as a naval dockyard. ... Could this be streamlined? Although William had a variety of administrative roles, his primary contribution ... or William had particular administrative charge of the royal fleet in the south of England in 1205....seems like the intro sentence is repetitive.
• William's brother Richard was named as his deputy in William's deputy or his father's?
• why was it important that no ships sailed without royal permission? (taxes, defense)
• why was the award of churches important (revenue for William?)
• what made William "evil" or was it simply his association with John? Do we know why he participated in the baronial rebellion?
• Oh, and Portsmouth is linked twice....
• Again, nice job!  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I was taught to try to use topic sentences, especially when introducing a major change in direction such as the first point. I've added a clarifying "William's" in the bit about his brother. As for why it was important - none of the sources I have directly state why - at least in connection with William. Traditionally the English kings restricted movement to and from the continent - this remained true until Elizabethan times. There were many reasons - but not so much taxes or defense as just plain old control. Added an explanatory footnote on the church issue. As to what made William "evil" - we don't know why Roger of Wendover selected some of the "evil councillors" - it was probably just them being associated with John. Others are pretty easy to see as "evil" from their actions - William doesn't appear to have been one of that type. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Note - I've seen these comments and hope to get to them in the next few days... I should have known that when I put something up for assessment that life outside Wikipedia would go bonkers... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, noticing this change on my watchlist is part of the first editing I've been able to do in 2-3 days. No pressure; do what you have to do in meatspace :). Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• New: additional comments pending support: In May 1216 William was offered a safe conduct by the king, which noted that William had fled overseas. How about In May 1216, the king offered W a safe conduct, which noted that William had fled overseas.

Otherwise: GREAT! auntieruth (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, interesting article. Just a couple of minor comments/suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• is there a reference for this sentence: "He continued as Lord Warden of the Stannaries until 1215"?
• in the References section, for the Rose work in Hill's book, is there a page range that could be added for the chapter?
• "File:050715 140 lydford castle.jpg": the image description page probably needs a freedom of panorama licence as well as what is also there. You can find information about this here: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, until 1215 has a source - the ODNB. Added. Page range for Rose's chapter added. Template added. If someone at FAC screams about it being there, I'm throwing YOU to the wolves... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments. A first rate article. A few queries.

• "Although a 13th-century source says that William held a royal office under King Henry II of England (reigned 1154–1189), the first contemporary reference to William is in 1197". "Although" seems to suggest that the Hundred Rolls statement is not reliable. Is this intended?
• advisors is usually spelled advisers in BrEng.
• Cite 3 in the lead seems unnecessary when the quotes are cited below.
• "In 1197 he granted William a manor at Sutton-at-Hone, Kent, which was supposed to become a hospital, but instead eventually became a preceptory for the Knights Hospitaller." I found this a bit confusing. It seems to imply that it was intended to become a hospital when William acquired it, but the source states that this was later.
• "The reason for the loss of these offices is unclear.[7] He continued as Lord Warden of the Stannaries" "Restored" rather than "continued"?
• I am not sure whether "naval commander" is the right expression for someone who probably never commanded at sea.
• "William supported John, and remained in England." No change needed, but did opponents generally leave England?
• Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

In this case, the intent of the ODNB is pretty clear that they think the reference is a bit dodgy. I haven't looked at the Hundred Rolls entry that's referenced, but my guess is it's a reference to Wrotham having held the office/land by some later office/landholder who may or may not have known a thing. Golding states that it's specifically a "late-13th century" source - which would put it at least 100 years after the fact. Advisers now, not a yankeeism. I'm going to leave the cite in the lead, my understanding is that quotes should always be cited wherever they occur. I've added in "later" to the hospital/preceptory sentence - which should resolve the issue. on the stannaries office - how is "After restoration to office, he remained as Lord Warden of the Stannaries until 1215." instead? On commander - Golding states "command of the fleet of the Cinque Ports. Thereafter he had, until 1215, effective charge of John's naval affairs" - I'm open to other phrasing ... but Golding specifically gives him command of a fleet there. Some opponents did - especially ecclesiastical ones - see Geoffrey (archbishop of York) for one example. During the interdict many bishops left the country. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support and a couple of suggestions. I would add "late" to 13th century in lead as well as in main text. "commander of King John's navy" would avoid expression "naval commander", which sounds wrong to me, Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Should get to these in the next few days... It's been a wild couple of weeks in RL... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support from me. Ironholds (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like we have a consensus to promote. Any repachages? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:05, 20 December 2014 (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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Hüningen (1796–97)

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Siege of Hüningen (1796–97) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review to see if it meets the criteria. The article follows the layout and content of similar articles submitted to A-class review. I appreciate any constructive feedback. I hope you enjoy the read. auntieruth (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by MisterBee1966

Very nice article, I only have a few remarks. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• You have "4 kilometers (2.5 mi)" and the ".5 miles (0.80 km)". I suggest to keep it consistent, either always km/mi or mi/km

• fixed!

• "Hüningen is located in Alsace-Lorraine", I thought it is good practice to also state the current name. It could read "Hüningen, present-day Huningue, is located in Alsace-Lorraine". Germans tend to be overly careful as not give the impression that we still have some claim be referring to these places by their former German names.

• fixed!

• second mention of Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg "under command of Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg", is his full name required here?

• fixed!

• You have the following sources in the list but I believe they are not referenced, mayby move to further reading?

• Arnold, James R. Marengo & Hohenlinden. Barnsley, South Yorkshire, UK: Pen & Sword, 2005. ISBN 978-0967098500

• removed

• (German) Charles, Archduke of Austria. Ausgewählte Schriften weiland seiner kaiserlichen Hoheit des Erzherzogs Carl von Österreich. Wien, W. Braumüller, 1893–94.

• placed correctly

• Blanning, Timothy. The French Revolutionary Wars, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. ISBN 978-0340569115

• placed correctly

• Bourdet, Jacques. The Ancient Art of Warfare: The Modern Ages; 1700 to Our Times, From Peter the Great to Eisenhower, Soldiers of Cannons, Tanks, and Planes. Volume 2: The Ancient Art of Warfare, The Ancient Art of Warfare. R. Laffont, 1968. OCLC 21409

• see footnote 36

• Sloane, W.M. Life of Napoleon. France, 1896 (reprint, 1910).
• removed

• The list of sources should be sorted alphabetically. Philippart, John seems out of sequence

• fixed

Support nicely done! Do you have plans to work on "Battle of Großbeeren" at some stage? While at University, and after the Berlin Wall came down, I biked there a few times. Someday I have to tell you the story how I met Willy Brandt and when Ronald Reagan gave his speech at the Berlin Wall, I was there too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

• "present-day Department of Haut-Rhin". I would add "in France". done
• If Huningen was then in the Canton of Basel City was it then in Switzerland? I assume that it was in an area of Switzerland which had been captured by France but this needs spelling out.

• in contested space per lead. borders were not as they are today. A village surrounded by a Swiss canton could be "owned" by a Habsburg, and vice versa.

• You say in the next paragraph that the Austrians pushed the French back but it would be helpful to go a bit further back in the background, even if only a few words - e.g. following the French Revolution, Republican armies invaded Switzerland and Germany.
• German states. Which German states?
• "at besieged Mantua". Does not sound grammatical to me.

• it is. in this case besieged is an adjective modifying Mantua.

• "At the end of the Rhine Campaign of 1795 the two sides called a truce." When? done
• "Coalition Army" Which countries were in the coalition? fixed
• "under François Antoine Louis Bourcier, Henri François Delaborde" Bourcier and Delaborde? fixed
• "in some places more than four or more times wider than in the twenty-first century, even under regular conditions." "under regular conditions" sounds odd to me. fixed
• "In the late Middle Ages, the village belonged to the house of Habsburg, a portion of family inheritance; by the late seventeenth century, although the village itself belong to the city of Basel." This is confusing and ungrammatical. fixed
• "Napoleon flatly refused, believing Mantua the keystone to Habsburg Italy" You say this twice. fixed
• 'Aftermath' section. The first part seems about the background, and to repeat comments above. fixed
• Dudley Miles (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

thx for your sensible comments. I've addressed them I think. auntieruth (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, although I would still like more on the background and the German states. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• such as what on background and the German states? auntieruth (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• added a great deal more background, and a couple of images. auntieruth (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I gave support as I am happy that the article is A class standard. My qualification was that that you did not deal with a couple of my comments. 1. German states - what German states, this is never explained. 2. I would have liked a sentence or two going back before 1795 on the background e.g. After the French Revolution the European monarchies invaded France to attempt to restore the monarchy, but the French fought back and invaded Germany and Switzerland in 1795. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I added a note on the German states: I'm guessing you mean present-day states. I also added a note on which Swiss states. Haven't dealt with the Swiss revolution, because it hadn't happened yet. auntieruth (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• added a map and some text on the plethora of German states involved in this dispute. Do you think this should be duplicated in the article on the siege of Kehl? auntieruth (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I found the large scale map showing the plethora of small states involved particularly helpful and I think something similar would be useful for the Kehl article. 13:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this at GAN and see that it has been improved further since then. I made a couple of minor tweaks today (please adjust if you think necessary). I'm happy that this meets A-class requirements, but have a couple of minor comments/suggestions:
• "File:Abbatucci monument in Huningen.jpg" currently has a date of 4 November 2014, but that is the date of upload. I think it actually needs to be changed to the date the photograph was taken (i.e. 1906)
• for the above file, I'd also suggest cropping the caption off it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• I made an edit to address the following points:
• "klein Hüningen, or petite Huningue, or little Huningen": I'm confused. The reader will be wondering at this point what the significance of "klein Hüningen" is, and also wondering why it isn't capitalized if it's a village. Also, why are we giving the name in three languages? Most people who are interested in German or French won't need to be told what klein or petite mean; for readers who aren't interested in learning new words in foreign languages, foreign words generally reduce readability. Also, I checked 4 dictionaries, and got no hits on "ethnies".
• Judging from the first few sections, the prose looks good enough to head to FAC. I copyedited down to Preliminaries to the siege Political terrain. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• A lot of work's clearly gone into this - comments follow:
• The lead didn't really explain what the wider conflict was or why the siege was happening (although the infobox gives us some details)

• expanded some of this.

• The lead also didn't say very much about the actual siege itself; is there any chance of getting more of the "conduct of the siege" information into it?

• expanded some of this.

• "At the end of the Rhine Campaign of 1795 the two sides called a truce in January 1796" - which two sides? (this is the first sentence of the article proper, and they haven't yet been introduced)

• expanded this

• " counted 90,000 troops. " - counted, or "comprised"?

• sure. fixed.

• "the inherent jealousies and competition between generals" - was these between all generals, or between the generals involved in this campaign?

  yes and yes, but that is clarified.

• "In the late Middle Ages, the village belonged to the house of Habsburg," - which village?
• "Contemporary sources place the following at the siege:" - is there any reason to be suspicious of these sources? If not, could the "contemporary" bit be removed? (NB: the source given here is Michel, who isn't in the bibliography)

• both contemporary sources and some others, but the contemporary ones differ a bit from the 20th century sources, which are much more general. Michel=Mechel....and that is fixed now.

• I think the MOS would prefer "2 battalions" etc. as "two battalions", but happy to be corrected by others!

• I'll do it either way. Generally, it should be two, but since it was parenthetical....)

• At the FA level, I'd be wondering if the "preliminaries to the siege" isn't too long compared to what then follows, but that wouldn't stop me supporting at ACR. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• preliminaries keeps being expanded or contracted depending on the reviewers' tastes. See for example, Dudley's comments above. I've expanded somewhat more, because of your comments. It's a fine line.
  • THANKS for your comments. Please have another look. auntieruth (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day Hchc2009. Are you insisting on these changes? Because if not, I'll be listing this for promotion on the basis of consensus. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

No, at ACR I'd be happy to support without any changes to the preliminiaries. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2014 (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 by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fuji-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Fuji-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Fuji-class battleship/archive1

The Fuji-class battleships were the first ships of the type in the Imperial Japanese Navy. As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to built their own ships of such size and sophistication they were ordered from the UK shortly before the beginning of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894. Completed several years after that war they participated in the Russo-Japanese War where one ship was sunk by mines a few months after the start of the war and the other participated in all of the major naval actions of the war. The surviving ship, Fuji, was reclassified as a coast defense ship four years later. Thoroughly obsolete by that time, she spent World War I as a training ship and was stripped of her armor and guns in 1922 for service as a school hulk. She remained in that role throughout World War 2 and was sunk by the Americans in July 1945. She was refloated and scrapped in 1948. As always I'm looking for infelicitous prose, unexplained jargon and any surviving bits of AmEnglish in preparation for a run at FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments -- nice work as usual, Sturm...

• No dablinks, duplinks, or EL issues.
• Copyedited as usual, pls let me know any issues.
• Structure and level of detail seem fine.
• Image licensing generally looks okay but suggest US PD tags for the two drawings under Design and Armament; note also that images lack alt text but admittedly it's not a requirement.
• Only took a cursory look at citations/sources but nothing major stood out; note however that "Preceded by: Kongō-class ironclad" and "Succeeded by: Shikishima class" are not cited in the infobox or mentioned/cited in the main body.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• • We never do cite the preceding or succeeding classes and nobody's complained at FAC, so I'm not gonna sweat that one. I'll deal with the photo issues once I get some more time. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Can more be said about the decision to buy these ships? It seems to have represented a significant shift in naval doctrine, and the lengths the government went to to order them seems extraordinary.
  • Done, see how it suits.
    • Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Similarly, how was it indended to use the ships? Were they to be the centrepiece of a formal battle fleet, or operate independently?
  • Their precise role when they were ordered is unclear as the IJN was still in the early stages of developing its tactics. After the Sino-Japanese War, and the 1895 translation of Mahan, the IJN became wedded to the idea of a fleet organized around squadrons of battleships and the four battleships ordered after the war were specifically designed to operate with the Fujis.
• "caused the Japanese to accelerate the schedule by two years" - "the Japanese" is rather unclear here - I imagine that you're referring to the IJN or Government
  • Good catch.
• Why were the ships designed separately? This seems rather unusual.
  • No idea; none of my sources specify why, although I image that the IJN presented the builders with a single specification. Quite probably they wanted to see if one builder/designer was significantly superior to the other, but that's just sheer speculation.
    • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Was the Royal Sovereign-class design considered state of the art at the time? (or was this before Japan started to attempt to offset having a limited quantity of ships by ensuring that they were of high quality
  • The strategy of individual superiority wasn't articulated until after the war with the concept of the 6-6 fleet. That said, the Fuji-class design was a smaller and improved version of the Royal Sovereigns with some features from the state of the art Majestics.
    • OK (and putting this in the context of countering the Chinese ships helps here) Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• Were these battleships still considered first-rate units at the time of the Russo-Japanese War, or had more modern ships supplanted their role? Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Their major deficiency in comparison to the latest ships was that they used inferior Harvey armour rather than the latest Krupp cemented armour, but there's no real evidence that they were considered second-rate units by the IJN; the Japanese were outnumbered by the Russian 1st and 2nd Pacific Squadrons and had to use everything they had to offset the Russian numbers. And they were only about 7 years old when by 1904, so nowhere near obsolete by the standards of the time.
  • Some very good questions, unfortunately I'm gonna need more time to answer them as I need to get the relevant book through ILL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries. Can you please ping me when you include this material? Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I've reworked the article to answer some of these questions. However, a number of them seem to fall outside the scope of the article and I haven't dealt with them there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• in the Ships section, this sounds a little repetitious: "During the Battle of the Yellow Sea..." and "During the Battle of Tsushima..." (two consecutive sentences starting with the same construction)
• "armored" --> should be "armoured" if you are using British English
• "center" --> should be "centre" if you are using British English
• "armor" --> "armour"
• "with accommodations for an admiral and his staff" --> just "accommodation" as a non count item in British English, I believe
• "seniormost" --> not sure about this one, but it doesn't sound right to me. Does this exist in British English? I'd suggest "most senior". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for catching these. I've addressed all of your points, see if the revised wording is satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries. I've added my support as all my comments have been resolved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Probably worth pointing out in the intro that these were Japan's first modern battleships - the lead in general seems a bit short. I'd probably also include that they were based on the Royal Sovereigns but incorporated several improvements.
• When was Mahan translated into Japanese? According to The Influence of Sea Power upon History (the article, not the book) it had a significant effect on Japanese thinking - it would certainly be worth including if it played a role in the shift from the Jeune Ecole to the traditional battle fleet.
  • I'm not certain about any link between Mahan and the Japanese procurement of these ships as I had to return Evans & Peattie. I've requested it again and hope that it can answer your question as well as Nick's above. Lengerer merely goes through the legislative history and the IJN's procurement plans for 120,000 tons of warships, including 4 armored ships and never addresses why the strategy changed. The Chinese turret ships probably provided the impetus, but I can't say for sure one way or another until I get a hold of Kaigun again.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The Jeune Ecole was really only suited for a combination of coastal defense and commerce raiding; the Japanese ambition to control Korea meant that they'd have to control the sea lanes between Japan and Korea if they wanted to land an expeditionary force there. That apparently seemed viable until they realized that the heavily armed cruisers that they'd ordered to counter the Chinese ironclads weren't up to the job and they need battleships of their own to defeat the Chinese ships. Like I said above to Nick, the experiences from the war and the translation of Mahan into Japanese drove the nail into the coffin of the Jeune Ecole.
      • Ok, that looks good to me.
• The piped link to Chen Yuan should probably go to the (currently non-existent) class page rather than one of the ships. I might write the article tonight - need a break from all these Italian cruisers ;)
• Probably worth pointing out that the funnels on the Royal Sovereigns were side by side while these ships.
  • Done.
• I wonder how much experience from designing and building these and the rest of the Japanese pre-dreadnoughts were for the RN, since they were designed and built by the same group of ship yards. Are there any indications that the improvements over the Royal Sovereigns incorporated into these ships used in subsequent British designs?
  • Hard to say, as nobody actually discusses the issue. Since they're basically a cross between the Royal Sovereigns and Majestics, I'd have to say not much, although the boiler room layout may have been adopted for the next British class of battleships, but I can't say that for certain.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
• File:IJN Fuji 2.jpg - needs a US copyright tag
• File:Fuji class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1896.jpg - same
• File:Fuji class 12 inch gun turret right elevation.jpg - ditto Parsecboy (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Photos are done, still waiting on the book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I had forgotten you were waiting on Kaigun - I have it at home and should be able to give it a look tonight. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
      • The book just came in today, so I can address y'all's comments shortly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• Watch BrEng vs. AmEng (emphasized, centre), unless this is another variant.
• If this is going to FAC, the lead is a little thin.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit at a loss on how else to expand the lede and would welcome suggestions. I suppose I can add a summary of the ship's armament, etc., but that seems a bit redundant and I'd prefer not to do so if I can avoid it. I'm also not sure if the changes in Japanese naval doctrine after these ships were laid down is really relevant to the article and would appreciate y'all's thoughts on the matter. I'd also like to thank y'all for your penetrating questions and thorough reviews.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2014 (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 by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ennis Whitehead

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Ennis Whitehead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another aviator. One of the lesser-known ones, but one who played an important part in the war in the South West Pacific theatre. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support: G'day, I did some copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my changes and adjust if necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Not much to nitpick about here, the article is in fine shape.
  • several refs don't have a numerical identifier. They all have oclc's on Worldcat.
    • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • some external links are problematic see this I think AUP is down at the moment.
    • It is. Replaced with its archive from the Watback machine. All the links are good now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • no alt text on images (not required at A-class)
  • otherwise toolchecks are ok
  • I'm assuming AmEnglish is being used for this chap, but date format is BrEnglish?
    • It is AmEnglish. The dates are in US military format, per WP:STRONGNAT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • suggest was commissioned as a first lieutenant
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • suggest Whitehead constantlyconsistently gave...
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • suggest occupation of Japan
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • the wording around "a minimum air force" is unclear, perhaps reword or expand the concept, my initial impression on reading it was that he was proposing that the airforce be kept to a minimum. What he was really proposing was a massive expansion of the airforce for protection against atomic airstrikes, to the detriment of the other services if necessary.
    • Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • percentages are commonly expressed in words percent in US English
    • In AmEnglish, they say "percent" instead of "per cent". Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • this is more a matter of taste, but I suggest creation of an awards section and removal of the citations from the infobox
    • I was hoping that someone else would create a medal bar. I'm not much good with them myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• That's all I have. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, a pleasure. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments The prose looks good enough to head to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I finished up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One dead link - Ennis Whitehead (info) [maxwell.af.mil] - could this be linked to an archived version?
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "When the P-38 Lightning fighter arrived in the theater in late 1942, Whitehead at last received a fighter that could match the Japanese A6M Zero." This is a little repetitive. Specifically "fighter" twice, perhaps consider rewording to something like: "When the P-38 Lightning fighter arrived in the theater in late 1942, Whitehead at last received an aircraft that could match the Japanese A6M Zero."
    • Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The presentation of refs to the two Fogerty references seems to be inconsistent.
    • Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• Since the Fogerty PDF is quite long, it's probably worth specifying page numbers
  • It doesn't have page numbers. However, the officers are in alphabetic order, so he is easy to find. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• When was his son born? Did he have any other children?
  • 16 June 1926. (The 1940 census has it wrong.) He also had a daughter, Margaret, who was born on 14 July 1921. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• If there is no article explaining the Pan American Good Will Flight, I'd suggest adding a bit more detail. Also, what happened to Dargue in the collision? Was he injured?
  • According to this account, there is no mention of injury, although he chute was holed. I found an image, and added it to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Dargue was killed in a plane crash on 12 December 1941. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Suggest wikilinking revetment, instrument meteorological conditions
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Some of the phrasing seems a bit repetitive (for example, "the Japanese advanced steadily on Port Moresby. In the end, the Japanese turned back short of Port Moresby").
  • Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Image review -- I didn't see a dedicated image licensing check but the three pics appear unproblematic: two US-Gov and one pre-1945 Australian. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2014 (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 by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious (87)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Illustrious (87) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Illustrious (87)/archive1

HMS Illustrious was the first British armoured carrier and served throughout WWII. Her aircraft sank one Italian battleship and damaged two others at Taranto in 1940 before she was badly damaged by German dive bombers in early 1941. She saw service against the Vichy French and Japanese later in the war before the accumulated effects of battle damage forced her to return home in mid-1945. After the war she served as the Home Fleet's trials and training carrier for most of her subsequent career before being [s]crapped in 1956. As always I'm interested in cleaning up my prose, catching any lingering AmEnglish spellings and any unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I had to manually add the subpage links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment As a quick comment, the Australian War Memorial has a PD image of what appears to be of the 6 April 1945 attack on the ship available here: it's not a wonderful quality image, but it's very dramatic Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick, an interesting image, especially when contrasted with the ineffectual damage inflicted by the kamikaze.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• In the modifications section: "After her return to the UK, her Type 79Z radar..." - when was this? It's best not to make the reader jump around in the article to get an idea of chronology.
• "...as a result of the Washington Naval Treaty. As a result..." - I'd change one of those.
• Might it be worth noting that Lyster had been involved in planning the Taranto raid as early as 1935?
• It would be good to split off most of the Taranto section into its own section, since only the first 3 paras relate to the Taranto raid
• The first para in that section and the one on the 9 Jan. attack are both rather long and might merit splitting.
• I'd link Andaman Islands on first use.
• What was the supposed target of Operation Governor?
• "Once out of range of German aircraft, Illustrious arrived back at Greenock on 8 August" - this doesn't quite make sense as currently written - Illustrious left the Queen Mary group once they were out of range, she didn't arrive in Greenock once they were out of range (or else she'd never have left the port!)
• "Four of these then flew ashore to conduct operations until they rejoined the ship on 14 September at Malta. - two things: first, I'm not sure this is really all that relevant to this article, and second, I assume the ship the line is referring to is Unicorn, not Illustrious? If the latter, then it's obviously relevant. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that I've dealt with all of these, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Everything looks good to me now, though the photo of the Corsair crash-landing might need to be moved since it's sandwiching text now. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I've fixed this in both of my computers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

• just a few comments though. She flew off her aircraft to Gibraltar on 31 January and arrived in the Clyde five days later. I'm sure there is a logical explanation of this. Does this mean her aircraft flew away (to somewhere else?) and that she arrived minus aircraft five days later? I'm really not sure. auntieruth (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That's what it means. I've tweaked the wording, see if it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

• I would like to see one addition, the attack of I./StG 1 was led by Paul-Werner Hozzel. Maybe worth noting MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll add it if you can provide a cite. None of my sources mention his name in conjunction with the attack.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I can find you a number of German sources, if you want. Online see google books—Hitler's Stuka Squadrons: The JU 87 at War 1936-1945 or google books—The Great Ships and google books—Dive Bomber!: Aircraft, Technology, and Tactics in World War II MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review/Oppose on image licensing concerns (as at 23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC))

• the jet landing image licensing isn't right. Most if not all of the others look ok, but I'd appreciate @Nikkimaria: having a look before promotion to A-class. Nikki? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Corsair_taking_off_from_HMS_Illustrious_WWII_Flickr_3482486518.jpg: not sure we can assume Royal Navy - it's from the collection of a journalist/researcher and the Flickr page says it's copyrighted. Do you have any other information supporting the Royal Navy designation?
  • I've queried the University of Newcastle about their Flickr license and also to try and get a bit more info about the guy from whom the photo was acquired.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, so to be clear, the consensus appears to be that this image is currently not ok. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I'd say that the consensus needs more information to decide if the image is legitimately not OK for use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• File:Jetlanding.jpg: agree with Peacemaker, the uploader very likely does not have the right to release this. What is the original source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I cannot find the original on the web nor in my reference books on the Supermarine Attacker. I've found other photos, of much better quality, that look to have been taken on the same day, but from a different vantage point and I'd be astonished if there was more than one official photographer aboard that day. Given its poor quality, I can believe that the photo was taken by the uploader during his National Service and that it's been sitting in a shoebox or something for the last 60 years. Unfortunately, the uploader's account is dead and cannot be queried for more information.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • So, again, the consensus appears to be that this image is not currently ok (given the information in the current licensing). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree. I believe that the uploader does that the rights to the photo and do not understand why y'all think otherwise given that I cannot find any other use of the photo and the uploader claimed that it was his own work.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
        • That's your prerogative of course, Sturm, and I deeply respect your view and experience. But surely we err on the side of caution with copyright and image licensing issues? I'd be interested in more opinions on the licensing of both these images before the article is promoted, and I note that the other reviewers have been silent on the image licensing. In all other respects, it appears the consensus is for promotion. However, given the concerns expressed by myself and Nikki, I believe we should wait for more definitive information on the origin and status of both images before taking that step. I'm reluctantly opposing the promotion of this article until these issues are resolved, or the images are removed. @Anotherclown, MisterBee1966, Auntieruth55, Parsecboy, Dank, and Nikkimaria: I think that the reviewers that have supported promotion should express an opinion on the image licensing issues raised, by which a consensus on it might be established. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Gday I'm no expert on images (and such topics generally anger me to the point of irrationality) but my two cents FWIW:
            • File:Jetlanding.jpg: I see no evidence to suggest the uploader DID NOT hold the right to release the image. Indeed their limited contribution history (i.e. the similar type / subject and quality and look of images) uploaded suggests that they may well have been a National Serviceman and have served on the ship at that time. I couldn't find an alternative source via a Google image search to prove otherwise either. As such I would say we should assume good faith and use it.
            • File:Corsair_taking_off_from_HMS_Illustrious_WWII_Flickr_3482486518.jpg: I see no evidence that this is taken by the Royal Navy, only an assumption. Indeed the evidence available says it is copyrighted. As such I don't think it can be used as a free image unless some contrary information becomes available. I tried to find more info on the Percy Haslam collection but couldn't see anything which specifically lists the source of this image (was he serving in the Royal Navy at the time?). That said if it is the only image available to illustrate that aspect of the topic perhaps a fair use rationale could be used? Anotherclown (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Thanks for your comments. I agree with your assessment on the Attacker photo and I'll pull the Corsair photo if the University doesn't respond to my query within a week or so as the Flickr license may not be sufficient. It's not unique enough for a fair use license. But I must say that, as a non-copyright expert, I assumed that the bot or human transferring these from Flickr would be checking to see if the license there was appropriate for use on Commons before copying it over. As a general question, I've always thought that the WMF was a non-profit organization and qualified as a non-commercial user, but it appears from some tentative poking around that images licensed only for non-commercial use cannot be uploaded. Can somebody explain or point me towards an explanation of why this is so?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
                • Seems like a reasonable approach to me. Yes it can be a frustrating situation and I agree the bot or human transferring from Flickr has probably missed the mark here. Not sure of the actual reason for Wikipedia not qualifying as a "non-commercial user" but I suspect it is probably due to some self-imposed and well-meaning, but ultimately self-defeating, philosophical objection to using non-free images (most of the evil in the world seems to be caused by idealists after all). Anotherclown (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • Wikipedia is a non-commercial user; however, our general license is CC BY-SA, which means that commercial users are permitted to re-use our content. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-05-23/Noncommercial_images and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-02-12/Media_licensing have some more details. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
                    • I am not an expert on image licensing and the right to use them and I don't understand the possible ramifications for Wikipedia. The review here has done its job in pointing out possible concerns regarding these image. In my opinion the issue should be delegated to the experts. I ask myself, if there truly is an issue with the licensing of these pictures, under what circumstances can these images be used? If none exist, then the images might as well get deleted. On the other hand, if it doesn't get deleted, I see no better usage of these images than this article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Judging from the first few sections, the prose looks good enough to head to FAC. I got down to Wartime modifications. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Now supporting on prose per standard disclaimer. I finished copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I made a few minor changes but otherwise it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: in the infobox there is the battle honour "Mediterranean 1904–1942". Is this correct? Or should it be "Mediterranean 1940–1942"? AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Good eyes!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2014 (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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Kaiser Barbarossa/archive1

Another day, another German battleship article at ACR. This ship was a sister to the recently-reviewed SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse, and like her sister, she did not see combat during her career. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Add the 1-pounder guns to the main body.
  • Added.
• the emperor of Germany I believe that emperor should be capitalized as part of a proper noun.
  • Fixed.
• We really do need a generic naval review article rather than just the US-specific one that you linked to here. But that's not really your problem.
  • Yeah, I removed the link for now since the USN one doesn't really make sense, but you're right, we do need a general one.
• Your wording about the modernization/rudder repair was kinda confusing as I interpreted it to mean that the repairs took until Jan 05, which led me to double check the year. I'd suggest that you move the "lasted until Jan 05" bit to the end of the last sentence.
  • No, the modernization itself went through 1907 (see the para below).
• What machine guns? The 1-pounders?
  • Clarified.
• Watch for ampersand consistency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed - thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • You're quite welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Contruction section:

• According to Gröner (German edition, p.37), B. was fitted with 4 Thornycroft-boilers and only six cylindrical ones.
  • I'm sure you're correct but I'll have to double-check later.
• the power-plant (it's written as one word in the article, but as a non-native speaker, I dare not comment on that) was rated with 13949ihp, the 13000ihp are for the class as such.
  • 13949 was the figure reached on trials, the engines were designed for 13000 (hence what they were rated for) - I don't usually like to use trials data unless those are the only figures available, since they don't really demonstrate actual capability in many cases (for instance, the French and Italians greatly exaggerated their ships' speeds by running them without much of their equipment,including armament in some cases!). In the case of the German battlecruisers (including Blücher), they were roughly the same speed as their British counterparts, but in practice they were usually at least a couple knots slower due to a shortage of high-quality coal.
• torpedo tubes diameter is in cm only while other measures are converted
  • Good catch.
• top speed was 17.8kn, so RUSI probably gave a rounded figure
• BTW, I took the liberty to fix the displacement error for the class, 11785 t = 11599 LT, which was then converted again from t to LT. Probably a copy&paste thing.
  • More than likely - thanks for fixing it.

Service section:

• 'naval review' links to the US Naval Review.
  • Unfortunately there isn't a general article on the subject, just articles on the USN and RN reviews. I'll remove the link.
• 'minor damage to her rudder': considering she spent more than a year in dry-dock, not so minor, I would say.
  • Removed.
• Technically Germany did not capitulate, but asked for an armistice.
  • A good point.
• ship-breaking would be worth a link, again.
  • Added.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, ÄDA. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments -- looks pretty good to me, but will reserve judgement until the above points are resolved; in the meantime...

• No dablinks, duplinks, or EL issues.
• Copyedited as usual, pls let me know any issues.
• Structure and level of detail seem fine.
• Image licensing looks good to me; no alt text, but admittedly it's not a requirement.
• Source reliability and formatting seem okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking these things Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the points raised earlier have been satisfactorily answered, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Support nothing to add or to suggest, well done. I am happy to see that HRS helped create the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Support one grammatical tweak in lead. Very nice. I suggest also the addition of a sentence about the ship's namesake. It's mentioned in the box, but not in the text. auntieruth (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "front-line service": I changed this to "frontline service". Cambridge Dictionaries lists both front-line and frontline as the adjective, but American dictionaries give just frontline. The American English influence, plus the tendency of words that are seen both with and without the hyphen to gravitate to the unhyphenated form, will probably give "frontline" the win over time. On top of that, we don't share the assumption of most publishers that Brits never read American English, Americans never read British English, and other Commonwealth readers need to learn someone else's English. On Wikipedia, words that look right to everyone have the advantage that people are less likely to "correct" them.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• I just did a image check to confirm it is ready to pass. Passing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:48, 23 November 2014 (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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No. 91 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

No. 91 Wing RAAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/No. 91 Wing RAAF/archive1

Nowadays when the RAAF has to deploy a mixed bag of aircraft to support a foreign war it forms an air task group, but in the 1950s it was "composite" wings. This article is on the one established to administer Australia's air units in the Korean War, contemporaneous with No. 90 Wing (currently the subject of a Featured Topic nomination for those interested!) in the Malayan Emergency. I'd like to see this at FAC some day so pls let me know any thoughts from that perspective as well. Many tks for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support:
• "It was now the largest squadron in the RAAF…". Perhaps this might be clearer as "It was the largest RAAF squadron at the time…"
  • I thought it worked quite well as is but if anyone else thinks it reads oddly I'll be happy to change it.
• "No. 391 Squadron followed suit on 30 April 1955; No. 91 Wing headquarters disbanded the same day". This might be slightly smoother if you replaced the semi colon with an "and".
• In the References section, "Australian Government Publishing Service" may be overlinked. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Done the last two -- tks as always for looking this over, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• In the second paragraph of the lead, could I suggest dealing with the various squadrons in the same order you introduce them in the first paragraph?
  • The order I've introduced them in the first para is effectively by notability, i.e. the combat squadron, the transport unit, and then the two support units, as they were when 91WG was formed. There were several ways I could've organised the second para but after a couple of attempts I felt it worked better to talk about their history chronologically per unit, starting with the first change in status. Happy to consider changing it but I wouldn't mind seeing if there are other opinions if that's okay.
• Last sentence of the lead, is that April 1955?
• I think there is a missing word or two here: "...augmented by additional No. 491 Squadron..." Perhaps that should be "...augmented by additional No. 491 Squadron staff..."?
  • Actioned the last two points, tks for reviewing Zawed! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• The issue with the lead doesn't worry me now you explained the rationale behind it. Have added my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Everything looks good to me. Adding an image review.

Image Review

• File:No. 91 Wing RAAF officers 1950 (AWM P01254.127).JPG AWM photograph. Copyright expired.
• File:No. 36 Squadron Korea 1953 (AWM JK0840).jpg AWM photograph. Copyright expired.
• File:No. 491 Sqn RAAF mechanics (AWM JK0999).JPG AWM photograph. Copyright expired.
• File:F-51Ds 77 Sqn RAAF at Iwakuni c1950.jpg USAF photograph. PD in US.

  All good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

  Tks Hawkeye, sorry for belated reply... Just checking, does the "support" mean for images only or is it comprehensive?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  Comprehensive. Adding words to that effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  Great, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• I had already started on this one, so finishing it now.
• "(of No. 90 (Composite) Wing in Malaya)": You may want to avoid the nested parens.
  • Yes, I didn't like it much myself but I did want to make clear the parallel raison d'etre of No. 90 Wing -- perhaps I should replace the outer parens with long dashes, or just lose them entirely? Tks for review/copyedit! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Long dashes are generally my go-to if I need to replace parens, but I'd probably go with a comma here. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 21 November 2014 (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 by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Trinity (nuclear test)

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I sort of promised that it would be TFA-ready by 16 July 2015. Having gone through GA, I now present it here. The article is about the first ever nuclear weapons test. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support

Nice article. I'm concerned about the indirect verb structures, such as "A construction firm from Lubbock, Texas, was contracted to build the barracks, officers' quarters, ... " why would we say "was contracted to build..." when "built" is quite clear. If they had a contract and didn't built it, okay, then I'd see the point, but it looks like they did. There are lot of places like this. Do you want me to fix them? auntieruth (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Started today. Should finish by Wednesday or Thursday!  :) Gotta say I love this article. You've clearly explained a lot of things I didn't understand about the project. auntieruth (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have the time, drop past FAC and leave some comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Smyth Report/archive1. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've not found a location for Pope, New Mexico. I've checked maps and maps of ghost towns. auntieruth (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not a town, just a railroad siding. Latitude: 33.603124 Longitude: -106.9739174. See [2] Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. I've done some tweaking, tried not to go over ground that Dank covered. auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comments: I made an effort to copy edit the article, but found it a little heavy going, so I may have missed a few things, sorry. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• there is one citation needed tag in the 100-ton test section that should be dealt with
  • Y Removed the tag. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'm not sure what this sentence is saying: "Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours."
  • Y Not in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• watch for overlink, the duplicate link checker reports a few possibilities: Pit (nuclear weapon); critical mass; explosive lens; Edward Teller; trinitite; Bombing of Hiroshima.
  • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• At the time of the test, what was the relationship of White Sands Proving Ground and Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range? Did the former even exist?
  • The White Sands Proving Ground was established by the Secretary of War on 20 February 1945. Construction of a site to test V-2 missiles there commenced on 25 June, and the first rocket launches were in July.
• Suggest that "part" replace "result" in the first sentence of the lede.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• There's a lot of detail in the lede that I'd recommend be saved for the main body. Like structures present and # of people present, the non-use of Jumbo, and the list of notable observers.
  • The lead is not big for an article of this size. Since there is a whole section on Jumbo, it should be mentioned in the lead.
• Convert 108 tons on first use.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• the greater the content of the isotope it's not immediately clear that you're referring to Pu-240 here.
  • Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• area Southwest of Cuba decapitalize southwest
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• I second auntieruth55's comments about passive voice.
• Convert the original and final weights of Jumbo as well as the weights of TNT equivalents. Not really sure that the gigajoule conversions provided are actually helpful for ordinary readers.
  • They are there if they want them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• What was a Y-1561 device? The formal nomenclature for the Fat Man-style bomb assembly?
  • Yes. The early Y-1222 model Fat Man was used for the initial ballistic testing. This was superseded by the Y-1291 design in December 1944. This redesign work was substantial, and only the Y-1222 tail design was retained. Later versions included the Y-1560, which had 72 detonators; the Y-1561, which had 32; and the Y-1562, which had 132. There was also the Y-1563 and Y-1564, which were practice bombs with no detonators at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Double-check that you're using the adjectival format for some of your conversions. I fixed one, but there might well be others.
  •  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• The section about the test detonation conducted by Creutz needs to be clarified as it's unclear why it indicated failure for the actual test if it was successful. It couldn't to have been a scale issue if it used full-sized cores.
  • Y No. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• This caption The explosives of the Gadget are raised up to the top of the tower for the final assembly appears to contradict your statement that the Gadget was assembled on the ground and then hoisted up into the tower where it was then armed.
  • Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• Need a hyphen between Simon and led Steve Simon led National Cancer Institute
  • Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• a few duplicate links, Kistiakowsky, Bethe and Rabi (the two latter mentions need to be shaved of first name/initials)
  • • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• hot spot is a link to a dab page
  • Y Removed link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• I'll run through the prose and check the images later
• File:Trinity Test - Oppenheimer and Groves at Ground Zero 001.jpg doesn't have author info, but I think the assumption that only a DOE employee could have taken it is a reasonable one.
  • The image was taken at a press conference in September 1945. But the Los Alamos National Laboratory claims it as their photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• the rest of the images seem ok to me, might be worth @Nikkimaria: having a look given there are so many.
• Lead
  • The test site, named the White Sands Proving Ground, is clunky. Suggest The White Sand Proving Ground, where the test was conducted,
    • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • suggest aton the Alamogordo Bombing...
    • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Background
  • suggest led to a fears
    • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • suggest plutonium production was performedconducted not sure about "performing" production, but maybe that's just me...
    • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • something that is missing here, IMO, is a sense of how much plutonium and U-235 was required, in contrast to the "minute" amounts produced in the cyclotrons
    • Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Decision
  • The mention of a billion dollars of plutonium underlines the importance of quantifying the production of the key substances
    • Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Organization
  • There are a few scientists here that should perhaps be redlinked? Or are they otherwise not notable?
    • I don't think they are notable enough. I'll keep an eye on them though. I did add a couple more articles on scientists. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Test site
  • references to Bush should be Lieutenant Bush, as a reader might think it was Vannevar
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • fn are not in chronological order, [28][24]
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • suggest and provided organized games
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Jumbo
  • is there any information about how thick the walls of Jumbo were?
    • Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • link Victor Weisskopf
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • CM-10 group needs some explanation or a link, if it exists
• 100-ton test
  • A 20-foot (6.1 m)-high I think the hyphen before "high" could be removed with no detriment, per later measurements in the same section
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • link ground zero at first mention
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • drop Bernard from Waldman (already linked)
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• The Gadget
  • With "gadget" being the laboratory euphemism for a bomb seems to hang, needs to be linked to the preceding sentence somehow
    • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hans Bethe should be just Bethe
    • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • suggest and was able to reported
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • nuclear fallout and fallout (in the test site section) are both linked, fallout is a redirect
    • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Fallout
  • Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours. doesn't appear to have proper sentence construction. Reads more like a caption/sentence fragment. Needs rewording.
    • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Rather than ""Little Boy" I suggest you use "the Hiroshima bomb", for clarity.
    • • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Because of some additional images and text, I feel I must jump in to make some additional comments:
  • blast re-enforcing effect I have never seen this construction before. Having read the section at the link, I assume it is meant to be blast reinforcing effect?
    • Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The additional photograph of the fireball (File:Trinity explosion (color).jpg) is redundant (at least for the non-technically qualified reader).
    • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Sherman tank pic licensing looks ok
  • the "Standard bomb's energy..." table is messy, suggest it is enclosed in a frame
    • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • One of the external links reports as a redirect:
    • Trinity A bomb test photos on The UK National Archives' website. (info) [nationalarchives.gov.uk]
      • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • A couple of duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Little Boy
    • ground zero
      • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • "Practical development began in earnest in June 1942, when these efforts were transferred to the authority of the U.S. Army and became the Manhattan Project." Practical development by whom? I assume the Allies but this might need to be more clear (admittedly this is fairly closely implied as Britain and the United States from the previous paragraph and obviously mentioned US Army, but think being explicit to make it clear that it wasn't just the US that make efforts in this area wouldn't be a bad thing).
    • • Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This doesn't quite work for my ear; however, my technical knowledge is limited to high school science and is obviously woefully limited so it might be right: "...reducing the number of generations of chain reactions...". Would this work better: "...reducing the number of chain reactions generated..."?
    • When we have a chain reaction, a nucleus fissions and emits two neutrons. That's the first generation. Those neutrons join nuclei and cause them to fission. That's the second generation. But only the last couple of generations have any real impact on the explosion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "...were willing to give it a try..." seems a little informal, perhaps: "...were willing to attempt its manufacture..." or something similar.
    • Y Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there a typo here: "Bethe worked through the night to assess the results, and was reported...", specifically should it be: "...Bethe worked through the night to assess the results, and reported..."
    • Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "crate" correct here: "Sherman tanks made their way to the crate...", or should it be "crater"?
    • Y Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • OCLCs and ISSNs might be available through Worldcat.org for the works that are missing these (where appropriate) in the ref list.
    •  Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Such things aside, to me this is an impressive article about a key topic, completed to a high standard. Quite an achievement.
    • Thank you! I sort of promised that I would have it in shape to run as TFA on 16 July 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Anotherclown (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "rapidly reducing the necessary critical mass of material. This reduced the size of a critical mass": Something's off there.
  • Y Removed the unnecessary phrase. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• I got down to The Gadget. Everything looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan! Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2014 (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 by MisterBee1966 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 15:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Arthur Compton

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Compton was a Nobel Prize winner, and the director of the wartime Metallurgical Laboratory in Chicago. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, Hawkeye, good to see you are still plugging away at the Manhattan Project. I have a couple of suggestions:

• Yes, still plugging away.This has been going on for over three years now. There are still a dozen articles on the list to be written or improved. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• this seems uncited: "where he would stay for the next 22 years"
  • Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Compton's date of birth of September 10, 1892 appears to be uncited as it is not in the body of the article
  • Y Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• this sounds like it is missing something: "First postulated by Max Planck, these conceptualized as elements..." (perhaps "these were conceptualized..."?)
  • Y Added "were". Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• in the Philosophy section: "First there is a range of random possible events, then one adds a determining factor in the act of choice." Is this a quote? If not, I wonder if it should be reworded. Additionally, it appears uncited.
  • Y added reference. It is a just a Wikipedian attempting to summarise the material in the quote. Should this line be removed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest finding a way to separate it clearly from the quote that follows, or refactor it so that it is clear that it is a summary of what he said, but it's not a warstoper for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
• in the References, is there an oclc or isbn etc for the Allison work?
  • Y added the ISSN and OCLC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following links as overlinked: Manhattan Project, Metallurgical Laboratory, Washington University in St. Louis, Photon, Princeton University, and Arthur H. Compton House.
  • Y Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Other than these points, it looks pretty good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks - please check that you are happy with my changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I can't comment with any expertise on the science but aside from that...

• Structure looks fine and I hope my usual copyedit's okay.
• Content-wise:
  • "became the first group of three brothers to earn PhDs from Princeton" -- does the source happen to clarify if they were the first three siblings to do this? Highly likely I know but just being careful...
    • Almost certainly, but my source says: "They remain the only three brothers to have earned Princeton doctorates... they later became the only three brothers simultaneous to head American colleges" Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Do we have a date (even just the year) he "became a physics instructor at the University of Minnesota"?
    • 1916. Affed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "It was particularly telling that diffraction in a crystal lattice could only be explained with reference to its wave nature, but It earned Compton the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1927." -- is there something missing between "but" and "It"?
    • Deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "Compton was intrigued by the possibilities of the research there into fluorescent lamps. His report prompted a research program in America that developed the fluorescent lamp." -- d'you think we could express this in some way that doesn't involve successive sentences ending with "fluorescent lamp"?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Reference-wise:
  • I'd have thought Compton 1967 should be repeated in the References section, though I admit I don't know the MOS rule (if any) for this situation.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You seem to use OCLC for all other refs so may as well for Hockey as well?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Image licensing looks okay.
  • The interesting one is the Time magazine cover. See Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 28#First copyright renewal of TIME issues are for 1934 Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Wow, that goes back a-ways. Anyway, tks for all those actions/responses, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice work as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments The prose looks good enough to head to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Support/Comments I agree with Dank. Sources are good, images looked good, although that isn't my expertise. The only thing I would change would be to identify what the Compton affect was in the lead first sentence. For example: Arthur Holly Compton (September 10, 1892 – March 15, 1962) was an American physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1927 for his discovery of the inelastic scattering behavior of photons by electrons. His discovery, called the Compton Effect, led to additional discoveries that influenced microwave technology, understanding of gamma radiation, ... Well, that's the general idea, but I don't actually understand it. However, in the lead paragraph, I'd like to know a summary of what he discovered, ont that Compton discovered Compton scattering... auntieruth (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

The point about the Compton effect is that it established beyond doubt that light had both wave and particle properties. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2014 (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 by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations

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

This article successfully went through GA, and has subsequently been tweaked. It covers controversial negotiations between the German forces in Yugoslavia and senior members of Tito's Partisans in March 1943 that went beyond prisoner swaps. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. "The Fateful Path of the South Slav People": If the book has been translated and that's the chosen title, keep it. If not, then I'm wondering if "... one of the South Slav ethnic groups" might be a better translation. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e, Dan. I'll follow it up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is the best translation of the title. It is referring only to "the Croats", ie "The Fateful Path of the (Croats)" (to condense it a bit). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed at GA and have now looked over the changes that have been made since then and believe it meets the A class criteria as well. Anotherclown (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments/suggestions: looks quite good. I made a few tweaks (please check you are happy withem) and only have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about this point, but I wonder if the article title is descripive enough: what about "German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations during World War II"?
    • Seems a bit too much to me. Partisans could possibly be expanded to Yugoslav Partisans, but I don't think the war is necessary. The Yugoslav Partisans are well enough known to place the negotiations during WWII.
      • "German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations" would work for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think that the lead manages to explicitly outline the extent of the negotiations. For instance, something like this might work: "The negotiations - focused on obtaining a ceasefire and establishing a prisoner exchange - were used to..." (You would then need to adjust the following sentences slighlty).
    • Have incorporated your idea, let me know what you think?.
      • Looks good, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • is there an iconic photo depicting the two forces in combat? If so, perhaps it could be added to the lead?
    • Nothing that iconic that I can use, but I've added a pic.
  • "The former US diplomat Walter Roberts opined that the Abwehr were considering ..." when did he express this opinion? After the war, in his book?
    • In the book, clarified.
  • this seems like editorialising (albeit minor): " The three Partisans tasked with the negotiations show the importance that the Partisans placed on the outcome".
    • It's actually from Tomasevich, I've attributed in-line.
      • Great, cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • not sure about the semi colon here: "They were; Koča Popović, Spanish Civil War veteran and.." (I'd suggest a full colon) AustralianRupert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • You're right, should be a colon. Fixed.
      • Thanks for the review, Rupert! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "Details of the negotiations were slow to reach the wider international community" Very few of the wider international community know about them even now. Little known to historians of the period until the 1970s?
• "When the Germans launched Case Black against him in mid-May 1943, Tito realised that the short period of respite had in fact been a trap." I do not understand this. The lead suggests that the respite was to the advantage of the partisans.
• A good article. Just a couple of queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dudley. Will address your points tomorrow my time. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
    • @Dudley Miles: both points addressed. Let me know what you think about the second one? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Kordunaški partizani.jpg Yugoslavian photograph published before 1966. Y
• File:Milovan Đilas.jpg Yugoslavian photograph published before 1966. Y
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H04810, Joachim von Ribbentrop.jpg CC-by-SA Bundesarchiv Y
• File:Walter r. roberts VOA.jpg Original source says "US government" Y
• All images have valid licences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Hawk! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 20:50, 8 November 2014 (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 by HJ Mitchell (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No. 77 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

No. 77 Squadron RAAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/No. 77 Squadron RAAF/archive1

One of the most illustrious units in RAAF history, mainly owing to the manner in which it single-handedly carried out Australia's air combat commitment to the Korean War. Its role there could easily fill an article of its own, having inspired three full-length books—the latest of which I've used as a source in the present article as it draws heavily on the earlier works, as well as having the benefit of recent research. It's sobering to realise that in three years of combat during the Korean War, No. 77 Squadron lost 41 pilots killed, more than twice the number it lost in three years of combat during World War II. The Korean legacy should not, however, obscure the part the squadron played in the South West Pacific during World War II, for which it earned a string of battle honours, nor its contribution to the security of South East Asia in the 1960s, nor its continuing role as one of Australia's frontline fighter units—hopefully I've struck the right balance. The article just passed GAN, and if it goes well here its ultimate destination will be FAC. Tks for looking! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Ian, great article. Not much for me to say really. I only have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• suggest a slight reorder of the wording here: "the RAAF hurriedly established three new fighter units equipped with Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawks recently delivered from the United States: Nos. 75, 76 and 77 Squadrons." --> "the RAAF hurriedly established three new fighter units – Nos. 75, 76 and 77 Squadrons – equipped with Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawks recently delivered from the United States."
• spelling: "maneuverability" --> "manoeuvrability". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tks as always, Rupert -- will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• When was Cresswell relieved? And who replaced him?
  • Heh, on which of his three tours as CO do you mean? I think I've put in at least rough dates for his terms ending in each case, and successors if notable, but maybe I missed something...
    • I didn't see where he was relieved the first time, only that the prospective commander was KIA before taking over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Ah, yes, I thought I was implying that he was still succeeded by someone (wasn't anyone notable in WP terms) but I can make that explicit if you think I should. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Just add something about him being relieved the first time as I was startled to see that he was mentioned as assuming command for the second time, when I didn't even know that he'd be (successfully) relieved the first time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
          • Got it -- done, as well as the other point below. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• This reads oddly: As of February 1987, it had been under the control of a newly re-formed No. 81 Wing.
  • Yeah, I was never a big fan of that wording myself (even though I wrote it!) -- what about "Since February 1987..."?
• Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks Sturm! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Taking the opportunity while we're here, I also responded to your comments on the No. 1 Squadron RAAF FAC a little while ago... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I'd forgotten to bookmark that review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Corrected one typo and changing to support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Darn, this is good. I made some minor tweaks to one of the sections, and broke a really long paragraph. "Impacted" still isn't a verb (IMHO), and changed "was tasked with" to "conducted" (alternative would be "was charged with" (but it's still a passive structure). auntieruth (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Many tks Ruth. I went with "charged with" if you don't mind as "conducted" might imply they undertook such missions in combat, which they never had to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Image Review

Gosh, there are some beautiful images in this article.

• File:No 77 Sqn RAAF pilots Feb 2010.JPG USAF image. Y
• File:77 Sqn RAAF pilots & Kittyhawk (AWM NWA0019).JPG PD (Aus) (1943 image) Y
• File:F-51Ds 77 Sqn RAAF at Iwakuni c1950.jpg USAF image. Y
• File:No. 77 Sqn RAAF in Korea (AWM JK0024) (cropped).JPG PD (Aus) (1950 image) Y
• File:No. 77 Sqn RAAF Meteor in Korea (AWM JK0072).JPG PD (Aus) (1951 image) Y
• File:77 Sqn (AWM JK1025).jpg PD (Aus) (1951 image) Y
• File:Sabre Mk32s RAAF in Thailand early 1960s.jpg USAF image. Y
• File:MirageIIIs RAAF 1984.JPG USAF image. Y
• File:A21-49 YMAV 20130227 8642 (13102507125).jpg GFDL OTRS Y

All good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Tks for that Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2014 (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 by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island

Nominator(s): v/r - TP

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am attempting to bring Pearl Harbor to featured topic status. For this article, I would like to bring it to featured article status and have it lined up for the main page on Dec 7, 2014. I was assisted by User:Mark Miller and User:Mareklug in developing this article.v/r - TP 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dank, Hchc2009, and Lineagegeek: Hi folks - don't mean to be a bother, but could I ask you to review the corrections please?--v/r - TP 21:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As you said, done. I have no remaining reservations. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller and Mareklug: I started the GA review while the nomination was still pending but when I went to actually paste in the review I saw it had been withdrawn. My comments are here. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Meant to @TParis, I fail at copy/pasting. Sorry Dan. Protonk (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've added a subsection below for any comments you want to pull over to this page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• "Ford Island was the site of an ancient Hawaiian fertility ritual. It was converted into a sugarcane plantation, sold to the US Army for an aviation division in Hawaii, and then taken over by the US Navy ...": I like the fact that you don't put dates on everything, but it's hard to follow the narrative here with no dates at all.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• "hundreds of millions of dollars in investment": I guessed infrastructure and real estate development; correct that if it's wrong.
  • It's good--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• "225,000 gallon": needs a conversion template, with "|adj=on".
  •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• " a 4,000 feet (1,200 m) runway down the center. The island is connected to O'ahu via a 4,672 feet (1,424 m) bridge": Both conversion templates need "|adj=on". - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• " 'ume", " Kahi‘ukā": Sometimes you use a straight single quote mark for the okina, sometimes an inverted comma. Be consistent, and probably go with the inverted comma. (I'm assuming that's an okina in 'ume.)
  • There is an RFC going on about the use of Okinas right now and I was waiting for the result before changing the article but it looks like that's the way it's going to go so I'll go over this and make sure it's consistent.--v/r - TP 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• From our article on ʻEwa: "Along much of the South Shore of Oʻahu, ʻEwa is a reference to the direction of ʻEwa Beach, roughly westwards along the shore." If you're really referring to the west side rather than to ʻEwa Beach, then it might be better to say that.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• Done for the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Also, ʻEwa may or may not need an okina. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
• "There are no historical records to give an exact date, but some literature believe that the island was given to Francisco de Paula Marín on 9 February 1818": "some literature believe" is probably a typo. Why does anyone believe that it happened on 9 February 1818 if there's no evidence for that? - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • It's based on two sources, I only used one and it's a letter archived at the Dept of Archeology which was a telling by a source who repeated an oral story she herself was told. Records were not kept until the mid-1800s about land ownership. The first secondary sources don't give a date of ownership, but the oldest dates back to 1818. The claim of 1791 comes from Marin's own journal, but he didn't even start his journal until 1809.--v/r - TP 00:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • That evidence probably isn't solid enough for A-class, unless noted historian(s) accept it, in which case, at least one of the historians should be attributed. Also, it's not clear what you mean by ownership if "Hawaiians generally refused to recognize land ownership by foreigners" (my rewording). - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Records from that period arn't solid. Hawaiians didn't believe people could actually own the land. The land held almost God-like status in their religion and the thought of man owning it seemed backwards. Marin thought it was given to him, but it was never deeded. At some point, the King and his sister 'repossessed' almost half the island and then after they were done with it, they sold it at auction.--v/r - TP 04:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Let's put in a quote supporting that from the best historian you have. But what won't work is to say (paraphrasing) "Marin owned it, but people couldn't own land, then the King owned it". - Dank (push to talk) 10:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
          • @Dank: I've rewritten this part, is that better?--v/r - TP 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't really follow it, but maybe I'm just slow on the uptake today. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• I copyedited the article down to Sugar per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. I also commented at the Peer Review. I normally don't comment on sourcing, but the sources seem a little thin for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 11:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Since a lot of time has passed, I copyedited again down to Sugar. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support Comments: G'day, good work so far. Just a quick drive-by look at the Bibliography and References from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• is there a place of publishing for the Burlingame work?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• are there oclc or isbn for the Curtis, Deerr and Pratt works?
  •  Done Curtis and Pratt--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• year of publication for the Day work?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• please check the location of publication for the Day work. Currently it says "Australia", but the edition I found Worldcat indicates it was published in the US. If published in Australia, please list the city as well;
  • @AustralianRupert: I couldn't find the book at the library - I assume it's checked out. I looked online and I can't find any reference to Austrailia at all. I've updated the publisher and location to the Google books result.--v/r - TP 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
• place of publication for the Prange work?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
• References # 7, # 8, # 24, # 25 and # 62 (where the full book citation is provided) should probably use the same style (short citation) as others like Reference # 41 for consistency. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm on it. I had planned on working on this this weekend, but I got selected for promotion on Thursday and that's filled up my weekend. But I will get on these all. I see Dank has worked on the article quite a bit too.--01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

If promotion is a good thing, gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I have been out of it. Dealing with another issue on this project and some other stuff in personal life.--v/r - TP 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Follow up comments: G'day, I had another look at the article today. Your changes look quite good and I think you are getting there, although I think it still needs a copy edit. I had a go at fixing some of the issues this morning (please check you are happy with my changes), but I don't really have time for much more at the moment, sorry. I don't know if Dank has time to come back, but if not I'd suggest seeing if someone from the WP:GOCE can help. I'd be happy to support promotion to A-class once this has been done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert: The copyedit has been completed by User:Miniapolis. They identified a sentence with a poor source that doesn't support the material. I'm working on correcting the source.--v/r - TP 23:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @AustralianRupert: I've corrected the sourcing issue.--v/r - TP 22:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Great, thanks for that. I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Lineagegeek

• Air Service/Air Corps use needs work:

All Air Corps unit names, except for the 6th Aero Squadron are anachronistic and do not give the names of the units at the time they were at Luke Field. Part of this appears to be the source used for the information, which after looking at, I would not consider a reliable source. The squadron names are close enough to cite the correct ones by searching Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6. LCCN 70605402. OCLC 72556..

Units not mentioned include the 5th Group (Observation) and several non-flying organizations. Information on the 5th group is at Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. Air Force Combat Units of World War II (PDF) (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-02-1. LCCN 61060979.. Your list also separates units that had different names while at Luke. Right now this is a problem with B2, but it's fixable. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi - I'm a little confused by some of what you're saying. So you're saying that I'm not using the unit names as they were at the time they were stationed at Luke Field and you want me to research, using your sources, the names during that period? I can do that, I just want to be clear on what you want.--v/r - TP 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right. For example, the two entries for the 6th Aero Squadron and the 6th Fighter Squadron [sic] are for the same unit, which was designated 6th Aero Squadron, 6th Squadron (Observation), 6th Squadron (Pursuit), and 6th Pursuit Squadron while at Luke Field (never Fighter Squadron). It also was at Luke until 1927, not 1926. The "394th Bomb Sq" was the 4th Aero Squadron and 4th Squadron (Observation) and was at Luke from 1920-1922. The 4th Observation Squadron was also the 4th Reconnaissance Squadron (same unit as before) and returned to Luke from 1927-1939, not 1929-1937. The 23d was the 23d Squadron (Bombardment) and 23d Bombardment (not Bomb) Squadron. The 72d was also a Bombardment Squadron. The "431st Bomb Squadron" was the 50th Observation Squadron and 50th Reconnaissance Squadron and was at Luke until 1939. So, yes, I bellieve the current table needs editing to merit a higher assessment.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

Okay, no problem Col, I'll get on it.--v/r - TP 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done--v/r - TP 21:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support - Hchc2009

Comments:

• Good to see an article on this kind of topic! Various copy-editing comments follow...
  • Thanks!--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Given the length of the article, you could afford a fourth paragraph in the lead if you wanted - there's a lot interesting information that follows that could potentially go in.
  • I'll split the second paragraph into two.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
    •  Done--v/r - TP 20:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "sold to the US Army for an aviation division in Hawaii in 1916" - "for use by an aviation division"?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "The island is connected to Oʻahu" - I'd forgotten the relationship of the island to O'ahu at this point, and it might be worth adding a few words into remind the reader
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "organic compound" - worth a wikilink
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "the endemic Pueo" - should this be really capitalised? (it isn't capitalised in the Pueo article)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "Francisco de Paula Marín introduced edible cactus to the island " - should this be edible cacti?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "Ancient Hawaiians called the island Mokuʻumeʻume, meaning "isle of attraction"" - minor, but does this statement really need five citations to support it? (it seemed like overkill)
  • It's contentious. A minority of sources have translated it as "Island of Strife" and also I felt that discussing an island that ancient Hawaiians used for what Protestant & Christian Americans would consider swinging, it needed extra citations. The literal meaning of Mokuʻumeʻume is "Island of push and pull".--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "Those touched would find a private section of the island." - if we mean that they had sex together, we should say so.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• " Marín's claim of ownership over the island was as clear to him as he believed." - I wasn't sure what this meant (who is the "him" and "he"...?)
  • I left out a "not" in there. Him and he refers to Marin himself. The sentence was supposed to read "was not as clear to him as he had believed". Essentially, Marin and Kamehameha were speaking two different languages (while literally speaking the same language). Kamehameha gave Marin the island for his use, but Kamehameha had no concept of a person owning land. That wasn't something that Hawaiians understood at the time. It was a miscommunication.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• " arrived in Hawaii to ascertain defensive capabilities" - "its defensive capabilities"?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "with the selling of lands but never spoke out against it." - selling of land generally? Hawaiian land? Or this particular sale?
  • At the time her concern was Hawaiian lands. Though not connected to this article, and I don't know about her particularly, the entire Bishop family was and still is angry over the sale of the land that is now eastern Pearl Harbor on O'ahu and Hickam AFB. That land was all owned by the Bishop family and it was a major sore spot for them. But it happened after this point and isn't relevant to Ford Island. I've fixed the sentence.  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "speculation on what extent the cession would include became unpopular with the native Hawaiian people" - I think there's an error there; the cession was presumably what was unpopular, not the discussion about it?
  • I'll check, but the Hawaiians were angry about it before the cession even happened. Kalākaua was strongly advised against it.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "may have caused the king's return to drinking" - the MOS would have this as "the King's" (ditto similar examples later on)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "But with the California's support," - not quite right; "with California's support" or "with the Californians' support" would make sense though
  • I think it originally said "the state of California" but  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1875, the United States congress again agreed to reciprocity for an additional seven years, fearing that any treaty between Hawaii and Australia or New Zealand would result in annexation to one of those two countries instead of the United States, if Kalākaua would give the United States Ford Island in exchange." - the last bit of the sentence is orphaned from the respective clause at the start.
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "from the Ii estate" - I couldn't work this out at first, as it's previously referred to as the "John Papa Īī estate" (NB: you later call it "the John ʻĪʻī estate"
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "the land would by sold" - "be sold"
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• "The aviation division of the US Army was generally favorably received amongst the Hawaiians, who saw military investment in their land as a compliment" - all military investment, or "who saw the military investment"? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Protonk

Originally written for a GA review and posted at User:Protonk/Ford island GA. Dan pointed out that it would be easier for folks to reply to them here. Protonk (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

style/layout

• Are any of the names listed in the lede (e.g. Rabbit Island, Marín's Island, Little Goats Island, or Mokuʻumeʻume) redirects to Ford island? If so, should we bold them?
  •  Done--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Consider moving the Naval aircraft at Naval Air Station Pearl Harbor in 1931 table down a bit (perhaps below the first para about the naval air station)
  •  Done--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Given that the plan to install SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS (sorry) on the airstrip was not put into place, is a better place for that concept art right above the paragraph starting with "In June 2013 the Navy planned to install 60,000 photovoltaic panels over 28 acres..." (or perhaps not at all)
  •  Done And it was just solar panels, lol. Solar roadways would be awesome but I think those are still in development. Last I heard, they could change lane layout, light up a road, melt ice, and power nearby homes. It will be awesome when they do come out. But these were just solar panels that would be colored to look as if they were the runway from the air.--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

content

• When we say it slopes toward pearl harbor do we mean east, west, south? It's kinda in the middle of pearl harbor.
  • I checked the source and it doesn't specify. It only says that it slopes toward Pearl Harbor. It's a 2011 report and by that time the active part of the base was on the east side. I could assume that but it'd be OR. What do you think I should do?--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Toward pearl harbor may be fine. I'd also assume that the source means "pearl harbor" to be the bulk of the navy base (which would be east), but if they don't specify it's probably ok. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• what does "Ford Island proper" mean? Are we just distinguishing it from Ford island + Mokunui and Mokuiki?
  • It's talking about the land below the top soil. Any suggestions for how to say that?--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Oh, that's a good question. I'll think about it a bit, my gut says avoid "proper", but it's not a huge issue either way. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In some literature, the ceremony is considered a game." what does Kane say about this, exactly?
  • I'll have to run out to the library to get this. I cant find an electronic copy of that page.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, so first I want to point out that Herb Kawainui Kāne is the author which is why I am giving so much weight to his opinion. The exact paragraph reads: "ʻUme might be termed a courtshop game of the makaʻāinana. Chanting a song, an uimpire would walk armong nocturnal assembly of men and women. At a certain break in the song he would touch the nearest man with a wooden wand decorated with feathers. At the next he would touch the nearest woman. The man and woman would go out into the night."--TP (alt) 23:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• When did Seth Porter Ford, Jr. die? Or more directly, when was the land sold to the Papa Īī land trust?
  •  Done 1885 and 1891 respectively. I've added it to the article.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• "The United States purchased the island in 1917." I'm assuming this means the US purchased the remainder of the island or the whole of it?
  •  Done Only the Luke Field part at this time. The north side was still owned by the John iI estate until after the Bishop Estate vs the United States lawsuit, which had nothing to do with Ford Island but set a precedent that scared the iI estate into not fighting the United States for more money.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• "At the height of World War II, over 40,000 people lived or worked on the island" should go at the end of that paragraph.
  •  Done --Mareklug ^talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• "which usually hosted an aircraft carrier, was empty" "berthed" may be better
  • Good point.  Done --Mareklug ^talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• "The fleet flagship (the USS Pennsylvania) was also in Pearl Harbor, dry-docked at the nearby Navy Yard. The ninth battleship, the USS Colorado, was being overhauled on the West Coast." not sure why this is relevant to Ford island. Likewise the following sentence.
  •  Done Made relevant by revising. It is indispensable to mention here USS Pennsylvania, if only as the graphic used (saliently) shows it on the map. Ditto for the fleet flagship undergoing refitting stateside, needed by the scope of the USA/Japan fleet comparison at paragraph close. --Mareklug ^talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That's much better. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• "Ford Island the communications systems there were inadequate" the two citations here are identical to those cited at the end of the sentence. is there a reason why we don't just cite them at the end?
  • I speak boldly for Tom, but that may be folly. AFAIK the current political climate on Wikipedia fosters such extremes whenever reverencing controversial claims. End of sentence has become NOT ENUF. I personally promise to quietly steel in during the Central Standard Time night and remove the first brace of identical citations from that sentence, per your sane suggestion, once the article passes this certification phase... :/ --Mareklug ^talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• To be clear, are the 5 pilots shot down in the Aftermath distinct from the search planes shot down during the battle?
  • Yes, the first planes shot down were from the Enterprise trying to land on Ford Island. The others were from Ford Island, notified the tower and gunners of their trip, and yet were still confused for the enemy and shot at while trying to land on Ford Island again. One of the pilots was in both sorties, though.--v/r - TP 22:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• "The Marines, who had picked up rifles for guard duty..." why is this important?
  •  Fixed through removal of erroneous appositive-suggesting punctuation. --Mareklug ^talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• "That evening, Hawaiians were instructed to observe an indoor blackout, stay off the telephone..." how is this relevant to ford island? Was it a directive for all of Oahu?
  •  Not done IMHO it is perfectly correct in this place. This article is about Ford Island, yes, but it is supposed to leave a vivid impression in the reader's mind, and generalizing the focus with such a pertinent tidbit does not harm things, and is a wonderful device for preserving interest and cohesion. It does not stop us from injecting this lovely passage in a more general article or five, including History of the United States. --Mareklug ^talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That's ok. Hope you'll understand my desire to push back so we can see where an escape to the general is good for the soul and where it's a loss of focus. :) Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I think it's important to set the stage for the tense feelings all around the island and the fear of another attack which led to the friendly fire. I'm not opposed with describing this another way, though.--v/r - TP 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• "On 1 July 1999 all military and civilian general-aviation activity at NALF Ford Island ended when NAS Barbers Point..." why did the closure of barbers point impact Ford island?
  •  Done--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• We'll just call anything a "bridge to nowhere" Ford island, Ketchikan, anything! :) Just a comment, no action needed.
  • Hehe, there was literally nothing on the island at the time but houses, so it was a bridge to nowhere :D--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• "the National Trust for Historic Preservation considered the Navy's communication style more directive than bi-directional" what does this mean, exactly? It's an odd turn of phrase.
  •  Done--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• "It hosts the Pacific Warfighting Center...to simulate real-world conditions for battlefield commanders." this feels a little press-releasey to me. I'm sure that's one of the things the PWC does (no doubt the actual acronym is something like PacWarCenStupidThing), but it also does regular training for random stuff like battery maintenence.
  •  Done--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Critics say that the platform has poor emergency preparedness..." who?
  • The article only says "experts". I removed the emergency preparedness sentence anyway. It's emergency preparedness has nothing to do with the island. Replaced it with a sentence about how it has never actually made it to Alaska and has resided on the island instead.--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• FIST2FAC. lol. I forgot how terrible navy names for things are
  • Hahaha--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• "The aircraft carrier which was actually a test dummy, the USS Utah..." sort of awkwardly worded. Also the Utah was a battleship before being turned into a target ship, not an aircraft carrier "test dummy"
  •  Done Comma fixed the awkwardness, and I replaced the ship designation, per our own article content. Error introduced by source and my slavish copying of it. --Mareklug ^talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
• This article marks the only time Michael Bay has been solemn about anything, so that's something.
• this external link is to a pd photograph. Would we be better off uploading it to commons and including it in that gallery?
  • The link is to an entire gallery. We could probably upload all of the photos, but the person who put the gallery together wouldn't get credit for collecting the images.--TP (alt) 23:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• this is a pdf. Is there some way to format the link so the reader knows that? Also is this something that would be eventually incorporated into the sourcing?
  •  Done Portable Document Format specified as |format=PDF within the parameters of any cite template in use on Wikipedia (in all language versions) draws a useful PDF icon in place of the default HTML value, that makes the blue NE box and arrow we take for granted. ;) For example: FAA Airport Form 5010 for NPS PDF, effective 1999. BTW, did we know that this is an (external) red link? We use this citation twice: in the lede, defining it in Ford_Island#Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island. --Mareklug ^talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I think I'm missing something. I should've specified that the "Mokuʻumeʻume (William Dorrance). Historic Hawaii Newsletter, December 1991, Vol 17 No 12" in the external links is a PDF and doesn't render the pdf icon automatically because the resource is dynamically generated and doesn't end in .pdf (wikipedia's common css has selectors for external links that look for some variation of ".pdf" in the url and place the icon on there). I've since discovered there's a template which can force the icon, {{PDFlink}} and I've applied it to that particular external link. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

sources

• This is a little picky but this source does a lot of work for us. I think the milhist project has among them enough books on pearl harbor to build a life sized paper mache model of Ford island. Maybe we can use some of them here instead. :
  • I would be happy to invite anyone interested to eat away at our dependence on that source, I just have none of them myself.--TP (alt) 23:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker

G'day, great work so far. I'm no guru on the US in the Pacific in WWII, but I have a few comments to make:

• you need to check overlinking, Kamehameha I., California, Bernice Bishop, the ships in the "Pearl Harbor during the attack" box, and Ewa Beach are all overlinked.
• there is some apparently unnecessary "citation bombing" where five citations are used for what seems a fairly uncontroversial piece of info, ie "isle of attraction".
  • That piece is a little more controversial that it'd seem. The literal translation of Moku'ume'ume is Island of Push and Pull. The intended meaning according to historians, at least the ones I found in books and at the Bishop Museum, is Island of Attraction (just the pull part). However, others have translated Push and Pull as "Strife". So Island of Strife shows up in enough sources that it isn't entirely ignorable. Although between Attraction and Strife, and with consideration of what was happening on the island, and the majority of sources supporting "Attraction", I felt it was best to use Island of Attraction and source it well. If everyone agrees it's not necessary with this in mind, I'm happy to reduce it.--v/r - TP 18:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
    • If that is the case, then perhaps both titles should be mentioned, and sources provided for both, rather than citation bombing one of them?
      • Perhaps. But the sources that mention Strife just arn't as strong as Attraction.--v/r - TP 00:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm fairly relaxed about that, my only point is that unless it is a fringe theory, it usually merits a mention. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
          •  Done Okay, I've added island of strife, removed two sources supporting attraction, and added one supporting strife.--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• a citation is needed for a statement about "Japan fearing an attack" in the lead, and this should be covered in the body, as should all information in the lead. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly controversial in the lead that would need to be cited in-line there, all citations should be moved to the body.
  •  Done Rewrote that sentence and added a paragraph to the body.--TP (alt) 01:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• capitalisation of proper names should be consistent, ie "USS Arizona Memorial"Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure I understand. I only see memorial capitalized in the sources and that's because the title of the article capitalizes it. Am I missing something?--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1991 the Navy discovered nine metals, two semi-volatile" - what were the metals, are they contaminants? Heavy metals? Needs some more info.Y
• who did Dowsett buy the island from? Marin or the Hawaiian owners?
  •  Done--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• when was the island sold to the land trust?Y
• there really is no explanation of how Bishop came to be administering Hawaii
  •  Done I added a bit about his background.--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• who did the military lease sections of the island from, and who did the US purchase the island from?
  •  Done--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• "When Currey was transferred to Washington",
  •  Done--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• some mention that Luke was a fighter ace in WWI would be in order
  •  Done--TP (alt) 00:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• "World War I salvage hangars" is unclear, were they canvas hangers salvaged from WWI?
  •  Done Yes, according to [3] page 21.--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Hickham appears to have been an USAAC pioneer, perhaps that would be a better description than "recently deceased"?
  •  Done--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• suggest " built a firehouse, water-supply and lighting systems"
•  Done--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• Was USS California the USN flagship and Pennsylvania the fleet flagship? It isn't clear what California was flagship of.
  •  DoneCalifornia was the Pacific fleet flagship. The Pennsylvania was flagship of the combined Pacific and Atlantic fleet--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• it isn't clear that H. L. Young was trying to communicate after landing on Ford Island
  • He was trying to achieve general communications because none currently existed.--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• suggest replacing "bi-directional" with "consultative"
  • I added something else in there per Protonk's criticisms above.--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "As hoped by the trustTrust"
  •  Done--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions. I will try to get to them either this week or next week. I am falling behind in some college courses that I need to catch up on this week.--v/r - TP 00:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @TParis: When do you think you might be able to address the outstanding comments? This is probably the longest-running ACR I can recall but it seems to have a decent chance at promotion if the remaining concerns are dealt with shortly. It'd certainly be a shame to close with no consensus after all this time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, it's just been a busy month and I haven't been able to get back to the library to sort out some of the book-needs. I'll try to finish it up by Monday. I have to be out of the house for 4 hours tomorrow so I can stop by the library then.--v/r - TP 05:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, I fixed all of the concerns except the bit about Japan in the lead. Going to work on that now.--TP (alt) 00:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
        • @Peacemaker67, Protonk, and Ian Rose: I have completed all of the tasks listed above. Very sorry for the delay and thank you for your patience.--TP (alt) 01:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
          • @TParis: Thanks for your edits. It's a +1 for me! Protonk (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ford Island Hawaii space photo 2009.jpg NASA image Y
• File:NOAA Pearl Harbor Approach Map.jpg NOAA image Y
• File:Moku'ume'ume.png US Navy Y
• File:Charles Reed Bishop and Bernice Pauahi Bishop in San Francisco2.jpg US PD tag required. Y Added
• File:Map of Ford's Island, Oahu, H. T. - NARA - 77-WDMC Hawaii-82.jpg US Army Y
• File:1918-12-16 Luke Field.jpg US Army Y
• File:1918-8-15 Martin GMB 01.jpg US Army Y
• File:1919-1921 Luke Field.jpg US Army Y
• File:Ford Island Pearl Harbor aerial 1930.jpg US Navy Y
• File:Damaged hangar on Ford Island in December 1941.jpeg US Navy Y
• File:Pearlmap2.png Creative Commons Y
• File:PLanes burning-Ford Island-Pearl Harbor.jpg US Navy Y
• File:Righting of the USS Oklahoma with winches on Ford Island.jpg US Navy Y
• File:Waa Hele Honoa (YFB-83) and Moko Holo Hele (YFB-87).png National Park Service Y
• File:Military and civilian runners crossing the Admiral Clarey Bridge during the 2006 Ford Island 10k Bridge Run at Pearl Harbor.jpg US Navy Y
• File:Ford Island photovoltaic panels concept.png US Navy Y
• File:Pearl Harbor Historic Sites.jpg Creative Commons Y
• File:US Navy 040722-N-9662L-031 USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) passes the USS Arizona and her memorial plaque as it arrives in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.jpg US Navy Y

Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7: Does PD-US apply if the photo was published before Hawaii became a territory? Prior to 1887 it was nominally independent, then until 1898 it was essentially annexed but not a US territory. Protonk (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • According to this, works published before 1909 outside of the United States are still public domain within the U.S.--v/r - TP 17:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
    • At least for now. Added extra tag. All good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2014 (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 by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Schliengen

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

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

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Schliengen/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'm hoping it's ready for that. All citations seem to be in place, it has artwork etc. auntieruth (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Support good read MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you had a look at the German Wiki article? I find the aftermath section (Folgen der Schlacht bei Schliengen) a bit better to understand and how the battle was embedded in the greater scheme of things MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on sieges of Kehl and Huningen. Do you think they should all be rolled into one article? auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What triggered my response was the fact that the English article classifies the battle as an Austrian victory in the Infobox. The German article depicts a more balanced outcome (inconclusive) with both sides claiming some success and the consequences favoring the French side. In the German article the French retreat is a success of the Austrian forces, however the French forces managed to retreat, without significant losses back to France, this is a French success. The following engagements at Kehl and Hünningen tied down Austrian forces which could have played a difference in the Italian campaign and in the Siege of Mantua, so the German article. I feel this could be made more explicit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I see it. I've tried to make it more explicit. See if that solves the problem. auntieruth (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

• can you have a look at the ISBN numbers please? Some are formatted with, some are formatted without and some are formatted half heartily with dashes. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried fixing this and added OCLC numbers for all those references lacking an ISBN number. Could you please check if OCLC 314361292 is the correct number for your reference "(German) Volk, Helmut. "Landschaftsgeschichte und Natürlichkeit der Baumarten in der Rheinaue." Waldschutzgebiete Baden-Württemberg, Band 10, pp. 159–167."? I am not 100% sure if this is indeed the correct one. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
    • ISBN numbers don't usually have dashes or any kind, I thought. I copied them out of Worldcat. Or Amazon. Or from the book itself.
    • I had read Volk's article at the archive, but I found a copy online here: Volk, which I put into the bib. That should solve the problem.

Support But see below for some minor requests. Djmaschek (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Picture gallery: The Duke of Enghien pic has no name in the caption.

• Fixed.

• Aftermath: Kehl and Huningen are run together.

• Fixed.

• 2nd paragraph Background: (a) There is a list of battles going from 1792 to 1796, and then it says "but in 1795" which is chronologically incorrect. Is this a typo for 1796? The Austrians lost no territory in 1795. Verdun, Kaiserslautern, Neerwinden and Mainz are not needed for context since they are pre-1796. (b) If 1796 is intended, then the statement about Jourdan pushing the Austrians back is not exactly true. Jourdan advanced to the Lahn but then was driven back beyond the Rhine from 16-20 June. (c) It was Moreau's crossing at Kehl on 24 June that ultimately won territory, at least temporarily, from the Austrians. Moreau did not support Jourdan's right. It was the total lack of mutual support that caused the French defeats. (d) The statement that Moreau raided Munich is not enough background. "Raid" is debatable; the French government ordered an invasion. (e) Aside from Schliengen, Moreau's army fought six significant actions in 1796, but only Emmendingen, fought 5 days before, is noted in a picture caption. Munich is deep into Germany. How did Moreau get there? And what caused him to come all the way back to the Rhine? You don't have to explain the entire Rhine Campaign of 1796 but since this is a class-A article, at least a couple of additional paragraphs are needed to give background to what happened at Schliengen, in my opinion. BTW: The Terrain section is really splendid and the Battle section is solid. Djmaschek (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dj, I've added some material on the background, including a table of battles, and a lengthy explanation of the lead up. auntieruth (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed. You did everything requested and then some!
• However, in the new material in Campaign in 1796 there are a few minor issues. See below. Djmaschek (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Typo: Paragraph 4, sentence 1, "27,0000".
• There is a Fürstenberg in paragraph 1 with no link. Not counting links in the infobox and introduction, it is my understanding that you only need the link the first time. After that "Prince Fürstenberg" or some other shorthand is okay.
• The Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé link should be near the top.
• The first Latour link, Theodor Franz, Count Baillet von Latour is wrong. Theodor was not promoted Major until 1809. Maximilian is your man.
• "16th and 50th Demi-brigades, the 68th, 50th and 68th line infantry" has duplication. If it's Delmas' division, it would be 16th Light, 50th Line and 68th Line Infantry Demi Brigades.
• When explaining the French mutinies, the 17th, 74th and 84th were probably line infantry, but the article does not say. Does your source say what type of unit? There was a 17th Dragoons.
• Typo: Paragraph 1, sentence 3, "bulk o the army".
• Battle of Rastatt was 5 July 1796 (see table). There is not an article for Renchen (28 June) yet.

• Support: G'day, Ruth, interesting article. I made a few tweaks, please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit. I also have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• minor inconsistency: the lead gives the date of "26 October", but the infobox says "24 October"

• fixed

• watch for overlink. The duplicate link checker tool identifies the following possibilities: Mullheim, Huningen and Karl Aloys zu Furstenberg

• fixed.

• in the Sources section, is there an ISBN that could be added for the Blanning, Cuccia and Smith works? These can sometimes be found through Worldcat.org

• added where these are available.

• as per the above, is there an OCLC number the could be added for the Charles, Dyke, Graham, Hansard, and Philippart works?

• No OCLC #, but I did add web links when available. no, yes, yes, no.

• "...interests of Louis and his family..." given that Louis hasn't been mentioned by name yet, I suggest adding a link and using his full title at first mention

• done

• suggest linking terms like "battalion", "regiment" and "squadron" etc on first mention to help readers understand the size of these units

• well, I could, except that these sizes weren't really consistent in 1790s.

• I'd still recommend this, but it isn't a warstoper. I'll leave it up to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• "Despite specific orders to the contrary, the Conde's Corps formed down the river at Neuburg and made a spirited attack on Steinstadt" --> do we know why they disobeyed there orders? If the sources don't say, that's no drama, I'm just curious...

• clarified. The Duke got carried away with the situation.

• I suggest using title case capitalisation for the English language book titles. For instance, "Napoleon in Italy: the sieges of Mantua" would become "Napoleon in Italy: The Sieges of Mantua" etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• will go through and do this tonight.

• okay, I think I've addressed all the questions above, by Rupert, Dj and MrB. auntieruth (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Looks good, Ruth. I made a couple of adjustments, please check you are happy with those. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2014 (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 by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Peter Raw

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

At the risk of getting into a demarcation dispute with Ian Rose, I'd like to nominate this article on one of the Royal Australian Air Force's most prominent officers during the 1950s and 1960s for A-class. Raw served with distinction in World War II, surviving a mission in which his plane was severely damaged, and was eventually appointed to command the service's first jet bomber squadron in 1953. He also participated in the 1953 London to Christchurch air race, in which he placed second. In 1965 Raw assumed command of the RAAF force in South Vietnam, a role for which he was not well prepared, and his actions during the Battle of Long Tan badly damaged relations between the RAAF and Army. He eventually retired from the service as a Air Commodore in 1978.

I started this article in 2011, and have developed it in fits and starts (with input from lots of other editors); a highlight was going through a box of news stories on Raw held by the National Library of Australia. It passed a GA nomination in June 2013, and after including additional material from Raw's Australian Dictionary of Biography entry (published 2012) and stories from the NLA's superb Trove online newspaper database, I'm hopeful that it might now be of A-class status. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker

• Long Tan was in 66, not 65.
  • oops! Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• I personally know one of the 9 Sqn pilots that flew the casevac at Long Tan, a Korea veteran well known for bravery. In the 1980's, apocryphal tales of the poor support provided to the Army in Vietnam by RAAF helo's were endemic. I think the observations of Wing Commander Scott, as relayed in an appendix to McAulay's The Battle of Long Tan would be useful here. Scott defends Raw and has some interesting things to say. Given Long Tan was defining in terms of Raw's career, I think Scott's comments would be a valuable addition. McAuley (a soldier) is a highly credible and respected source for something as controversial as the RAAF at Long Tan.
  • Second that -- McAuley has written several RAAF-related books so he has good credentials re. both Air Force and Army history (bit like Chris Coulthard-Clark, a Duntroon graduate who became an official RAAF historian). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks - I'll see if I can find a copy. I have read various sources which argue that the Army's perception of the overall support provided by the RAAF in the Vietnam War was wrong-headed, and the transfer of the helicopters to the Army was driven more by myths than hard evidence. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
      • We could write a whole article on the subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

More to come. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • • I've added material from McAuley's book. There wasn't much on Raw's role in the battle - the book side-steps the issue of his actions at the start of the engagement, focusing on a defence of No. 9 Squadron's competency (which I've added some material on) and the exaggerated version of the dispute which developed. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
        • Happy with those additions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• a couple of pics need alt text (incl in infobox, per this - not an ACR requirement
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• all other toolchecks are green
• not sure what version of English is being used, but suggest re-apply rather than reapply.
  • Not sure about that: the Macquarie Dictionary uses 'reapply' Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I always thought it was a hyphen between vowels, no matter.
• "was commissioned as an officer in December that year", what rank? PLTOFF or FLGOFF? There is no mention of a rank until FLTLT.
  • The source doesn't say I'm afraid Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Bugger.
• watch the comma consistency after a date start to a sentence. ie In May 1944/In July/etc
• his wife should just be Maggs (or Dorothy) after introduction (not very gentlemanly is it?)
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• the citations after "was demobilised on 17 January 1946" are not in numerical order
• I'm a bit of a comma Nazi, but I reckon "On his return to Australia",
• suggest "and was confirmed in this rank in January"
  • Ian has kindly fixed these Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• "Raw's role in the Battle of Long Tan on 18 August 1966 wasremains controversial"?
  • I don't think that it's controversial any more. While it led to much squabbling between the services, the recent sources all agree that Raw made a questionable call in not initially authorising the supply flight, and that the Army then spent years over-reacting (RAAF-friendly sources often cheerfully highlight the major problems the Army experienced keeping the helicopters operational during the 1990s after they were transferred from the Air Force, but that's out of scope!). Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough.
• I would name Delta Coy, 6 RAR
  • Not sure if it's necessary to be honest - it would add extra details to what's already a fairly busy paragraph, and I don't think it needs to be specified. Is this OK? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
    • I have to say it's a bit weird given that D/6 RAR and Long Tan are so iconic, and it wouldn't add more than a few letters, but OK.
      • @Peacemaker67: I've named the unit (on consideration, I agree with you entirely here - and it makes the article read better to boot). Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I think that's a good move. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
• did the experienced pilots state that the ammunition was important? Or was it just important? Might need re-wording.
  • The source says that the pilot "believed the mission had to be flow regardless of the conditions and the likely cost" without specifying what the pilot's exact motivations were (though the obvious implication is that he believed that the ammunition had to be delivered). I think that the current wording summarises this. Nick-D (talk)
    • I think the current wording is confusing. I suggest dropping the second part of the sentence about the ammunition, its importance has already been covered, and its inclusion immediately after the views of the pilots makes it appear they said that as well.
      • I have deleted the part of the sentence I consider makes it unclear. Feel free to revert. I am now supporting. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's me done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian Rose

• Thought I'd give this a few days before reviewing but couldn't resist having a quick look tonight... ;-) Structure/detail-wise, the first thing that struck me was of course the lack of post-military information -- a common problem for us. Aside from checking for obits in the newspaper files, you might try Who's Who in case he has an entry (not certain but possible) as it will often mention civilian career details. I might also try to find his obit in the RAAF News back copies at the Mitchell next time I'm there. Note that this lack doesn't concern me overly for ACR but I think it'd be preferable to get something in there before a possible FAC run. More later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ian, I'll also check that - I can access Who's Who at the NLA next weekend. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Okay, walked through the article top to bottom, copyediting as I went, so happy with prose and structure.
• I think the level of detail is fine. As I said above, post-service info would be useful prior to FAC but is not, I think, absolutely necessary for A-Class. FTR, I found the Vietnam account well-written and balanced, and in line with accounts I've read.
• Sources are reliable, though I haven't spent much time checking formatting.
• Image-wise, I suspect the two AWM images would be best served with the addition of {{PD-author|the Government of Australia}}, although Nikki or others may have another opinion. Assuming that's resolved one way or t'other, this has my full support. Oh, and as far as demarcation disputes go, Nick, as you haven't given me any grief about writing RAAF squadron articles, I shall spare you my wrath for producing quality RAAF bios... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments and edits Ian. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review [Clip and save for FAC!]

All images look fine, copyright-wise. They're a bit on the small size; probably not much we can do about that; however, they're not so small we can't make the thumbnails a bit larger. Given he's a relatively small part of each image compared to those in other articles, I'd up the width of the thumbnails a bit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Adam. I've bumped up the image sizes a bit Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

• Support Comments: looks quite good overall, Nick, I just have a couple of suggestions/comments. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• "he served in the Vietnam War as the air support coordinator for the Australian forces in South Vietnam..." --> perhaps just "he served as the air support coordinator for the Australian forces in South Vietnam..."

• That's much better - changed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• "but was rejected and told to reapply in twelve months" --> do we know why he was rejected?

• No, afraid not. At this stage of the war the technical branches of the military seemed to have more suitably-qualified volunteers than they had jobs for, and I expect that this was the answer (the RAAF had to put suitable pilot candidates on a waiting list type arrangement at one stage!). Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• the link at "these flights" is potentially a little ineligant, perhaps if you moved the link to a place a little earlier in the narrative it might solve this. For instance, "...No. 178 Squadron, undertook several risky operations as part of the Warsaw airlift to supply...."

• Thanks for that suggestion - changed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• "aid on the northern Italian city of Verona on 12 October" --> probably best to add "1944" here for clarity given you have mentioned 1945 a bit earlier which might confuse some readers;

• Done Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think there is something missing here: "...surrounded and, as he believed that the heavy rain at the time made flying too dangerous" (the "and, as..." doesn't seem to ring true to my ear);

• Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• "The commander of the 1st Australian Task Force..." --> I suggest just saying "1 ATF" and introducing the abbreviation earlier

• Done Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• is there an issn and place of publication that could be added for the Wartime magazine entry in the Bibliography?

• Yes - I'd added the ISSN, but I don't think that place of publishing (or publisher) is common for journal-type entries. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, it's something I've started adding in since my publisher asked me to do it for something I wrote offline, but it's not a warstoper. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• is there an oclc number that could be added to the Bibligraphy for the Herington work? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, added. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• No worries, always a pleasure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2014 (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.

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Joachim Müncheberg

Nominator(s): Dlthewave (talk)

I am nominating this article to be delisted from A-Class because it recently failed a GA reassessment due to verifiability and neutrality issues. Schumann & Westerwelle 2010, which was deemed "not reliable" at RSN, is still used as a source throughout the article, and the neutrality concerns raised at GAR have not been addressed. This means that it probably does not meet A-Class criteria A1 and A2. –dlthewave ☎ 17:50, 9 March 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) 19:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Delist I find Assayer's comments at GAR convincing. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
• @WP:MILHIST coordinators: I've advertised this to the whole project before, but it could do with a couple more opinions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:43, 28 May 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.

---

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another German battleship article up for ACR, this one was another early pre-dreadnought that didn't see combat during her career, though she was mobilized for service early in World War I. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Link magazine, deck, reserve, and machinery spaces
  • Deck and reserve linked, but I don't see the other two anywhere.
• in the central portion might be profitably be replaced by "amidships"
  • Are you sure you're looking at the right article? A lot of your comments seem to not be related to this article. For instance there's no mention of landing guns, anybody named Brosch, etc.
• Do we have a link for landing guns.
• It's probably just me, but I find the lede a bit too detailed. I really don't see any point to providing semi-detailed construction and builder info, forex, and only orient the reader in the decade of construction when all of that info will be repeated in the main body.
• French abandoned its attempt Wrong pronoun I think.
• Redlink to Brosch to match your treatment of the other admirals
• Add an ampersand to the references to match the format of your cites.
• Links to the Garbet sources should be added.
• There's no source given for the infobox photo so how do we know that it's legal to use?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Weltrundschau zu Reclams Universum is a contemporary journal - it'd be nice to have more specific publication data but knowing it was the 1902 edition is good enough. I can beef up the citation though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• <Blush> I was reading SMS Kaiser Karl VI, not this one.
• that drove three screw propellers I think that it's cleaner to say, "each driving one screw propeller".
  • Sounds fine to me.
• Link main battery, torpedo tube, casemate, regatta, overhaul. Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Added all. Thanks again, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Not much to do, thx for that.- Dank (push to talk) 14:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments A well-written and informative article, which I would gladly support once a few cliches are corrected:

• Construction to 1905

Blohm and Voss: It's usually Blohm & Voss in German language sources, but I am not totally sure about English language sources. So please enlighten me. Link is fine, though

The & is fine

Kiel Week has an article, should be linked, rather than regatta

Yeah, I don't know why I forgot to link to that article. Good catch.

Oberbürgermeister: there is no such thing in Hamburg. It's Mayor, Lord Mayor or Burgomeister or First Burgomeister but never Oberbürgermeister.

Hmm, I thought I had taken that directly from HRS, but I don't have it on hand at the moment. Changed it to Erster Bürgermeister.

construction number: isn't the nautic term yard number?

Yup, and linked to yard number

it might be worth mentioning that Karl was the first capital ship (and second warship) build by B&V

Found a source for it so I'll work it in

Footnote a: it was the German practice at the time to spell ship names in all caps. Since there is no capital letter for eszett, Karl der Grosse is customly spelled with double-s, like e.g. SMS Strassburg.

• 1906-1914

1905 is covered in this section

Good catch, fixed

WWI

according to HSR the squadron was tasked with the defence of the Elbe estuary, slightly different from coastal defence, I would say.

I'd say there really isn't any difference - coastal defense isn't just defending the coastline itself, it's protecting against any kind of naval attack

forary: might be worth linking to wiktionary, the wp article is a bit misleading.

I don't generally like linking words that aren't jargony

show the flag, too.

That I think is a worthwhile link

Starting in October: the section is not supported by the reference cited. According to my book, she served as a training vessel until October 1915 and was decommissioned in November after having been disarmed already.

I'll have to check that again - might have mistranslated it.

prison ship: in my edition of Gröner (in German) there is no mention of Karl being used as a prison hulk, while HRS describes her as PoW accommodation (Kriegsgefangenenwohnschiff). According to Gröner, however, she served as Torpedo-Schießstandschiff in 1917, whatever that is in English.

Clarified that it was for PoWs, but it would otherwise be correct to call her a prison ship. As for Groener, I think you were looking at the entry for Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse.

ship-breakers: might be worth a link to ship breaking

Good idea

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC) PS: 11,599 seems to be the displacement in LT not MT according to Gröner.

I'll have a look and double check. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No external links (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (no action req'd - not an ACR criteria, suggestion only).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [4] (no action req'd)
  • "SMS Kaiser Karl der Grosse (His Majesty's Ship "Charles the Great") was a German pre-dreadnought battleship of the Kaiser Friedrich III class, built around the turn of the 20th century for the German Imperial Navy." Do we need to say "German" twice in the same sentence?
    • Good catch, removed the second one
  • "The ship's keel was laid on 17 September 1898 at the Blohm and Voss in Hamburg under construction number 136. She was ordered under the contract name "B" as a new ship of the fleet." Should the order of these sentences be switched? Logically (in my mind at least) the ship would be ordered before the keel was laid wouldn't it? (minor nitpick)
    • A very good point.
  • MOS for this heading is a bit off: "1906 – 1914". Shouldn't it be presented as fols: "1906–14"?
    • Yeah, I think that's right
  • Prose seems a little repetitive here: "The ships were readied for war very slowly, and they were not ready..." (readied and ready in the same sentence). Perhaps reword one?
    • Replaced the first one with "prepared"
  • Perhaps wikilink Prince Heinrich.
    • Added, good idea.
  • This seems to appear rather abruptly: "According to Article 181 of the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, Germany was permitted to retain only six battleships of the "Deutschland or Lothringen types". Perhaps mention the Germans were defeated as it provides the necessary context to this sentence?
    • A very good point, added a line on that.
  • Otherwise looks fine. Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks as always AC. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries. Those changes look good to me, added my support. Anotherclown (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2014 (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 by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Operation Rösselsprung (1944)

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

The airborne attack on Drvar and the attempt to kill Tito and decapitate the Yugoslav Partisan movement is one of the most enduring stories of Yugoslavia in WWII. Led by the only Waffen-SS airborne unit using parachute and glider insertion, it failed for a range of reasons, including fierce Partisan resistance and failures in planning and intelligence sharing. It has recently been enhanced using material from a number of publications in written in Serbo-Croatian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment/query -- Hi PM, I don't know if I'll get around to posting a full review, at least not for a while, but scanning it quickly I'm just curious: do sources address speculation of how post-war Europe might've been different if the mission had succeeded? If none of them really go into it, no prob, it's not for us to invent what-if scenarios that aren't given weight in the literature, and even if they do one could well argue that it opens up a can of worms re. articles on many wartime operations, but thought I'd ask... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I've seen, Ian. It's a bit like SS-GB, IMO, Geoffrey Robertson would have a field day with it. I tend to think that Yugoslavia would have been firmly in the Warsaw Pact post-1948, and the Soviets would have made sure of it. But it was actually a close-run thing, lots of lucky breaks as well as fanatical fighting by Tito's bodyguard battalion and others. Lucky the German intel guys didn't talk to each other, lucky the SS-paras landed on the cemetery rather than on the northside of town, lucky they didn't have any sensible contingency plans for the second drop, lucky the Brit sigs officer had the presence of mind to bring the radio etc etc. It must have given Tito a real scare. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Okay mate, tks for prompt response -- that's it for now but I'll keep the page on my watchlist... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Some units needed a convert template.

• got them all I think.

• consistency: northeast, south east. British and Australian English use a hyphen more often than not.

• all consistent now.

• "Importantly, the 4th Krajina Division of the 5th Corps was deployed between Bihać and Bosanski Petrovac": important why?

• Because of their positions in terms of the German thrusts, I've added a bit

• Words like Abwehr need to be translated.

• done

• I copyedited the article down to Partisan Intelligence per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, I'll get onto those points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

• The article notes that the British were aware that a German operation codenamed Rösselsprung is planned, not knowing where and when it would take place, so I'm wondering if the same passage would be better off noting that the Molotov thought that the British had more info on the attack than that and indicated this explicitly in his telegram to Korneev on 28 May. Apparently the Molotov's suspicion was based on Maclean's and Churchill's absence from Drvar at the time. (Source: Norman Naimark; Leonid Gibianskii: The Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944-1949 [5], p. 57) Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's great, Tom. I've added that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by nominator

• I am just squaring away some edits made by an enthusiastic and helpful editor who can read the Yugoslav sources far better than me. If you are planning to review, just relax for a tick, I'll have it sorted shortly, and will note it here when I'm done. Thanks everyone, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now got the additions into shape. I will now address the outstanding comments already here. Sorry about the delay. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment: The article should use Mrkonjić Grad, not "Mrkonjić-Grad". 23 editor (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

SupportComment: G'day, I've done a bit of copy editing, but I fear I may have gone too hard. As such, can you please review my changes and let me know what you think? If you are happy, I will continue at a later stage. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• No prob, Rupert. The prose got a little screwy as an unintended consequence of an enthusiastic ESL editor who began contributing after the nomination. Help would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Cheers, I've finished now and I've added my support. Very interesting article. Please check my edits and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [6] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [7] (no action req'd).
  • Most of the images have Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [8] (not an ACR req - suggestion only).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
  • Captions mostly look fine, one issue:
    • A couple use terms like "View of Drvar today" and "Tito's cave headquarters today" which are both obviously inaccurate as they weren't taken "today". Wonder if the actual date of the photographs should be used instead.
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a couple of wiki mirrors) [9] (no action req'd)
  • "Supreme Partisan Headquarters was located in the town of Drvar..." this seems to duplicate text in the last para "He established his headquarters nearby at Drvar..."
  • "...glider assault by 500th SS Parachute Battalion who..." → "...glider assault by 500th SS Parachute Battalion which..."
  • "...would be insufficient for the whole of 500th SS Parachute Battalion..." → "...would be insufficient for the whole of the 500th SS Parachute Battalion..."
  • Missing definite article here: "...500th SS Parachute Battalion began to parachute and glide onto..." → "The 500th SS Parachute Battalion began to parachute and glide onto..."
  • "Panther Group supported by Red Group overcame minimal resistance at the cemetery and Captain Rybka..." should just be "Rybka" removing rank after formal introduction per WP:SURNAME
  • "Initially, Tito had been in favour of continuation of the attack on the SS paratroopers..." → "Initially, Tito had been in favour of continuing the attack on the SS paratroopers..."
  • Otherwise looks very good to me. Quite an interesting episode. Anotherclown (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Rupert has fixed most of the grammar issues, I've done the rest. Thanks for the review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Got a few I missed too. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Given that the vast majority of soldiers in the airborne attack were from the 500th, I'd change assault force based on the 500th SS Parachute Battalion to "assault/attack by the 500th" in the lede.
• Do you have an ID for the additional panzer grenadier battalion attached to the 7th SS Div? I'm thinking that this might be a mischaracterization of the unit by the source as actual panzergrenadier units were scarce as hen's teeth in the Balkans until later in the war. In fact the only viable candidates that I can think of are the 902nd Panzergrenadier-Lehr Regt or just possibly a unit from the still-forming 16th SS-Panzergrenadier Div RFSS. It is most probably a motorized infantry or even a line infantry (grenadier) unit, but I can't be sure with most of my library in storage.
  • No, it was from 2nd Panzer Army direct-command troops, and according to Greentree, it was an ad hoc kampfgruppe formed using officer cadets. All sources refer to it as "panzer-grenadier".
    • Then I'd suggest clarifying that it was an ad-hoc formation, so as not to confuse people like me, who probably know more about the German order of battle than is good for them (admittedly a rarity).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I've added it from Greentree, he's the only one that mentions it. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I think that there's some confusion here. I'm talking about the panzer grenadier unit mentioned in the 4th bullet in the ground forces section. That's the one that's confused me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm looking across all the sources to check, I think it's actually a duplication. Should have it sorted today, Kumm should be pretty definitive as he has translations of the corps and divisional operation orders. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
            • It was a duplication, there was only one, the one of officer cadets. I've checked the sources and the narrative of the battle, and there is only one mentioned. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Munoz's book Forgotten Legions: Obscure Combat Formations Of The Waffen-SS, has the best account in English of the operation that I've read. Why wasn't it consulted?
  • I don't have access to a copy, but there are plenty of good accounts in English, in scholarly papers, as well as the Yugoslav books.
    • Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
• Should clarify that the Partisans are in red and the Axis in blue on the maps.
  • Done in the first map.
• Put all of the English-language the titles in your references in title case.
  • Done.
• Images appropriately licensed.
• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I believe I've addressed all your comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:11, 24 September 2014 (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 by TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina

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

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently listed as a good article, and I believe it meets the MILHIST A-Class criteria. It was a significant revolt that preceded the communist-led uprising that occurred in Yugoslavia post the launching of Operation Barbarossa, and was in direct response to massacres of Serbs in eastern Herzegovina carried out by the fascist Ustaše regime in the Axis puppet state—the Independent State of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work so far. Overall, I found it to be a comprehensive, well-referenced article on a topic that would be very difficult to write about neutrally. Overall, I believe that it is close to promotion to A-class, and I have a few suggestions (mainly copyediting):

• there are lots of maps, which is great, but the article might benefit from an historical photograph if one exists - if there is only one, it would probably work best in the infobox;
• the lack of units on the rebel side of the infobox looks a little odd. If there were no formed units, perhaps you could add "No formed units" to the infobox;
• the opening sentence of the lead might work better if the title construction was dispensed with. For example, "In June 1941 local Serbs rebelled against the authorities of the Independent State of Croatia in an uprising in Eastern Herzegovina...";
• in the lead, "ruling Ustaše began pursuing a campaign" --> "ruling Ustaše began a campaign";
• in the lead, "a campaign" --> perhaps we could be more descriptive about the type of campaign here "e.g. military campaign";
• "several village gendarmerie posts" --> "several gendarmerie village posts";
• "From 3 July, a NDH" --> From 3 July, an NDH";
• "the surrender of weapons had been very poor, the deadline for the surrender of weapons..." --> "the surrender of weapons had been very poor, the deadline...";
• "the newly-raised Home Guard..." --> "the newly raised Home Guard..." (remove the hyphen);
• "locations; 6th Battalion at Mostar, 7th Battalion at Trebinje, and the 10th Battalion in the Dubrovnik area" (I suggest adding "the" in front of 6th and 7th);
• not sure about some of the language used, for instance words like " brutally", "ruthlessly" and "crimes" etc may be seen as espousing a point of view and might be against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch;
• "seized on a range of supposed grounds" --> I'm not sure about this, "supposed" implies a point of view to me. I'd suggest just saying "seized";
• "sent the 2nd company of the 7th Battalion" --> "sent the 2nd Company of the 7th Battalion" (capital letter if 2nd Company is a proper noun);
• "Ustaše Commissioner for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jure Francetić" (second comma after Francetic);
• "Turks" was a derogatory term used by Serbs to refer to Muslims, who were a reminder of when the Serbs were under Ottoman rule" --> " "Turks" was a derogatory term used by Serbs to refer to Muslims, in reference to when the Serbs had been under Ottoman rule"?
• "According to Marijan, this choice..." (perhaps you could state who Marijan is and why they are commenting here?)
• "7th Battalion in Bileća, the balance of the 7th Battalion being divided between Gacko and Avtovac, and a..." --> " 7th Battalion in Bileća (the balance of the battalion being divided between Gacko and Avtovac), and a ...";
• "resulted in the spread of rumours that the town had fallen to the rebels" --> "resulted in rumours that the town had fallen to the rebels";
• "the commander of Adriatic Command, General Ivan Prpić" (second comma after Prpic);
• "across the Mostar-Nevesinje road" (endash between the two elements in the road);
• "with 14 Home Guards being captured" --> "with 14 Home Guardsmen being captured"?
• "uprising there on 28 June, which is the feast day of Saint Vitus" --> "uprising there on 28 June, the feast day of Saint Vitus...";
• stopped at the start of the 27-28 June section. I'll come back later and see how this is progressing. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Rupert, done down to here. These are my changes. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    • G'day, PM, your changes look good, continuing below. AustralianRupert (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
• "This advice was clearly taken seriously, as the Army Chief of Staff General Vladimir Laxa..." --> "Army Chief of Staff General Vladimir Laxa..."
• "the company of the 6th Battalion were attacked..." --> "the company of the 6th Battalion was attacked..." (singular company or collective group?)
• "reconnoitre around the rebel positions towards Odžak" --> "reconnoitre the rebel positions towards Odžak"?
• "two Italian Army trucks were driving from Bileća to Avtovac when they were ambushed by rebels..." --> "two Italian Army trucks driving from Bileća to Avtovac were ambushed by rebels..."
• "180 Home Guards that" --> "180 Home Guardsmen who"
• "... success and the opening of the road from Berkovci north to Odžak" --> "...success and opening of the road from Berkovci north to Odžak" (remove "the" before "opening")
• in the aftermath, "...neither the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović or the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (Serbo-Croatian: Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, KPJ) had anything to do with it". I could be wrong as I am reading this while up late/early watching the World Cup, but this seems to imply that there is a counter theory or belief (i.e that some people think they were involved) but does not seem to clearly state this or explore it fully. Can it be refactored to clear this up? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • All done, please check the final one. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I reviewed at GA and have looked over the recent changes following AR's review and the article again and believe it meets our A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer, down to 23–24 June 26 June. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Link battalion, mayor, prefect, and Sarajevo (and the other major towns referred to on first use)
• Shouldn't "Prohuska" be "Prohaska"?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • All done. Good pick up on Prohaska! Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments - excellent article, not much to nitpick.

• "As the response to the demand for the surrender of weapons had been very poor" - it seems like a word is missing here - perhaps "response to the demand for the surrender of weapons, which had been very poor" would work better?
• I might link to strafing (in the 26 June section)
• Since there's only one journal, does it make sense to split it into its own section?
• The campaign box below the infobox and the navbox at the bottom seem to be largely redundant. Does one add anything that the other doesn't have? Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • All points taken on board, these are my edits. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Great work as usual! Parsecboy (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2014 (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 by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood (naval)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

As my first ACR in a rather long time, I'd like to present Operation Goodwood for consideration. This article covers a series of major aircraft carrier strikes the Royal Navy launched against the German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in northern Norway. It was hoped that the scale of these attacks would wear down the German defences, but the operation ended in a rather embarrassing failure for the Royal Navy. The article builds on my work on the other major carrier raids on Tirpitz; FA Operation Tungsten (covering a fairly successful operation) and A-class Operation Mascot (another failure).

I've developed the article drawing on a large range of sources, and think that that it provides a comprehensive account of this operation. The article was assessed as GA in early July, and I again thank Ian Rose for his excellent feedback and edits in the GAN. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Maybe mention that Wolf Junge (in infobox) was the commander of Tirpitz? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea; I've just added that Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I found nothing to change, down to Attacks ... Thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Support -- I reviewed, copyedited and passed at GAN, treating it as an ACR-in-waiting. Having checked changes since then I see no reason it shouldn't pass here, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support with comments

• Date in infobox could be simplified to "22–29 August 1944"
  • Done
• A map with broader coverage might be more helpful to locate the area for unfamiliar readers
  • I'll keep looking
• "Despite the strength of the anti-aircraft units at Kaafjord, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) had few fighters stationed at the nearby airfields" - think you might do more to explicitly connect these two
  • Not sure what I was thinking there... I've removed the first half of the sentence as it's a bit pointless.
• Were the intercepted radio messages sufficient to determine their plans, or only their presence?
  • Only their presence: I've replaced 'intercepted' with 'detected' which should be clearer
• Only see 20 Corsairs in the Opposing forces section but then 24 in the actual attack - where were the other four?
  • oops - I can't add up. There were actually 30 Corsairs onboard HMS Formidable (18 with 1841 Squadron and 12 with 1842 Squadron). Fixed.
• Times: what time zone are we in, and do you prefer to use lowercase or uppercase AM/PM? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Local Kaafjord time, and I prefer uppercase and have standardised on this. Thanks very much for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments - not much besides nitpicks:

• "22nd" is incorrect per the MOS (I know, I find it rather frustrating to not be able to use the construction but it is what it is)
  • I think that I'll treat that this an exception to the MOS as that guidance isn't sensible in this context Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Sure, Tirpitz might have been able to break out into the Atlantic, but the Germans would never have done that by that late in the war, so is it worth mentioning?
• "pass over the minefield" - shouldn't it be "pass through the minefield"?
  • Yep, changed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• "first detected the British fleet...were detected" - can we reword that to remove the repetition of "detected"? Maybe something along the lines of "The Germans were alerted to the presence of the British fleet on 21 August when radio messages from the carriers were detected."
  • That's a big improvement, thanks Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• "500 pounds (230 kg) bombs" - I suspect there's a convert template that needs the |adj=on parameter
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• I'd link to armor-piercing shot and shell in the 24 August section
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Might it be worthwhile to include a photo of Tirpitz in the article?
  • Aerial photo of her mooring added Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• I find it odd that historians have concluded that the Barracudas weren't capable of carrying bombs large enough to sink or otherwise incapacitate the ship, given that the Germans themselves concluded that had the 1,600lb bomb that hit the ship on 24 August exploded, the damage would have been severe. Just a general comment though, nothing for you to address. Great work on the article! Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That is a good point, though the RN also apparently came to the same conclusion. I suspect that the issue is that due to the strength of the defences and slow speed of the Barracudas, the best that could be hoped for from FAA attacks was one or two lucky hits per raid, and the 1,600 bombs couldn't be relied up on to inflict enough damage in such small numbers. The USN also found that it really needed to pound the modern Japanese battleships when carrier based aircraft were used. The fact that a glancing hit from a Tallboy bomb in September 1944 was enough to cripple Tirpitz after repeated attacks from carrier aircraft didn't badly damage her says a lot about the superiority of heavy bombers in this role. @Parsecboy: thanks a lot for the review, and sorry that it took me a few days to respond. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [10] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [11] (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text [12] (no action req'd).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • One duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • HMS_Victorious_(R38)
      • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
    • Brown (1977), p. 37 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Roskill (1961), p. 160 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Roskill_160 (Multiple references are using the same name)
      • All fixed
  • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a website with material that appears to have been copied from wikipedia) [13] (no action req'd)
  • Maybe wikilink "capital ship" to explain what one is?
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Perhaps vary language here to avoid repeated word "force / forced": "To counter this threat, the Allies were forced to keep a powerful force..."
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Repeated word "detected" here: "The German forces in Norway first detected the British fleet on 21 August, when radio messages from the aircraft carriers were detected." Consider something like: "The German forces in Norway first detected the British fleet on 21 August, when radio messages from the aircraft carriers were intercepted."
  • Agree an image of Tirpitz would be good if available.
    • Both fixed as above Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2014 (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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

German cruiser Prinz Eugen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

A slight change of pace - or at least from the seemingly endless overhauled pre-dreadnought articles. This ship was Bismarck's consort during the May 1941 operation, and she was one of only two major German warships to survive the war intact. I wrote this article a while ago (back in 2011) so it might need a little work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Her anti-aircraft battery was to have consisted of twelve 10.5 cm (4.1 in) L/65 guns, twelve 3.7 cm (1.5 in) guns, and eight 2 cm (0.79 in) guns. The ship also would have carried a pair of triple 53.3 cm (21.0 in) torpedo launchers abreast of the rear superstructure. The ship was to have been equipped": Everything else in this section is simple past tense; I'm not getting the point of the change in tense.
  • Probably because I copied that section from one of the unfinished ships in the class and didn't fix it ;) Thanks for catching it!
• "OKM": Write it out at first occurrence
  • Good point, fixed.
• "remained in their stations": slightly jargony. "... relative positions", maybe?
  • Yeah, I can see that - have a look at how it reads now.
• I copyedited the article down to Operation Cerberus per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Nice work as always Parsecboy: this article provides a good summary of the history of a famous, though somewhat under-achieving, ship. I think that this meets the A-class criteria, but I have the following comments for your consideration:

• "Prinz Eugen saw extensive action during Operation Rheinübung" - not sure about 'extensive' in this context: the term is usually used for ships who saw lots of combat over time, not a couple of clashes
  • Good point, removed.
• " As designed, her standard complement consisted of 42 officers and 1,340 enlisted men" - Not sure if it belongs in the class article rather than here, but can it be explained why the crew was so huge for a heavy cruiser?
  • Well, it's really not all that large for a ship of her size - for instance, the smaller US Cleveland-class cruisers had a crew of almost 1,300 and the Baltimores topped 2,000 officers and enlisted. Remember that these cruisers were as large as the battleships of 20 years earlier (and not to mention the proliferation of anti-aircraft weaponry and other equipment).
• "Prinz Eugen and the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were continually threatened by Allied air attacks while stationed in Brest, so Adolf Hitler ordered their return to Germany in early 1942" - wasn't Hitler's overall motivation a belief that there was an imminent threat to Norway, and that all of his heavy ships needed to be there, rather than concern about the raids on Brest? If so, you might want to tweak this. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a good point - I've added a bit on the "zone of destiny", as Hitler apparently referred to Norway. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

CommentSupport The article puts a lot of emphasis on Operation Rheinübung in comparison to the German fighting retreat in Eastern Prussia of early 1945. The fact that her commander Hans-Jürgen Reinicke was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, the only commander of Prinz Eugen so honored, is not (yet?) mentioned. He received the award for Prinz Eugen artillery support in the area of Riga and Tukums (Operation Doppelkopf) and for covering the naval evacuation of the German forces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll pull some information from his article - nice work expanding that by the way.

I think I've added everything from Reinicke's article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• According to Koop and Schmolke page 154: Action on 29–31 January 1945: Prinz Eugen along with destroyer Z25 and torpedo boat T33 in support of the XXVIII Corps supported the bridgehead Cranz and fired 871 20.3cm rounds.
  • This was referenced in the article but additional details from K&S have been added.
• According to Koop and Schmolke page 154: 10 March actions start in the area of Gotenhafen and Danzig. Prinz Eugen fired 2025 20.3cm and 2446 10.5cm rounds. Prinz Eugen is supported by Schlesien and as of 25 March by Leipzg.
  • Added, thanks for these details
• Vizeadmiral Bernhard Rogge led the task force from 10 March to 22 March
  • Added too.
• Prinz Eugen is also mentioned in conjunction with the Amber Room. see Bernsteinzimmer oder Bernsteincabinett: Auf der Suche nach der Wahrheit
• The builder should be added to the infobox
  • Good idea
• Hans-Erich Voss, Hitler's liaison officer, commanded Prince Eugen from October 1942 to February 19432. Koop & Schmolke page 160
  • Can you double check those dates for me? Oct 42 to Feb 43 I'm assuming? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • yes MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Added now.
• The original ship bell of the SMS Tegetthoff was handed over to Prinz Eugen on 22 November 1942. The presentation was made by the Italian Contrammiraglio de Angeles. Koop & Schmolke page 182-183
  • Added.
• Koop & Schmolke state (page 160) that her ship bell now resides in the Washington Naval Museum and the Tegetthoff bell is in Graz.
  • Don't know why I didn't think of that - I've seen the Prinz Eugen bell in Washington. Good catch! Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Sorry for bringing this up piecemeal... Koop & Schmolke page 159 state that the US crew had difficulties handling the propulsion system. Apparently 11 of 12 boilers failed after the last German crew left the ship on 1 May 1946. Koop & Schmolke speculate that this may have influenced the decision to use her as a target ship. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a problem at all - these are all great additions to make. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
• I am a bit confused about the propulsion system. Koop & Schmolke page 157 state 135,000 WPS (shaft power?), the infobox says 100,000 hp (75 MW) and the main body says 132,000 shaft horsepower (98,000 kW). In the class article it reads "Admiral Hipper's and Prinz Eugen's boilers were manufactured by Wagner, while the boilers for the other three ships were built by La Mont." Koop & Schmolke page 36 state La Mont boilers were used in Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen while the other three ships used Wagner boilers. Could you check into this please? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It was an error on my part - Gröner confirms La Mont for Hipper and Eugen and Wagner for the rest. I'll fix it over there as well. As for the infobox, I'm guessing that was from before I overhauled the article and I missed when I updated the infobox. Thanks for catching it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am done. Maybe check HRS which seems unused as a reference so far. good job overall MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Stopping my copyedit/review for the night having done top and tail, leaving war service still to do -- pls let me know if any issues. Two comments while I think of them:
  • The "Notes:" label in the infobox looks a bit silly to me with the footnote next to it. Since the label's there anyway, why not just write "Figures are for the ship as built" right there and dispense with the footnote?
    • Sounds fine to me.
  • I find parts of the first two paras of Service history somewhat convoluted, as though there are multiple versions of the same thing written by different people. The commissioning is mentioned three times, with gaps in between. First it's in an introductory sentence: "The ship was launched on 22 August 1938 and completed two years later, on 1 August 1940, the day she was commissioned into the German fleet." Then there's details of the launch. Then we mention the commissioning again, and its delay owing to an air attack. Then we start a new para and mention the commissioning a third time, again with reference to an air attack shortly before, but apparently a different one... Since the lead summaries her laying down, launch and commissioning in one sentence already, I think it'd be better if we just stuck to a strict chronological sequence of events here, telling us everything about the launch, then everything about the commissioning, and not mixing/repeating things. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
    • A result of some careless restructuring - the construction details had originally been in the design section and I wasn't paying attention when I moved it to the service history section (though there were in fact two authors of the material, so you weren't far off!
• Resuming copyedit/review with the wartime history, I just wanted to say that although I'm pretty familiar with details of Operation Rheinübung, I still found this account very well written, as though I was reading it for the first time, so well done.
  • Many thanks.
• Structure and level of detail seem fine. Aside from what I copyedited (pls check I haven't misunderstood anything), no concerns beyond those above.
  • Everything looks good to me.
• No issues stood out re. image licensing.
• Source review revealed just one formatting issue that I corrected.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks as always, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No sweat -- fine work as usual, Nate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2014 (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 by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

USS Mahan (DD-364)

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because: Mahan was the lead ship of the Mahan-class destroyers. Commissioned in 1936, her design incorporated a number of betterments over previous destroyers. She took part in several major Pacific campaigns. In 1944 Japanese suicide planes overwhelmed Mahan in the Philippine Islands, where the ship was abandoned and sunk by a US destroyer. This article passed GA review in January 2014, and has since undergone some changes. Thanks to those who might find the time to review the article. Pendright (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Pendright (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC):

Support Comments: G'day, just a couple of quick suggestions from me at the moment: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• in the lead, I suggest tweaking the first sentence: "USS Mahan (DD-364) was the lead ship of the Mahan-class destroyers in the United States Navy" --> "USS Mahan (DD-364) was the lead ship of the United States Navy's Mahan-class destroyers."

Done - Pendright (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• in the References, what is the title of the wider work that "Chapter 1" is a part of?

Chapter 1 - U.S.S. Mahan D. D. #364 is the actual title of the work. It’s the personal log of Paul Fleshman, who served aboard Mahan from September1938 until August 1944. - Pendright (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've tweaked the ref to add the extra bibliographic details. Please check you are happy with the edit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. Pendright (talk) 20:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Miller is listed in the References, but not used as a citation. I suggest either adding a citation to it, removing it, or adding it to a Further reading section;

The information related to Miller was removed from the article something ago, but I did not, obviously, remove Miller as the source. It has now been removed from the references. Thank you! - Pendright (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• if possible, I suggest cropping the images to remove the captions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I’m not sure I fully understand the suggestion. Pendright (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

G'day, sorry, I'll try to clarify. I'm suggesting that the text be removed from the image file so that all is left is the picture of the ship itself. For instance, in relation to File:USS Mahan 24 June 1944.jpg I'd suggest removing the text that appears in black and white at the top of the image – "Photo # 19-N-67752: Closeup view of USS Mahan, at the Mare Island Navy Yard, 24 June 1944" – and placing that text on to the image description page. I suggest similar action for File:USS Mahan bow 1944.jpg. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be possible to remove the stamp digitally rather than simply cropping it, since that would produce a rather thin photo. @Adam Cuerden: might be able to answer this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Very easily doable for the top label, but the bottom label will be a substantial amount of work; any chance we could get a higher-resolution image before I start? It's pretty much the same amount of work, but larger works better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd assume the photo is in NARA's holdings - we have a Wikipedian in residence who works there and might be able to lend us a hand. I'll ask him. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I am traveling right now (for Wikimania), but when I get back I'll pull [14], [15], and any Mahan photos I can find in [16] and see if there is anything I can do to have them digitized. Dominic·t 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that you'd be attending Wikimania ;) Thanks very much! Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Can you post on my talk page once they are digitized, please? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Adam, Parsecboy: I got back yesterday, and I found many photos of Mahan. I have uploaded the higher-resolution images scanned by myself of the image above, the photo it comes from (it is a slight crop), and three other photos of the ship. See below. I can't digitize a whole box, but let me know if there is a specific view you want me to go back and look for if these aren't enough. Dominic·t 18:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

@Dominic: This is amazing. It might be nice to have File:USS Mahan 24 June 1944.jpg and File:BB South Dakota.jpg if NARA has them - which are the other two illustrations on the page - but this is amazing, and I'm going to start right now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I can get those, but won't be able to upload them until Monday. I actually had that first one in my hand earlier today. But I am out of the office through Sunday for a conference (including leading a Wikipedia editing workshop for archivists). Dominic·t 20:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dominic: No worries. It'll probably take me a bit to get the current ones done, anyway. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if you've noticed, Adam, but the 3rd photo is the uncropped version of the lead image - that would be nice to have cleaned up a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have indeed. I'm thinking Second, third, then any others I'm asked for, plus the remaining two images from the article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "A US destroyer sank Mahan with torpedoes and gunfire" --> would it be possible to add a quick explanation as to why as this seems slightly counter-intuitive? I assume that this was done for a couple of reasons, possibly including the fact that if she remained afloat sensitive equipment could be captured/taken off her, and also that while floating she posed an obstacle to other ships transiting the area. I'm a footslogger, though, so I'm only guessing. Your explanation wouldn't have to be too long. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2014 (UT)

Done - The addition is short but I believe accurate. Pendright (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• It seems rather abrupt to jump from fleet training in 1937 to the Japanese striking at Pearl Harbor. Could you add some context for non-experts? Maybe a line or two about rising tensions between the US and Japan by 1941 and Japan's decision to launch a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and other targets.

Context added, with citation - Pendright (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Revised context - Pendright (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I reworked it a bit more, how does that look to you? Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice improvement - thanks! Pendright (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• "En route to Noumea, New Caledonia, a Japanese submarine contact caused the battleship South Dakota and the destroyer Mahan, under Commander R. W. Simpson, to collide" - I think this should be reworded for a few things:
  • First, it might be better to separate Mahan's new commander from the collision - you might say something like "By [late 1942, or whenever he took command], Captain R. W. Simpson had taken command of Mahan."
  • It might need to be spelled out a little more - we both know that a submarine contact is a bad thing that forces one to take evasive maneuvers, and that's what caused the collision, but I'd wager that some won't. I also think it would be better to write about the collision more from the perspective of Mahan, since she's the subject of the article. Maybe something like: "En route to Noumea, New Caledonia, a Japanese submarine contact caused the American ships to take evasive action. In the confusion, Mahan and the battleship South Dakota collided; both ships were seriously damaged."
  • It would also be helpful to give the specific date of the collision - I assume it happened directly after the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands?

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The ships returned fire, shooting down eight of the ten planes; the remaining two escaped." - I assume without having scored any hits? It might be good to make that explicit.

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The Japanese struck forcibly..." - would "forcefully" be a better word?

Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've made a few small changes, please check them to make sure they're ok. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 :(UTC)

Very good, thank you! Pendright (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• For the image in the "Armament" section, it would be good to describe what is in the image, because there is a lot of armament shown, but it isn't even touched on even though it is in the "Armament" section. Furthermore, it might not even be a bad idea to maybe reword it so that it doesn't imply that it is the entire ship.

Changed per your comments. Pendright (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Throughout the text, you should have "|alt=" for all of the images, to assist persons who are unable to see the images.

• I've gone ahead and added alt text to the images. Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Vanquished at Lae..." I would suggest neutralizing the wording here in the text so that it doesn't read so dramatically.

Changed the word to defeated - Pendright (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• "...before returning to the South Pacific to perish" Sounds a little ominous, and I don't think that it really belongs in the article because it feels like wording that should be in a book.

Removed the words to perish - Pendright (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would suggest renaming "Fate" to something like "Sinking", per the above rationale.

Renamed Sinking _ Pendright (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• The "Eplilogue" section also feels a bit like a book, so I am thinking that this could be reworded or just merged into the above section, since there really isn't much that makes it a separate section other than the quote.

Deleted the Epilouge section and included a reference to it in the Sinking section. Pendright (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• These are my comments for now, and I will add any more as I see fit. Otherwise, it's a good article, and I would have no problem supporting it in the near future. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In light of the above changes, I Support this nomination. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2014 (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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Les Holden

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Following on from Elwyn Roy King and Roy Phillipps, I present another Australian fighter ace of World War I whose article has been GA for some years before I expanded it with additional sources for a shot at ACR. Although his aforementioned fellows were the more successful aces, Holden had the most eventful post-war career in civil aviation. Like them, however, he died too early, in this case on a routine passenger flight after having survived numerous brushes with death during the war, not to mention the wilds of New Guinea in the earliest days of its air transport industry. Thanks in advance for all comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "the pair was": "the pair were"?
  • Heh, if this was BritEng I'm sure it would be "pair were"; the British like to treat collective nouns as plural, e.g. "the government were" and "the band were", etc, but in AusEng I think we can (or should) say "the government was" and "the band was", so I'd expect to say "the pair was" too unless I've missed something.
    • No clue about AusEng. In AmEng, noun phrases like "a number of people", "the pair of boys" and "a couple of hoodlums" (along with "a number", "the pair" and "a couple", if they mean the same thing) are universally plural, just like "two people" is plural. But: "The pair of shoes was on sale", because it's seen as one sale, a single item (usually singular in print, but not always). - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• "he and his wingman engaged a German two-seater in the vicinity of Saint-Quentin just after noon on 2 October, but the latter managed to escape": How about this? "Just after noon on 2 October in the vicinity of Saint-Quentin, he and his wingman engaged a German two-seater that managed to escape".
  • No problem with that, will alter.
• "led by the former commanding officer of No. 2 Squadron, Major (now Lieutenant Colonel) Watt": If he was a lt. colonel at the time, then it doesn't sound right to me to give him a title of "Major".
  • Yeah, I was trying to convey that when he was CO on 2Sqn he was a major, not a Lieutenant Colonel. Perhaps if I just say "led by Lieutenant Colonel Watt, the former commanding officer of No. 2 Squadron" then it still works?
    • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
• I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks for your edits, Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: G'day, as always, quality work, Ian. Not much for me to complain about really. I just have a couple of suggestions:

• "joining the 4th Light Horse Brigade" --> minor nitpick, but a soldier doesn't really "join" a unit, they are either "posted to" or "assigned to" (e.g. one joins a corps, but is posted to a unit). In this case, I believe Holden was assigned to the 4 LH Bde's headquarters element;
  • Mea culpa, I should know that...!
• "Serving as a driver first in the Middle East and then in France", I'd suggest moving the link/mention of the Western Front to here;
  • Okay.
• did he take part in any notable battles in the Middle East or France while serving in the light horse?
  • My guess is that I didn't find explicit mention of him doing so in the sources, but if I can usefully add something of the brigade's achievements during his posting then I'd be happy to do so.
• "he and his wingman engaged a German two-seater that managed to escape" --> "he and his wingman unsuccessfully engaged a German two-seater that managed to escape"?
  • Heh, this seems to be the most problematic sentence in the article (see above)... ;-) I think I'd be happy to say "unsuccessfully engaged a German two-seater." or simply leave it as is, but I feel that "unsuccessfully" and "managed to escape" together might be overdoing it, WDYT?
    • I'd go with "unsuccessfully engaged a German two-seater." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's true that a lot of copyeditors prefer one-word adverbs (unsuccessfully) to four-word clauses, if the meaning is the same. I try to pick my battles. So I can successfully escape. :) - Dank (push to talk) 11:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
• "Promoted to captain in March 1918, Holden was posted to England in May as a flying instructor with No. 6 (Training) Squadron at Minchinhampton.[1][15] Royal Air Force policy required pilots to be rotated to home establishment for rest and instructional duties after nine to twelve months in combat". I'd suggest switching these two sentences, as I think it would improve the narrative flow
  • Sounds fair.
• "were lost in their aircraft the Kookaburra" --> suggest adding a comma before "the Kookaburra". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Will do -- tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, always a pleasure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [17] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [18] (no action req'd).
  • Images have Alt Text [19] (no action req'd).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [20] (no action req'd)
  • " from altitudes as low as twenty or thirty feet..." I wonder if this should also be converted to metres? (suggestion only)
  • "In May 1921, he served with Malley and other veteran pilots as a pall-bearer at Colonel Watt's funeral...", probably should just be Watt, removing rank here as you have previously referred to him as Colonel Watt per WP:SURNAME.
  • There is an inconsistency between his date of birth in the article ("Holden was born on 3 March 1895"), and the lead and the infobox (both of which say 6 March 1895). Pls confirm which is correct.
  • Excellent otherwise. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Actioned all those, tks for reviewing and especially for spotting the inconsistent birthdates! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I made a few edits, but the article is easily up to scratch. Great work, Ian. Just one question—what does arguably mean in arguably the first flight from Sydney to New Guinea? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Arguably" wasn't a good word; the source said "probably" so I've changed it now to "possibly". The "tragic adjunct" wording did reflect the source but I don't have a big prob with losing it, would likely have caused a problem if it goes to FAC anyway. Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:27, 30 August 2014 (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 by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

HMS Formidable (67)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Formidable was one of the six armoured carriers that the UK began building before World War 2. She had a very active role during the war which included service in the Mediterranean, Home, Far Eastern and Pacific Fleets against the Italians, Germans, Vichy French and Japanese. Despite her armoured flight deck, she was badly damaged by German dive bombers. She was worn out by her wartime service and was scrapped as uneconomical to repair in 1953 after a brief period ferrying troops about shortly after the end of the war. I hope that reviewers will look for any surviving examples of AmEnglish and infelicitous prose as I plan to send this to FAC after it passes muster here.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Suppport - prose comments as requested follow!

• "after the latter had been crippled" could just be "after the latter was crippled"
• "Axis forces" - worth linking
• "The Royal Navy's 1936 Naval Programme authorized the construction of two aircraft carriers" - I'd break the sentence at that point; it's quite long otherwise.
• "the weight of the armour high in the ship " - "the weight of the armour so high in the ship "?
• "had a usable length of 670 feet (204.2 m) due to prominent "round-downs" at each end to reduce air turbulence and a maximum width of 95 feet " is the maximum width linked to the usable length? If not, I'd put "due to... turbluence" in commas. If it is, I'd go fo "and its maximum width of 95 feet" to make clear.
• " "round-downs" at each end " - they come up a couple of times, but I'm not 100% sure I'm imagining them correctly. Is there any chance of a footnote?
• "They were beginning to attack the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto when they were attacked by two German Junkers Ju 88 bombers although they were driven off by the escorting pair of Fulmars" - I'd have gone for a comma after "bombers"
• "During the Evacuation of Greece Formidable provided air cover from Convoy GA-15 on 29 April." I'd have gone for a comma after Greece
• "She sailed on 17 February to join " - given its starting the section off, I'd avoid using the pronoun here, and stick with the ship's name
• "Assigned to Force H for the operation," it's in the title, but not in the text. I'd advise "Assigned to Force H for Operation Torch". It's also worth reminding readers what the operation is; it's been a while since it was mentioned in the lead
• "By this time her air group" - again, as its beginning a section, I'd name the ship rather than using "her"
• " The detonation of the bomb killed 2 officers and 6 enlisted men and wounded 55 other crewmen and blew" - several "and"s". I'd go for "The detonation of the bomb killed 2 officers and 6 enlisted men, wounding 55 other crewmen and blowing" Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the very prompt review! I think that I've dealt with all of your comments. See if the explanation of a round down suffices and if my splitting the sentence regarding the bomb damage reads well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• A few problems that weren't easy to fix in VE:
• "She displaced 23,000-long-ton (23,369 t) at standard load "
• "By the war's end the ship was all six of her original ...": ?
• "take offs": I'm not positive what the options are in BritEng (on WP, anyway), but I don't think it's two words.
• "Too far to intercept them before they could attack Ceylon, Force A departed ...": Too far away to intercept?
• "One of Formidable's spotted": ?
• "further searches failed to locate them. They failed to locate the First Air Fleet again until 8 April": Does this work? "further searches failed to locate the First Air Fleet again until 8 April"
• More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think that I've fixed all of these; see how they read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks good. I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [21] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [22] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [23] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
  • One duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • HMS Indomitable (92)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [24] (no action req'd)
  • In the lead: "HMS Formidable was an Illustrious-class aircraft carrier built for the Royal Navy during World War II." Is this strictly accurate? From reading the article it was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1939 so the bulk of the construction would seem to have occurred before the war started?
  • Repetitive prose here: "although one Fulmar was also forced to force-land...", perhaps reword?
  • "Formidable arrived at Alexandria on the following day...", consider wording more simply as "...Formidable arrived at Alexandria the following day..."
  • not sure about capitalisation here: " to attack British Forces in the Indian Ocean...", specifically think it should be "British forces" (not really a proper noun here I think).
  • "where she embarked 24 Martlets of 888 and 893 Squadrons, 12 Albacores of 820 Squadron and 6 Seafires of 885 Squadron...", should Seafire be wikilinked?
  • Repetitive: "after it had surrendered to a Supermarine Walrus amphibian after..." (after)
  • "After several weeks of working up, Formidable departed Gibraltar on 14 January to join the British Pacific Fleet"... British Pacific Fleet should be wikilinked here I think (its only linked in the lead).
  • "She arrived in Sydney on 10 March after several...", Sydney should be wikilinked (or at least state that it is in Australia as opposed to Nova Scotia). Perhaps also mention that this was the location of the main BPF base as some readers might not understand why it went there.
  • is there a missing word here: " and then turned sharply to dive into the forward flight..." should it be "flight deck"?
  • "had her hangar refitted to accommodate Allied ex-PoWs...", abbreviation for prisoner of war needs to be introduced before use.
  • Only a few minor prose and MOS issues, otherwise a high quality article for sure. Anotherclown (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • All done, although PoWs was spelled out in the lede. Thanks for going through this with a fine-toothed comb.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• "engage the Japanese fleet" seems like an odd piping for the Indian Ocean raid - might be better to shift it right a few words (or maybe even reword it slightly to "...unable to engage the Japanese fleet when it attacked British forces in the Indian Ocean raid.")
• Link knots on the first use.
• ""eight twin-gun turrets, four in sponsons on each side of the hull" - where were the other four guns? From the line drawing it looks like each sponson had two turrets. Is that correct?
  • Read this again; turrets is the immediate antecedent of the subordinate clause.
    • Yeah, that's what I'm saying (though I see that "the other four guns" is unclear) - the way it reads now, it sounds like only four of the turrets were in sponsons.
      • <light bulb> Ah, now I understand. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Looks good to me.
• Do we know the names of the two cruisers that escorted her on the hunt for Admiral Scheer? Rohwer is usually good for that kind of info.
• "the ship was unsuccessfully attacked by a pair of..." - might be unclear which ship we're talking about now, because we were just talking about trying to torpedo Vittorio Veneto
• Apparently, it's a bad idea to serve in the bow of a destroyer named Nubian ;)
• "take up his appointment of Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Fleet" - this doesn't seem right to me - is the first "of" the correct preposition here? I'd probably say "appointment as C-in-C..."
• The article jumps from preparing for Olympic to the post-war section - it needs to have at least a sentence noting the Japanese surrender. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I added a bit about the ceasefire in August, but didn't want to get into extraneous details. Let me know what you think. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    • It's fine to keep it to a minimum, but I'd rather you use the actual Japanese surrender on 15 August rather than their qualified acceptance of the Potstam declaration on 12 August. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
      • But the BPF left Japanese waters before the formal surrender on 15 August, so I think the qualified acceptance is the more important date for the BPF.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Well yeah, but they were scheduled to leave anyway after 10 August (which is to say the BPF left because it was scheduled to do so for maintenance/resupply/etc., not because the Japanese offered a ceasefire). The reason they didn't come back for Olympic is because the Japanese surrendered, not just the ceasefire offer (which did not end the war, anyway). Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
          • True, and I've added that bit. See how it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
            • That's fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2014 (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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Garnet Malley

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Another Australian fighter ace of World War I, Garnet Malley differs from the subjects of my recent similar noms in that he not only survived that conflict but managed to live to a relatively ripe old age. He's also notable for his association with Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists during the 1930s. His on-the-spot observations of air tactics in the Sino-Japanese War might've been of considerable assistance to Australia but unfortunately his apparent status-seeking in China seems to have led the RAAF to take his reports with a grain of salt. I recently expanded this for a successful shot at GA before adding further material that I think makes it A-Class-worthy. Special acknowledgement to Georgejdorner for the initial work that got it to around B-Class, and thanks in advance to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "founded the whitegoods firm Malley's Ltd": The source says it was a whitegoods-manufacturing firm. I doubt they were making refrigerators for the home in the 1890s; do you have any more specific information? - Dank (push to talk) 22:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Seeing as he was an ironworker by trade, manufacturing sounds plausible to me. From personal experience I know the firm produced its own range of fridges and washing machines like Kelvinator or Westinghouse. I don't think any of the sources say more than "whitegoods" or "whitegoods-maufacturing" but I'd have thought either was enough information regarding the family business, no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    • (For people who haven't heard the term: "whitegoods" means home appliances, which were typically white from roughly the 1930s through the 1950s.) John and I have looked around and can't find out when white enamel started showing up on home appliances, but I'm guessing it wasn't in the 1890s. You don't say that specifically, but the only date in that section is 1892. So there are a couple of things here that may make the reader pause: the term "whitegoods" doesn't seem apt and probably wasn't in use at the time, and if we're talking about 1892, most readers won't know what appliances you're talking about ... perhaps foot-pedal sewing machines and washing tubs with hand-wringers. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Fair enough but I think I'd best use terminology in the source -- perhaps if I simply link whitegoods it'd help? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Good enough. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• "Between the wars", "World War II and after": Per MOS, headings (like titles) are "normally" nouns or noun phrases. You've probably got a better sense of what "normally" means here than I do. I guess you could make the case that these are both occasionally (if not optimally) noun phrases, for instance in "Between the wars was a dangerous time." - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Always open to suggestions here. I sometimes use the term Interwar [or "Inter-war", which I think might be more appropriate in AusEng] years instead of Between the wars -- does that work better? For World War II and after, is World War II and later life an improvement? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure, but those are less likely to provoke a MOS objection. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
• I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks as always, Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [25] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [26] (no action req'd).
  • Images have Alt Text [27] (no action req'd).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a minor issues with reference consolidation:
    • APSC9 Multiple references are using the same name
      • Tks mate -- sorted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [28] (no action req'd)
  • A couple of references probably need to use title case, for instance:
    • # 34 "The late Col. Watt: Tributes in church and cemetery"
    • # 49 "The bombing of Darwin 19 February 1942 – the RAAF experience"
    • # 53 "Social news and gossip"
    • # 54 "Sydney's talking about"
      • My understanding for a long time has been that article titles use sentence case, but if I've missed something at MOS I'll be happy to revisit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Other than these very minor points I couldn't find any real issues. Anotherclown (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks mate -- I also tweaked a repeat instance of "Colonel Watt" in this article based on your comment in the Les Holden review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries. You forced me to examine my own assumed knowledge about the MOS. Per MOS:ALLCAPS it says: "Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles from all caps to sentence case or title case", so I guess neither is wrong. Anotherclown (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Nice work as always Ian. I think that the A class criteria are met here, and I have only the following suggestions:

• "he was apprenticing as a mechanic at Malley's" - could this be "he was an apprentice mechanic at Malley's" given that 'apprenticing' is uncommon usage (especially given this is typically a long-term arrangement)
• "He subsequently toured the country in support of the Peace Loan" - could 'in support of' be replaced with 'to promote' or similar to make this sentence clearer?
• "That April, he was a member of the citizens' committee responsible for organising and funding the search for the missing Southern Cross and its crew." - given that the aircraft survived this incident, a little bit more background on what the crisis was might be helpful here (especially as the article on the plane doesn't mention it) Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks Nick -- agree all those, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Support: nothing for me to pick fault with that I could see. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2014 (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 by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Æthelwold ætheling

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

Æthelwold was the son of Alfred the Great's older brother, King Æthelred I, and he thus had a strong claim to the throne of Wessex. He rebelled after Alfred's death, but was killed at the Battle of the Holme. He has been described as "one of the 'Nearly Men' of early medieval Europe". Dudley Miles (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

This article seems to me of FA quality, rather than A class, and I shall have no difficulty in adding my support. A few minor comments, none of which affect my support for the promotion of the article:

• Background
  • "Æthelwulf, who succeeded in 839, were successful in resisting them. Æthelwulf died in 858, and he was succeeded by four sons in succession" – rather too many successes here?
    • Revised. OK now?
  • "kings should be adults, so he was succeeded" – mine is an old fashioned view, I know, but I don't consider "so" a conjunction. Many disagree with me, and I just mention the point. (Further examples later in the text, too, if I have converted you to my point of view, but I'm perfectly prepared to be overruled.)
    • It is recognised by the Oxford and Cambridge online dictionaries, but I have no strong feeling either way. Any suggestion for an alternative?
      • Fine as it is. I just raised the matter and am not pressing my views on you. Tim riley talk 11:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "and nearly conquered Wessex" – is this the same as "conquered most of Wessex?" If so, perhaps more precise to say the latter.
    • "nearly succeeded in conquering Wessex" would be more accurate, but it would be another 'succeeded'. I cannot think of a better wording.
• Early life
  • "ambiguous and vague - and deliberately so" – I think the MoS would have you use either a spaced en-dash or unspaced em-dash instead of the hyphen here, regardless of how the source is punctuated. See WP:Manual of Style#Typographic conformity. The same goes for later instances, such as one half-way through the quote about Alfred's will.
    • Done. (I have never understood the rules, but some expert seems to come along and correct it when I get it wrong.)
      • That's a very practical approach to the matter. Tim riley talk 11:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "his rebellion against Edward soon after Edward's death" – I know this is in a quote, but I don't see how you can rebel against somebody after he's dead.
    • Typo corrected.
• Æthelwold's Revolt
  • "in the view of historian Pauline Stafford" – my apologies for riding a hobby-horse, but this is an example of an anarthrous nominal premodifier, perfectly good in American English, but in these isles widely regarded as tabloidese. The insertion of a definite article before "historian" would solve the problem.
    • Done.
  • "delegitimise" -- a word unknown to the Oxford English Dictionary. Perhaps “invalidate”?
    • I wondered about that and checked with the Oxford online dictionary, which does have it. I do not think 'invalidate' would be right. Would you prefer "present a politically important marriage as illegitimate"?
      • What's good enough for the OUP online is good enough for me. Tim riley talk 11:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "may be Holme in Huntingdonshire (now part of Cambridgeshire)" – would the name Huntingdonshire have been applicable at the time? If not, it seems unnecessary to mention it here: "Holme in Cambridgeshire" would suffice.
    • Changed. An interesting point. I cannot find how far it goes back on a quick search, probably to the later Anglo-Saxon period. I think historians of Anglo-Saxon England tend to give the old counties because they like the continuity back to their period and resent losing it in the 1974 reorganisation.
  • "Æthelwold was amongst the leaders" – mere personal preference, but I never know what "amongst", "amidst" and "whilst" have got that "among", "amid" and "while" haven't, apart from unnecessary letters.
    • Changed. (I rather like the word amongst, but you are right.)
• Legacy
  • "According to historian Martin Ryan" – another anarthrous nominal premodifier.
    • Changed.
  • The quotation marks in the block quote are another case where the MoS bids us silently replace the punctuation of the original with WP's standard: the single quotes should, I think, be doubles.
    • Changed.
• Sources
  • ISBNs – most are hyphenated, but a few are not. By the bye, it doesn't matter here, I think, but when you get to FAC you may like to reflect that there is evidently a convention, not enshrined in the MoS as far as I know, that ISBNs are all given in either the 10-digit version or in the 13-digit form, and not a mixture of both: WorldCat will oblige.
    • I will check this out. I did once change the hyphenation for consistency, and it was not recognised as an ISBN, so I have assumed since then that I had to stick to whatever was in the source.
      • I'd be happy to do the necessary before you go to FAC if you give me the nod. Tim riley talk 11:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Many thanks Tim. The only problem is that I was planning to ask you to look at List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London at peer review, and it does not seem reasonable to ask you to do both. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Entirely happy to do both. I shall be asking you in a week or so to look at an article, currently in one of my sandboxes, when it bursts forth into the main space. It will be almost up your street, I think, despite jumping straight from prehistory to William Rufus, missing the Saxons, alas. As to the ISBNs here and the List of nature reserves, just drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to look in. Tim riley talk 15:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Blunt, C. E. … cited in british and irish archaeological bibliography" – capitalisation.
    • Changed.

That's all from me. I look forward to adding gladly add my support. Tim riley talk 16:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your very helpful review.

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

• "Primogeniture": link, maybe.
  • Done.
• "before the witan at all, That it did": probably something missing
  • No, it is correct. Sadly, Smyth did not have Dank to copy edit! I have just noticed that it was my error. I put a comma instead of a stop. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I had left out 2 sentences as I was concerned they would make the quote too long, but on second thoughts I have added them as they make his reasoning clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. Not a lot to do after your and Tim's sterling work. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Dudley's are always good, tightly written articles so I just have a few comments to follow my usual copyedits:

• I admit I had to read the last para of the lead twice as "Danes" on its own suggested invaders even though you'd qualified it earlier as "East Anglian Danes" -- would it be improper to refer to them as "East Anglians" where you simply say "Danes"?

• I think some readers might think East Anglians meant Anglo-Saxons so I have changed it to East Anglian Danes. (I think this is better for clarity even though it is repetiton.) Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Structure, detail and comprehensiveness seem fine to this admitted non-expert on the period.
• Nothing leapt out re. images and sources but I always feel more confident when Nikkimaria casts her eye over them... ;-)

Well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Lead image could stand to be a bit larger, and what sources were used to create it?

• There is no information on this and the author has not been active since 2008. Should I delete it? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is it possible to locate sources without the author's help? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• File:Coin_of_Alwaldus_(Æthelwold_ætheling)_c._900.jpg: given licensing status applies to coins - what is the status of the photo? See Commons:Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet and Commons:Commons:Coins

  I am confused here. The coin was scanned from a book, not the internet. The first link is to an article which does not exist and the second to the coins category. Can you advise further? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

  Was missing the second "Commons", fixed now, thanks. The issue is that taking a photograph of a coin generates a new copyright, for the photo itself. Since the coin was scanned from an image in a fairly recent book, if that photo is original to that book then it is quite likely still under copyright, even though the coin itself is long PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• File:Flag_of_Northumbria.svg: this likely isn't creative enough to warrant copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• This is on the Northumbrian monarchs template added by another editor. I do not know of any evidence that they had a flag at that date so I have deleted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Argh. Two out my three images do not have proper licensing. I do not know the source for the map, so I have replaced it with one copied from a 1910 book. It is not as good, but I assume there is no copyright problem. I have deleted the coin and will see whether I can track down an image which is old enough to be out of copyright. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have not been able to find an out of copyright image of an Æthelwold coin. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Source review

• Possible to provide page numbers for the Williams entries? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Done.

Thanks very much for your help Dudley Miles (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport - I've no expertise in this area but there doesn't seem much interest in reviewing at the moment so I will have a go.
  • No dab links [29] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [30] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [31] (not one of the A class criteria - suggestion only).
    • Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Images review completed above(no action req'd)
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [32] (no action req'd)
  • There seems to be some bibliographic information missing, including most works which are missing place of publication, while a few of the journal articles are missing publisher, location and issns.
    • I have added missing publishers and issns. I have never shown location and this has never been raised at FAC so I have assumed it is not a requirement. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Well I can't say I understand the mentality of providing an incomplete citation but each to there own I guess. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Æthelwold attempted to raise an army to support his claim, but he was unable to get sufficient support to meet Edward in battle, and he fled to Viking-controlled Northumbria, where he was..." The prose is a little repetitive here, specifically "he" is used several times and may be redundant in a few places, also an issue with one of the commas I believe. For instance consider: "Æthelwold attempted to raise an army to support his claim, but was unable to get sufficient support to meet Edward in battle and fled to Viking-controlled Northumbria, where he was..."
    • Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe it is customary for instances of multiple citations to appear in numerical order. For instance: "...he would live or die there".[38][35] should be [35][38]. Can these be re-ordered? (a nitpick I agree). Anotherclown (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks very much for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2014 (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 by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Schu–Sz)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because all the lists are finally complete. Reviewers please consider reviewing the "Sa–Schr" list as well. These two lists now complete the entire series. Due to size, I tried to split the list in two parts of equal size. The best way to achieve this was by extracting all those whose last name starts with "Sch", thus creating a list "S'" (note the apostrophe denoting a derivative of the letter S). Reviewers may feel that a different name is more appropriate, or that different split all together would also achieve the objective. I am open to suggestions. Thanks again to all of you who have helped bring this series to this state. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I read over the article per new standard disclaimer copyediting disclaimer, and found nothing to fix in the text. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is my tenth review of lists in this series, and all of the comments I have made during those reviews have already been addressed in this list.
• Werner Schrauth and Schubert? don't have citations for their ranks.
  • Thanks for catching this. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Same for their dates of award.
  • Thanks for catching this. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• Schwanbeck doesn't have a citation for date of award.
  • Thanks for catching this. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• all toolserver checks are green (no action needed)
• I am very impressed with the commitment and dedication you have shown in completing this series. I am sure thousands of hours have gone into it, you should be very proud of what you have achieved. Well done, supporting. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, the bulk of my 7+ years here have gone into this project MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Support: I made some tweaks to the notes; please check that you are happy with these. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to further improve the article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Gerhard Schaar is more commonly known as "Gerd". Since "Gerd" is short for "Gerhard", someone down the line might have thought it wise to use the extended version. But in my experience, the Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung is seldom wrong on names of ambassadors [33]
  • Hm, Fellgiebel, and Scherzer use the name Gerhard. I will check what Busch and Röll say. I am inclined to put the discrepancy in a footnote. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Busch and Röll also list him as Gerhard. I suggest that the name issue is first addressed in his article. Until this question is resolved, I suggest to keep him listed as Gerhard. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Eberhard Schäfer: "kingly Hungarian" or rather "Royal Hungarian"?
  • done, in other list now MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Gerhard Scheibe: "(radio/wireless)" should have included "operator"?
  • done, in other list now MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Wilhelm Schlüter, Karl Schümers, and Hans-Christian Schulze: Schupo should link to "Schupo (Nazi Germany)" rather than the present-day police formation.
  • done, in other list now MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oberwachtmeister has its own article know and can be linked.
  • done, in both lists MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• German National Archives are officially known as "German Federal Archives"
  • done, in both lists MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Hans-Joachim Schulz-Merkel: "battalion surgeon" might be a better translation of "Truppenarzt"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Wilhelm Schuncke: AOK = Armee-Oberkommando?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Kurt Schwarm: "Krad-Melder" would be a "dispatch rider"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
• Heinz Schweizer: "W" stands for "Waffenoffizier"?
  • Fellgiebel states "Feuerwerker" (pyrotechnician), added note MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on the comments made by Dank, I regrouped the recipients into two list "Sa–Schr" and "Schu–Sz". Some of the comments made by ÄDA - DÄP VA are therefor no longer applicable to this list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Comment

• Schweitzer is not listed in either issues of "von Seemen" What do you mean by this? Editions? And why the quotation marks around his name? You don't use them when referencing him elsewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay. I reworded the section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It's better, but the word "issues" is confusing. Do you mean editions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Please check again. It should be clear now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2014 (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 MilHistBot (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

For a while now I've been collecting material for articles that never get written on the WWII campaign in the South of France. I found a book in Melbourne on Marshal Leclerc and bought it. His article was a mess, at least the English version was, so I fixed it up. And so here it is, an account of the famous Gaulliste de la Premier Jour. Visit his museum when in Paris. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Just a heads-up that I'm not pointing out things terms that might need translating.
  • It's hard to know what needs translating and what doesn't. As with German, there are some terms we military historians habitually render in the original language.
• "the only adjoining Free French territory that controlled Axis Powers": I don't know what that means.
  • Corrected to: Chad, the only Free French territory that shared a border with territory controlled Axis Powers, along its Sahara Desert border with Italian-controlled Libya. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: a departure from the normal, but still up to your usual standard! Interesting read. I have a few suggestions for you to consider and do with as you will:

• should this be in italics: "sous lieutenant" in the Early life section?

  Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• inconsistent presentation: "commissioned as a sous lieutenant" v. "He was promoted to Lieutenant" (caps and italics, as above);

  De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• wording: " In one action, two horses were shot under him" --> " In one action, two horses were shot out from under him"? (not sure about this one, though, I could well be wrong, so feel free to ignore);

  Not sure either. Gone with your version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• wording: "given early admission to the course for promotion to capitaine" --> "given early admission to the capitain's promotion course"? (this might be a little tigher)

  I wanted to make it clear that the course was for promotion to captaine, not a promotion course for a captaine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• inconsistent presentation: "World War II" and "Second World War", and also "World War I"

  French follows English: First World War (Première Guerre mondiale) and Second World War (Seconde Guerre mondiale). So we'll go with that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest starting a new paragraph at this sentence: "He broke his leg in two places in a fall from his horse in 1936..." (as it doesn't seem related to the information appearing in the paragraph before it);

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• capitalisation: "in the battle of the Falaise Pocket" --> "in the Battle of the Falaise Pocket" (for consistency with how you present the other battle names);

  Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Fortunately, the German commander..." (not sure that it is best to use "fortunately" here, as it implies a point of view, I think);

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• "This was taken as death sentence" --> "This was taken as a death sentence"?

  Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if a little more context should be added here: "As new CEFEO commander, Leclerc began in October 1945 in French Indochina, first breaking a Vietminh blockade around Saigon..." (for instance, clarification that they were attempting to regain their colonial possessions, which had been lost after the Japanese entered the war...(or something similar - I'm not an expert in this area, though, so my suggest might be overly simplistic). It probably wouldn't need much more than a short sentence)

  I didn't rewrite this section, as it was as long as I thought it needed to be, but it seems that the story is not well known. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  Okay, I have added some background. It's one of those things that gets more complicated the more that you know about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest attributing this quote in text: "like the Americans later, could conquer Vietnamese territory but could not hold it";

  Struck this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• "in the absence of d'Argenlieu" --> I don't think he has been mentioned before, perhaps a little more detail is needed (e.g. full name etc.) and why wasn't he there?

  D'Argenlieu appears in the Gabon section, conducting a mass. He then parades through Paris with Leclerc and de Gaulle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• "he warned that "anti-communism will be a useless tool unless the problem of nationalism is resolved" (warned by whom?)

  Added a bit more explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Leclerc was appointed Inspector of Land Forces in North Africa" (when?) --> e.g. something like this might be smoother: "A month after his return, Leclerc was appointed Inspector of Land Forces in North Africa..." AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I reviewed the nomination of this article for GA, so am quite familiar with it.
• I looked fairly closely at the prose when I reviewed it for GA, and have looked at the edits since I reviewed it. I am happy with the prose.
• Checklinks indicates a couple of the external links are unstable redirects or change domain.
• no alt text on images (not an ACR requirement)
• no indication of any copyvios.
• Ordre de la Libération in the infobox is rendered as Order of Liberation in the text, consistency.
  • Adjusted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• "He was unsuccessful in finding a solution" is probably unfair, it was Sainteny that was responsible for negotiations with the Vietminh. A more nuanced explanation is needed in the lead I think.
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• suggest refbegin and refend templates for the References section
  • Dine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• He is listed as being involved in the French Conquest of Morocco in the infobox, but Morocco was essentially conquered before WWI, and Le Clerc had nothing to do with that.
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Probably worth indicating his death occurred in Algeria in the lead.
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
• Will take another look tomorrow.
• I'm not sure about the French unit designations not being translated. We translate German units (with the notable exceptions of Panzer and Panzergrenadier, as they seem to be English terms now), and I rather think we should be doing the same with the French. ie 11th Chasseurs Regiment, 8th Moroccan Spahis Regiment etc.
  • We are doing the same with French. I don't know who decided that "panzer" and "panzergrenadier' don't get translated, but it was already the practice amongst English-speaking military historians in the 1940s. "Chasseur" and "Spahi" don't get translated either. So "11e Régiment de Chasseurs" in French could be rendered as "11th Chaussers Regiment" in English. The convention amongst English-speaking military historians is to not translate the abbreviations, so the 13th Demi-Brigade of the Foreign Legion is the 13e DBLE. (Similarly, the International Federation of Association Football is FIFA.) Now that I'm on top of the translation templates, I can render them this way, if there is support amongst the MilHist Project for this. I looked at existing articles like Régiment de marche du Tchad for guidance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Definitely need to get some consensus on it, I agree the terms like Chasseur should not get translated, but some explanation by way of a note might be useful. I'm familiar with the foreign initialisations, and I'm fine with that approach personally.
• I'm done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [34] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [35] (no action req'd).
  • Images have Alt Text [36] (no action req'd).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and mostly seem to have the req'd information:
    • One issue: date on File:Leclerc-casque.jpg is listed as 2 November 2013 which doesn't seem right.  Done
  • Captions mostly look fine:
    • One issue: "Tokyo Bay, Japan. Surrender of Japanese aboard..." should this be "Surrender of the Japanese aboard..."  Done
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [37] (no action req'd)
  • Use of abbrev "USA" - I think "US" is preferred but not sure.  Done
  • "Henri went on to serve with the RMT...", abbrev needs to be introduced.
    • Did this myself, pls revert if I got it wrong. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks fine otherwise. Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Most of my points are minor but I think the image date might be an issue moving forward. Is anyone able to fix this? Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Sorry I didn't check back sooner - all my points have now been addressed. Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2014 (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 MilHistBot (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another entry in the seemingly endless line of German battleships - and you thought we were finished, didn't you? Anyway, this ship had a fairly uneventful peacetime career and she saw no action during WWI. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review the article on its way to an eventual FAC. Parsecboy (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Consistency needed: sister-ship, sister ship
  • Don't know why I did that - all standardized to "sister ship"
• I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Footnote a: the German spelling differs because of the practice to spell ship names in capital letters. As there is no capital ß, SS is used. Some sources, (e.g. Gröner) use lower cases with ss rather than ß. German orthography was not standardized until some time later, though. Both versions are more or less correct.
• Design section: the 1pounders listed in the infobox are omitted. BTW are those the "tertiary battery" mentioned further down or does this refer to the 8.8cm guns? The class-article doesn't help either, referring to the 1pounders as "machine guns".
  • Fixed and/or clarified.
• Service history: Raeder was "a" watch officer, not "the" watch officer. There were several, and he was too junior to be 2iC.
  • A good distinction to make, thanks.
• "German Bight" might be a good candidate for linking
  • Added
• "gunnery drills": I would understand "Schießübungen" as target practice rather than practicing the handling of the guns, which could be done in port or elsewhere
  • I'd use the two (gunnery drills and target practice) as synonyms - one of course cannot practice gunnery skills simply by handling the guns.
• 1904 maneuvers: it's not clear from HRS that those landing forces where from IX Corps. It only says they joined the parade in Altona. Since Prince Heinrich later thanked his officers and men for their splendid performance on both occasions, I would assume that the landing forces consisted mainly of Seebataillon and landing parties from the crew of the ships, navy personnel in any case.
  • Does not "Auch der nächste Übungsabschnitt sah wieder eine Zusammenarbeit von Armee und Flotte, diesmal bei den Kaisermanövern des Garde- und des IX. Armeekorps." state that the Army and Fleet conducted joint maneuvers (and also imply that the earlier maneuvers before Altona were joint operations?)
• ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks as always. Parsecboy (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments -- just a placeholder, will aim to review this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Copyedited as usual so I'm happy with prose now if you are too.
• Structure and level of detail seem fine.
• References look good formatting- and reliability-wise.
• Image licensing seems fine.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [38] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [39] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [40] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
  • A few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Brandenburg-class battleship
    • Kaiser Wilhelm Canal
    • Deutschland battleship
      • All removed, guess I forgot to check this before :)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [41] (no action req'd)
  • Repetitive prose here: "The ships were readied for war very slowly, and they were not ready..." (readied and ready). Perhaps reword one?
    • Changed the first one to "prepared"
  • "He initially planned to launch a major amphibious assault on Windau..." perhaps add against which force this would have been conducted (Russians?)
    • Good idea
  • This sentence appears very abruptly: "According to Article 181 of the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, Germany was permitted to retain only six..." Perhaps add that it was signed after Germany's defeat or something to add context.
    • See how it reads now.
  • In the ref list: "German Naval Manoeuvres" and "The British and German Fleets" are they OCLCs or ISSNs available for these works (perhaps check Worldcat.org)?
    • Both added
  • Otherwise looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Support: I made a couple of tweaks, but not a lot stood out to me. I only have a cuple of nitpicks, but as I will be offline for the next three or so weeks after tomorrow, I'm happy to support for A-class in its current state. These are my comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• "File:High Seas Fleet.png" is lacking author and date information. If this is not known/stated, I'd suggest saying "1916 or before" and "Author not stated at source";
• the crew of 658-687 appears in the infobox, but does not appear to be discussed in the main body;
• is there a citation that could be added for Footnote d?
• in the References, compare "Amherst, New York" to "Osceola, WI".
• Otherwise, another quality article. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (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 MilHistBot (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Pobeda

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Pobeda was one of five Russian pre-dreadnought battleships captured during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She participated in all of the major naval battles of the war and was eventually sunk by Japanese artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur. After the war, she was refloated by the Japanese and incorporated into their navy after three years of repair. She was not very active in Japanese service, serving mostly in training roles, but her most significant service was during the Battle of Tsingtao during World War I and the Japanese besieged the German-held Chinese port. She was disarmed during the early 1920s in accordance with the Washington Naval Treaty and may have been broken up around the same time, although some sources suggest that she was not scrapped until the end of World War II. This article is bound for FAC and I trust that reviewers will point out any infelicities in the text or failures to adequately explain jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Pobeda was feet 5 inches (132.4 m) long overall, had a beam of feet 6 inches (21.79 m) and a draft of feet 3 inches (8.0 m).": This expands to: "Pobeda was feet 5 inches (132.4 m) long overall, Pobeda had a beam of feet 6 inches (21.79 m) and Pobeda a draft of feet 3 inches (8.0 m)." - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that I need a verb for the third clause?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
    • If "Pobeda was feet 5 inches (132.4 m) long overall, with a beam of feet 6 inches (21.79 m) and a draft of feet 3 inches (8.0 m)." works for you, go with that. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• "the flags had to be hung from the bridge railings without because": Does "without" mean "outside" here?
  • Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• "This proved to be to little avail": I don't follow.
  • Reworded, and thanks for the copyedit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
• I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I just took a quick look. A couple of observations:

• this seems inconsistent - in the infobox: "Launched 10 May 1900" v. in the text "The ship was launched 23 May 1900"
• in the infobox "Draft 26ft" v. in the text "draft of 26 feet 3 inches"
• in the infoxbox "Belt: 7-9 inches" v. "waterline armor belt consisted of Krupp cemented armor and was 4-9 inches". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Just a reminder, my comments above have not yet been addressed. As of tomorrow I will be offline for about three weeks. If these issues are resolved while I'm away, I'm more than happy for the article to be promoted. Overall, I believe it meets the A-class criteria, there are just a couple of minor inconsistencies to deal with. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry for overlooking your comments; they've all been fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries, your changes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments -- just a placeholder, will aim to review this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• Completed my usual copyedit so generally happy with prose but I wonder if the average punter knows what a second-class battleship is, because frankly I don't, and I couldn't see a direct link...
• Structure and level of detail seem fine.
• Reference formatting/reliability look okay, but Chesneau doesn't seem to be cited anywhere.
• No issues I could see with image licensing.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I can see the points above have been actioned so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • I reviewed for GA but quite a bit of development has occurred since then so will go through it again.
  • No dab links [42] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [43] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [44] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
  • A few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • flagship
    • Rear Admiral
      • Found these too and dealt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [45] (no action req'd)
  • "On the night of 8/9 February 1904, the IJN...", abbreviation "IJN" needs to be introduced.
  • This sentence has a few issues for me: "She was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905, and was classified as a 1st-class battleship and renamed as Suwo on 25 October,[18] after the eponymous ancient province.[19]" Firstly as it is the first sentence in a new section I think it probably best to introduce the subject (i.e. Pobeda), it might be unclear to some why it was refloated (i.e. to be salvaged / pressed into service) whilst it seems to run on a bit. Consider splitting a rewording a little. Try something like: "Pobeda was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905 and pressed into service. Classified as a 1st-class battleship, she was renamed as Suwo on 25 October, after the eponymous ancient province."
  • Otherwise good. Anotherclown (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I've reworded the sentence, but the lede already tells the reader that she was placed into service by the IJN so I don't really think that it's necessary to do so again. I think that I've resolved everything else that y'all pointed out. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries, added my spt. Anotherclown (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments - just a few things:

• Check your spellings, it looks like AmEng but I spotted a "defences"
  • Good catch.
• File:Peresvet1901.jpg - is there a date of publication? We'd need that to know how exactly it's PD in the US.
  • I have no idea if it was ever published in the US.
• File:Pobeda1904Port-Artur.jpg - needs a US PD tag
  • Done.
• "Although she was struck by eleven" - this sounds like you're still talking about Peresvet here.
  • Good catch.
• If Shinzo's book is considered authoritative, why is it not considered the default? Which is to say, why is the account of Jentschura et. al. privileged? Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Good point, swapped. Thanks catching these issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2014 (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 MilHistBot (talk) 09:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Sa–Schr)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because all the lists are finally complete. Reviewers please consider reviewing the "Sch" list as well. These two lists now complete the entire series. Due to size, I tried to split the list in two parts of equal size. The best way to achieve this was by extracting all those whose last name starts with "Sch", thus creating a list "S'" (note the apostrophe denoting a derivative of the letter S). Reviewers may feel that a different name is more appropriate, or that different split all together would also achieve the objective. I am open to suggestions. Thanks again to all of you who have helped bring this series to this state. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I read over the article per new standard disclaimer copyediting disclaimer, and didn't see anything to fix in the text. Gratz on getting to the end of this long, long series of lists. It's an important project. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I just saw the name change ... I don't think that's going to get through FAC, not many Americans will know what "S less Sch" means, and if you use more words to make it clearer, then people may object to the wordier title. Is there any chance you can either put all the Ss in one list or divide it up Sa–Schr and Schu–Sz? - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC) This is my 11th review of lists in this series, and all of the comments I have made during those reviews have already been addressed in this list. I suggest that this list be renamed "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (S less Sch) to make it clear Sch is what is not included.

• I am supportive, I will make the change once the reviewers here have agreed to this suggestion. I want to avoid changing the article name more than once. Thanks again for your time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There are few of my usual nitpicks about citations and notes...

Needs a citation for their rank, currently just have a note:

• Günter Sattler
• Konrad Sauer
• Georg Seelmann
• Alfred Seiler
• Josef Senft
• Otto Seyd
• Rudolf Siegel
• Hans-Carl Sievert
• Wolfgang Späte
• Ernst Stäudle
• Gerhard Stein
• Heinz-Eberhard Freiherr von Steinaecker
• Hans Steinwachs
• Gottwald Stier
• Helmut Störchel
• Egon Stoll-Berberich
• Gustav Strauß
• Bruno Streckenbach
• Heinz Strüning
• Adolf Stück
• Wolff von Stutterheim
• Rudolf Sürig
• Kurt Sunkel
  • my bad, all addressed, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs a citation for their date of award, currently just have a note:

• Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein
• Bernhard-Georg von Seebeck
• August Seidensticker
• Horst Sieber
• Günther Sitter
• Willi Sölter
• Karl-Heinz Stahnke
• Heinrich Strobl
  • my bad, all addressed, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No citation or note for date of award:

• Ernst Sieler
  • my bad, addressed, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Images: I'm not sure about File:Dietrich von Saucken.jpg Why is this image free? You might like to ask Nikkimaria for a view.

• removed MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My review is complete.

• Congratulations on a quite incredible achievement! A top effort. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments: congratulations on finishing the topic. I have a couple of suggestions, mainly focusing on the notes: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • the way this is worded, it sounds like original research: "And Kment can't be the source, since Buch stated that Kment died in the early 1970s. If indeed Kment would have been the source then von Seemen would have listed Sailer in either the first or second edition of his book, which isn't the case". Is there a way that it can be reworded to attribute the opinions so it doesn't sound like original research?
    • addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • watch out for contractions, for instance "can't", "isn't", "doesn't" and "hadn't"
    • addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "this as an Dietrich award" --> "this as a Dietrich award"
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Deffered, because..." --> should this be "Deferred, because"?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I tried to fix this, but I wasn't quite sure what was meant (there are a couple of typos, I think): "Scherzer does not confirm this entry but states that the WWaiting for announced statementW is noted instead"
    • addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "This nomination does no longer exist"; this would be tigher/smoother probably as "This nomination no longer exists"
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "he hadn't to do anything with this case" --> this would probably be smoother as "Buch reported on 25 June 2004 that he had not had anything to do with this case"
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "norwegian" --> "Norwegian"?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "honorable" --> "honourable" if using British English (which I think you are using given I saw Labour etc.)
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "posthumous recognition" appears to be overlinked according to the duplicate link checker tool
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "all honors" --> "all honours" if using British English. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the thorough check. I believe to have addressed all your comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I've added my support now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As suggested by Peacemaker67 I renamed the article to "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (S less Sch)". MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything I can do to further improve the article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned, "less" probably isn't the way to go. This list isn't in BritEng ("authorize"), and outside of BritEng, "less" isn't usually a preposition (except in old-fashioned and technical contexts). The bigger problem is: are there any other lists on the English Wikipedia, or in any English-language encyclopedia, that contain all the X's but none of the Xy's in a list (where X is any letter and y is any letter other than a or z)? Maybe not. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is exactly the situation I tried to avoid and therefore had raised this issue at the start of the review. I have no strong opinion on how the two lists get split. If the reviews feel a Sa–Schr and Schu–Sz is a better choice, let's go for it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I followed the suggestion made by Dank and regrouped the list accordingly. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• A couple of minor quibbles: stellvertretender Befehlshaber der Aufklärungs-Streitkräfte und Führer der Kriegschiffgruppe 3 (Zielhafen Bergen)—deputy commander of the reconnaissance forces and leader of the warship group 3 (destination Bergen) Put parentheses around the translation to match the other translated terms.
• Manfred Dörr was given insight into Sailer's pay book Suggest that this be rephrased as "Dörr was allowed access to" or "Dörr examined" or similar.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed both of these points on behalf of MB, listing for closure in 24 hours. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Works for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - another one of your excellent lists. I found nothing to nitpick. Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2014 (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 MilHistBot (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

James Chadwick

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Nobeljeff (talk)

Another mad scientist associated with Tube Alloys and the Manhattan Project. Harkens back to the days when Britain was one of the world leaders in physics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment

• Is this going to FAC? Copyediting needs to be just a bit fussier for FAC these days. I'll leave it alone if A-class is the last stop for this one. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  It will be going to FAC, so you can look at it there if you prefer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

  Happy to do it here, Hawkeye, as long as you don't mind me fiddling with it. John, Ian and others have been making a lot of edits after my edits lately ... and I'm getting the message loud and clear, I need to be a little fussier. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• Do you have a source for "known as the father of nuclear physics"?

• "Uncomfortable with the trend toward Big Science,", " is seen as a leader in the transition to "Big Science".": ? - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Dropped the former. It's not wrong but I can see how reders might feel confused. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• "either of these things ... The reason for this would remain unexplained for many years.": I don't follow, and I don't know which two things are meant. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • that beta radiation produced a continuous electromagnetic spectrum, and not discrete lines How can that be if the energy of photons is quantised? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• "A recent book": by?
  • Added author's name. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• "is said to deserve credit": probably better to attribute this.
  • There is a footnote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• "one Liverpool observer wrote": I'd attribute it.
  • Attributed to Sir James Mountford, the Vice Chancellor of the University of Liverpool. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• "that "he had never seen a man 'so physically,": I'm not getting the nested quotes; who's saying what?
  • Sir James. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
• I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan! Much appreciated! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 11:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Support: looks good, I have a couple of minor points: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• at five paragraphs, the lead looks like it might too long per WP:LEAD, which recommends four
  • Reduced to three. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• watch the date formats as there appears to be some inconsistency: e.g. "March 22, 2013" v. "20 October 1891"
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• in the lead, "As later described by Churchill..." --> probably best to use Churchill's full name and link on first mention
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• in the lead, I'd recommend adding an inline citation for the quote: "the possession of these powers by the Germans ... might have altered the result of the war, and profound anxiety was felt by those who were informed."
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• inconsistent terminology: "World War II" and "Second World War", as well as "World War I"
  • Made consistent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• in the References, the interview might be better presented using one of the cite templates;
  • Moved to the External links section
• in the References, is there an isbn for the Bundy or Szasz works, and an oclc for the Gowing work?
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• in the References, Brown and Bundy should come before "Chadwick" if sorting alphabetically
  • Moved to the Exrternal links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• in the References, is there a place of publishing for the Laurence work?
  • New York. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• the duplicate link check tool reports several examples of possible overlink, for example: Atomic bomb; MAUD Committee; Manhattan Project; Gonville and Caius College; uranium; Royal Society; Neils Bohr; John Cockcroft.
  • Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Otherwise, I'm happy it meets the A-class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [46] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [47] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [48] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and have the req'd information (no action req'd)
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [49] (no action req'd)
  • The first and last paras of the lead are a little repetitive. For instance the same phrase appears: "he wrote the final draft of the MAUD Report, which inspired the United States government to begin serious atomic bomb research efforts..."
    • Removed the second occurrence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Typo here: "...was created to investigated the matter further..."
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • These minor points aside this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Support with minor comments

• Enjoyed reading it!
  • Thanks! It's always great to hear that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd have broken the second para of the lead into two at "After the war, Chadwick followed Rutherford..."
  • Done. It originally was, but there were five paragraphs, and I had to reduce it.
• New Years Honours could be linked.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• "The two were married in August 1925.[15] Kapitza was Best Man." I'd recommend combining these fairly short sentences.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• alpha, beta and gamma radiation - worth linking.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• "and Edward Condon realised that anomalies in then-current theory like the spin of nitrogen would be resolved" - I'd have gone for "and Edward Condon realised that anomalies in then-current theory, like the spin of nitrogen, would be resolved".
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• " that it still ran on direct current," - I'd recommend "direct current electricity", which would scan more easily for the casual reader
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
• "Dawn Over Zero: the Story of the Atomic Bomb" - the MOS would have this as "Dawn Over Zero: The Story of the Atomic Bomb"
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2014 (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 MilHistBot (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Pevensey Castle

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk)

I've undertaken a major expansion of this article, which I'm hoping in due course to get up to FA standard. It's now a comprehensive (~6,000 words) overview of the castle's layout and 1,700 year history. I'd be grateful for an A-class review in advance of proceeding to a FA nomination. Prioryman (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Holding remark from Hchc2009

Looks great! I'm in the middle of nowhere at the moment, but will review properly next Friday when I get back closer to home (and my collection of castle books...) :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, some quick thoughts:

• The wikilinking might need a bit of work. e.g., in the lead: Normans, keep, machine-gun; later bits include silting and land reclamation, ironstone and sandstone, catapults, heavy crossbows, granary, spring, vaulted, ashlar facing-stone, chapel etc.

• I've done some more, still working through it. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Where century is being used as an adjective, I understand it should be expressed as (e.g.) "a 12th-century tower", not "a 12th century tower"

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• The MOS would have the capitalisation of book titles, e.g. "Hastings, Past and Present: With Notices of the Most Remarkable Places in the Neighbourhood." rather than "Hastings, past and present: with notices of the most remarkable places in the neighbourhood." Hchc2009 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that's how it's rendered in the original title - it's an old book and they apparently didn't follow the same rules of capitalisation that we do now. I did find a couple of other instances where capitalisation was needed, so I've fixed that. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman period:

• It would be worth explaining why the Rape and castle of Pevensey was so important to the Normans (i.e. it controlled the route to Normandy) and that it was used for coastal defence.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, 1068 etc. isn't "Anglo-Norman", but straight Norman.

• OK, I've changed that. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Henry re-granted Pevensey Castle to Gilbert I de l'Aigle but continued to use it for his own purposes," - was this the King exercising his right to use *any* castle in the event of war, or was it special to Pevensey?

• I've not found any specific explanation but I would imagine it was his general right, not something special to Pevensey. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The establishment of the first permanent Norman castle at Pevensey" - could be read two ways (that this was the first permanent Norman castle, or that it was the first permanent castle at Pevensey built by the Normans"

  The latter, I think. I've clarified this. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence of the Normans being interested in the symbolic importance of the Roman site? (as at Colchester and elsewhere?)

• It's been suggested that there was symbolic importance, so I've mentioned this, but no specific evidence as far as I know. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Later medieval use:

• Definitely worth explaining why Henry II took it back into Crown hands.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Some 'wardens'" - should be double-speech marks I think.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Peter ended the feudal requirement to maintain the palisades ..." I'm not sure (unless I've missed it) that the feudal requirement had been mentioned previously. It would be good to give it its formal name (heckage).

• Done, and I've added an explanation too. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Creighton notes in Castles and Landscapes that the changing coastline around the castle reduced its strategic value by the 13th century, and that by 1288 they were having trouble unloading shipments for the castle. (p.44)

• I've not got that book but I've found a copy at the British Library, so I'll take a look at it in the next couple of days. Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I've got hold of the book and added some material from it. Thanks for the suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this review, Hchc2009. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of a house move so have been unable to do much about this review for the last few days. I'll try to make some of the recommended changes next week when I can find somewhere to log on. Prioryman (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, hope the move goes well! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it's completed now, though it took a lot longer than I'd expected to get back online! Prioryman (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Pevensey Castle, Sussex: excavations in the Roman fort and medieval keep, 1993–95" - the capitalisation guidelines in the MOS would have this as "Pevensey Castle, Sussex: Excavations in the Roman Fort and Medieval Keep, 1993–95"
• "Hastings, past and present: with notices of the most remarkable places in the neighbourhood." - ditto, "Hastings, Past and Present: With Notices of the Most Remarkable Places in the Neighbourhood.". NB: Diplock has acquired a capital I in the biblio.
• There's inconsistency as to whether the volumes have a location and publisher (e.g. "London: Constable") or just publisher (e.g. "Cambridge University Press"). Either is acceptable, but it should be consistently applied.
• It would be well worth giving the OCLC number for books without an ISBN (the OCLC advanced search machine will do this very easily for you if you google it).
• "network of ditches and sewers or field drains" - unclear what the "or" is referring to (is it to both ditches and sewers or just sewers?)
• Worth linking "Saxon shore"?
• "The castle's defences are considered to be the largest surviving Roman fortification of the period" - in England, or across Europe? Also, you probably don't need the "considered" (if you do, worth saying "considered by who")
• "which would have adjoined sea or marsh" - "the sea or marshland"?
• Worth linking ironstone and sandstone, and rampart
• "The wall originally had a stepped appearance with at least two levels of steps on the interior face, though there is no surviving indication of how the garrison reached the top." - I didn't find this the easiest sentence to read - the "stepped appearance" and "two levels of steps" threw me a bit.
• "their placement is somewhat unusual." - you could lose "somewhat" here
• Worth linking gatehouse
• "or access from a harbour" - do you mean "access from the harbour", since you mentioned one above?
• Worth linking first use of "bailey"
• Worth linking chapel.
• "had an iron door " - just curious, but was this a solid iron door, or an iron-bound door? I'd imagined the latter. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• While the aerial photo is nice, can we get a plan view? Preferably one each for the Roman and medieval configurations?

• I should be getting an ex-Crown Copyright plan view in the next few days, which shows the different phases of construction. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• And how about a photo of the excavation revealing the foundations? I've been watching a lot of Time Team and am used to seeing foundations. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I've never seen such a photo in any of the sources I've checked. There are some cross section illustrations in a few sources but of course they are under copyright and I don't think it'd be permissible to produce a derivative image or copy. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm OK without the foundation photo, but what's the status of the plan view?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've got the plan view now but it's rather larger than I thought - a bit bigger than A3. I'm going to have to find a way of either scanning it at A3 (which will need an A3 scanner, which I don't have) or reducing it to A4 so that I can scan it myself. Sorting that out is going to take a bit of time, I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, keep me updated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've scanned the map in four segments but will need help to stitch it together again and fix the fold marks. I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop#Pevensey Castle map. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• The cleaned-up image is now available as File:Pevensey Castle plan.png. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I found a very nice photo of excavations of a Roman well, public domain from 1908. Would that help illustrate the excavations section or would an image there be too much?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure it's from Pevensey Castle? I've seen no references to a Roman well being found there. A medieval well, yes, but not a Roman one. It wouldn't do any harm to upload it, anyway, so that the rest of us can see it. Prioryman (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• You say that the castle is west of the village, so there is no need to say a few lines later the village is east of the castle.

• Good point, I've fixed this. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• "They are the largest of any surviving contemporary Roman fortification." In Britain or the world? Also I do not understand the qualification contemporary.

• Anywhere, as far as I understand it. "Contemporary" means contemporaneous with when it was built, i.e. late 3rd century. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I would delete contemporary as superfluous and confusing. Also worth stating in the lead that they are the largest suviving Roman fortifications in the world. (Should not fortifications be plural to agree with 'They'?) Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've reworded this bit as "The castle's defences are considered to be the largest surviving Roman fortification of the period." Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• "They are likely to have been topped with crenellations; although the remains of crenellations can still be seen, they date only from the medieval period, but probably replaced Roman originals." This is repetitious. Suggest something like "The remains of medieval crenellations can still be seen, and they probably replaced Roman originals."

• Thanks, that repetition was bothering me too but I couldn't think of an alternative wording. I've used your suggestion. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Norman inner bailey. I may have missed it, but was this wood or stone?

• Wood and earth. I've clarified this. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• "stationed at what is now Paris" Do you need "what is now". According to the article on Lutetia, it was renamed Paris in 360.

• Indeed, but it's not clear from the sources whether the named units were located there before or after the renaming. I've covered both bases by changing the wording to "stationed at Lutetia (modern Paris)." Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• "William's temporary fortification within the Roman walls was expanded to create a permanent Norman castle at Pevensey, probably during Robert's tenure sometime in the 1070s." Was this the first stone Norman castle? I see there was a timber palisade.

• I believe Colchester Castle was started earlier, though not finished until 1100. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry I did not make myself clear. I understand (rightly or wrongly) that castles built soon after the Conquest were usually wood, and were later replaced with stone ones. I was asking whether this was the case at Pevensey, and if so when the wood one was replaced. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, I see. Yes, it was originally wood and replaced with stone. As the "Inner bailey" section says, this took place in the 13th to 14th centuries. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Pevensey was confiscated again by the Crown under King Stephen, with Gilbert's family also losing the rest of their possessions." Presumably Gilbert de l'Aigle sided with Matilda, but worth stating.

• Good idea, done. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• What is a siege castle? A platform for artillery?

• Not quite. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't have an article on siege castles - I should probably write one. During the Anarchy, if a castle was besieged, it was not uncommon for a second castle to be constructed by the besiegers a short distance from the first to serve as a base / observation post / artillery platform. In the case of the churches near Pevensey Castle, they would have been used as ready-made siege castles with catapults on top of the towers and soldiers using the buildings as bases. (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think you need an explanation or note for non-expert readers. I tried googling but could not find anything.Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I've reworded the line as "The parish churches at Pevensey and Westham also suffered damage, which the attackers may have caused in using them as siege castles (temporary fortresses and artillery platforms)." Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Peter of Savoy regained control of Pevensey Castle after de Montford's defeat" As the siege failed, how did he lose it?

• Good point, I've reworded this. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward II's wife Isabella and Edward III's wife Philippa," The queens could be linked.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
• Could you suggest a form of words? Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• I will do this - change if you are not happy. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• I had a look at this and Edward II's wife was called Isabella not Margaret. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good catch, fixed. Prioryman (talk) 13:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• " His actions attracted public hostility which culminated in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 when a mob attacked the castle, burnt its court rolls and abused the steward." This appears to say that the Peasants Revolt was about Pevensey Castle!

• That would be unfortunate. :-) I've changed this to "during the Peasants' Revolt". Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Henry IV's second wife Joan of Navarre was imprisoned by Henry's stepson Henry V" Should be Joan's stepson.

• Changed. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sussex Archaeological Society - worth linking.

• Done. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• A very good article. These points are all fairly minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [50] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [51] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [52] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • OK, I'll work through these. It's good practice even if not required for ACR. Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • File:Notitia Dignitatum - Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam.jpg - lacks author and date information. Is it available?
    • It's from a 1436 copy with no known author, but I can add the date. Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes that works for me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Rest of the images all seem to be PD / free and have the req'd information (no action req'd)
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a few issues with reference consolidation:
    • Goodall, p. 18 Multiple references contain the same content
    • Goodall, p. 28 Multiple references contain the same content
    • Goodall18 Multiple references are using the same name
    • Goodall28 Multiple references are using the same name
      • I'm not sure what the issue is here - can you explain further? Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Essentially you have multiple identical references that haven't been consolidated (i.e. named). Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
          • I've done this myself now as I don't want a minor issue to hold up the promotion of a good article. Pls check and change if I got it wrong. Anotherclown (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [53] (no action req'd)
  • Some of the short citations are confusing to me. Specifically the Goodall ones - do these relate to his 1999 work or the 2013 one?
    • That's a referencing error. They should all be to the 2013 work. I've corrected this. Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Too easy that resolves this issue for me. Anotherclown (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • In the references: "Howard, Mary Matilda (1855). Hastings, past and present: with notices of the most remarkable places in the neighbourhood. DIplock and Smith. p. 134" should probably use title case.
    • There doesn't appear to be a use of title case in the original. I've used the title as given in the British Library catalogue [54], where I found the book. Prioryman (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Fairly sure the MOS would take precedence but I guess its open for interpretation - pls see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_works. Anotherclown (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Only a brief review from me for the moment, more to follow. Anotherclown (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I've read over the prose and am happy it meets the criteria. Added my support now although the issue with title case remains I'm happy to leave this up to you. In my opinion it is req'd to be MOS compliant but its a small issue and maybe my interpretation is incorrect at any rate (no one else seems to have raised it in the review). It may be raised at FA though (and maybe it wont). All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2014 (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 MilHistBot (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Edward II of England

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it now covers the most current literature on Edward II, and could eventually find its way to the FA status. Edward had mixed fortunes in war; he did well during the Despenser Wars, fighting an excellent campaign, but on the other hand, when his wife and her lover invaded England in 1326, he put up a pretty miserable defence. A fascinating individual, and one of those English kings whom "everyone knows something about"! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

• "Gaveston's position as Edward's favourite provoked discontent". "Gaveston's arrogance and power as Edward's favourite" might be clearer.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "England was pushed back onto the defensive in Scotland". Had not England been on the defensive since Edward I died?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward was decisively defeated by Robert the Bruce at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314. Widespread famine followed, and criticism of the King mounted." This seems to imply that the three things were connected. Perhaps "Criticism of the King mounted, and in 1315-17 there was a disastrous famine."

• The criticism was linked to both the battle and the famine, unfair though we'd consider the latter today! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Isabella allied herself with the exiled Roger Mortimer," - a bit emphemistic!

• Not necessarily; the key point is the political alliance, not their probable sexual relationship.

• "Edward was probably given a religious education by the Dominican friar" Who? Blyborough?

• A missing "s". Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "his mother was keen that other of her children were well educated". A bit clumsy. Why not her other children?

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward had a relatively normal childhood for a member of a royal family." This sounds a bit strange. Perhaps usual upbringing or usual childhood.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward grew up to be tall, muscular and was considered to be good looking by the standards of the period." I would delete by the standards of the period as superflous. What does it mean - that standards were lower then?

• Standards of what is "good looking" certainly vary across historical periods; all we have is the contemporary opinion that he was good-looking, which could be rather different to what we would consider to be good-looking today. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "In 1290, Edward's father confirmed the Treaty of Birgham" - I would say had confirmed.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Philip IV of France" - I would say King Philip.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

More comments

• "his mother was keen that her other children were well educated". It might be worth saying that (according to ODNB) both his parents were absent in Gascony 1286-9 and she died in 1290 when he was six. (I see you say below that she died but it seems particularly relevant here.)

• I'm not so sure. It would break the flow of the paragraph, which is about his education, and the bit about his mother being absent is in the bit preceding this. I've added a bit in about his father being away as well in Gascony. 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Between 1297 and 1298, Edward was left in charge of England". I would prefer the more formal acted as regent.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward also took part in the 1303 campaign". In several places such as here calling him Prince Edward would make it easier to keep track of which Edward is meant.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• "In 1305, Edward and his father quarreled". UK spelling is quarrelled.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• " he continued north into Scotland and on 4 August received homage from his Scottish supporters at Dumfries." I think it would be worth saying that he abandoned his father's campaign.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Later chronicler accounts of Edward's activities". Sounds a bit odd to me. Perhaps "Later accounts by chroniclers...".

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Remaining comments by Dudley Miles
• What is a pimento fountain?

• I've struggled to find any decent link for pimento; it was a medieval spiced drink. I've tweaked to explain. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward responded by revoking the Ordinances". It is not clear what he was responding to.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "The bad weather continued, almost unabated, into 1321, resulting in a string of bad harvests" This seems to me doubtful. Prestwich in Plantagenet England dates the famine 1315-16. The effects may have continued until 1321, but not the bad weather.

• Phillips notes the problems of 1314 and 1315; 1316 is described as similar to 1314 and 1316; 1317 as "better", but "conditions then deteriorated again", with "another wet autumn in 1320 and a disastrous harvest in 1321". Jordan gives the "reasonable closing date" for the series of problems as 1321/1322, and similarly stresses the poor weather up until that period. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "mentally-ill man". I don't think this is usually hyphenated.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• criticizing is usually criticising in British English.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward first decided to attack Bartholomew of Badlesmere, and Isabella was sent to Leeds Castle to deliberately create a casus belli." This would be clearer if it was spelled out that Leeds Castle was Bartholomew's stronghold (if that it the correct word).

• Agree, fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Fleeing further north, Lancaster was cornered by an army under the command of Andrew Harclay at Boroughbridge, and captured." It is not specifically mentioned that there was a battle at Boroughbridge.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "became firmer about allowing French officials in the Duchy to execute their authority fully". I am not sure what this means.

• I've tried to clarify - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Edward had confiscated her children", I am not sure confiscated is the right word.

• Any thoughts...? He took them away from his wife and gave their custody to someone else... I'm not certain what verb to use!

• • How about "had taken away"

• Sounds good. Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• "William offered up 132 transport vessels". I would leave out the word 'up'.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Edmund of Woodstock and Thomas of Brotherton should be linked.

• They're already linked above. Hchc2009 (talk)

• • Ah Ctrl-F didn't work because you linked them as Edmund and Thomas, not as their full names. I think it would be better to give their full names on the first mention.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• Who was Walter Stapeldon?

• He's mentioned previously, but I've added a brief reminder. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Ctrl-F didn't work because you spelled it Stapledon before!

• Ah - he gets spelled both ways in the sources. I've fixed and made it ocnsistent. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is worth saying that Henry of Lancaster was Thomas's younger brother.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• " Several of the individuals suspected to have been involved in the death". I would say suspected of involvement.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• "They gave extensively to the abbey, allowing it to rebuild much of the surrounding church in the 1330s." This seems awkward. 'They' appear to mean the monks rather than the visitors, and the abbey appears to have rebuilt the church.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Michael Prestwich, for example, states that most of this story "belongs to the world of romance rather than of history". Prestwich seems to have changed his mind. In his 2005 Plantagenet England, p. 219, he says "Edward was murdered, very possibly by means of a red hot poker up his backside."

• Expanded a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Ian Mortimer's account was critiqued". I would prefer criticised. The online Cambridge dictionary does not have critique as a verb.

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• One final point on "Widespread famine followed, and criticism of the King mounted." I think you need to spell out that Edward was blamed for the famine, as otherwise the sentence looks a bit odd. Also, so far as I can see, it does not say below that he was blamed for the famine, so the point is unreferenced.

Dudley Miles (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've strengthened the referencing, and tweaked the text to get it as close to the sense of the sources as possible. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support. Another first rate article. A couple of queries:

• Where was Prince Edward when Isabella and Mortimer invaded? Did he stay behind in France?

• I've added him in. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning Prestwich's theory that Edward's greater involvement in government in the 1320s was purely the younger Despenser acting in his name?

• I've added a footnote, expanding on the different historical views. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: FWIW, I copyedited the article per new standard disclaimer my copyediting disclaimer.

• "the Marcher territories. Edward and Hugh the Younger became aware of these plans in March and marched west": marched west in March to the Marcher territories?
• "Edward's problems over the Duchy of Gascony and its troubled relationship to the Kingdom of France flared into open war in 1324": That could be clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• "exploited often unpopular tax revenues, prises and taking out loans": ? - Dank (push to talk) 02:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Should be all fixed now. Thanks Dank! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• This is awkward: Edward had a relatively usual upbringing for a member of a royal family. If this issue has been recently reassessed and the current consensus is that his upbringing was relatively normal, then this sentence has become a non-issue, IMO, and can be profitably deleted.
• No other issues noted in a very nicely done article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay Sturmvogel, I missed your comment in the watchlist! I'm not sure that I agree, in that I think it contextualises the paragraph for the casual reader. That said, I do tend to overly-like the detail, so if others felt similarly, I'd be happy to remove it! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is a bit awkward (as I commented above). Could the word 'relatively' be deleted? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the para is fine, I just think that the first sentence and the associated note is kinda irrelevant, although you could use a cleaned up version as an intro if you truly wanted to.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked as per Dudley's suggestion. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [55] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [56] (no action req'd).
  • Images all lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [57] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • Few issues with images that I could see (although I'm not an expert on these things so happy to admit I may be wrong):
    • File:Edward I & II Prince of Wales 1301.jpg may need a US pd tag
    • Likewise File:Gaveston Cornwall charter.jpg
    • File:Philip iv and family.jpg is fairly light on when it comes to information, particularly author and date information.
    • File:Trojka kralove.jpg has got issues with licencing too - think it needs a PD US tag and it seems to have the same tag twice, and there is an error reported with the pd art tag
    • Same with File:Philippe4 eduard2 ludvikNavarra.jpg
    • Ditto File:Isabela Karel Eda.jpg, File:Eduard2 arest.jpg (minus the pd art issue), File:Seal of Edward II.jpg
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [58] (no action req'd).
  • A couple of duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • 1303 Treaty of Paris
    • Knights Templar
    • Lincoln
    • Adam Fitzroy
  • Consider adding ISSNs to the journal articles in the references (these can be found through WorldCat.
  • Typo here: "...Edward I also faced increasing opposition from the his..."
  • Typo here: "...and formed the centre of the his..."
  • Otherwise excellent. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• The TLS citations do not look right. TLS is shown twice and there is no page number or full date. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Dudley. I think TLS is duplicated correctly here because it is both the name of the website concerned, and the publisher. The page number isn't given on the web version of TLS reviews (which is what is being referenced here, vice the hard copy version). I can check the full date issue on Friday when I get back to my laptop in the UK with my TLS password on it! ;) (but I suspect that it's on the webpage and I forgot to add it to the citation) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've updated the reference with the date (yep, it was on the webpage), but there's definitely no page number given. AnotherClown, with apologies for the delay, will make your proposed changes next. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• AnotherClown, all of those should now be fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• Changes look good so I've added my support - one minor issue I just noticed though: the following citation {{harvnb|Phillips|2011|pp=575–575}} looks in error (same page number twice in page range). Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed - cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2014 (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 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Öland

Nominator(s): Peter ^Isotalo

This is an outgrowth of my work on Kronan (ship) (currently at FAC) and I'm would like to bring this to FA-status as well. It just passed a GA review and I got the recommendation to request an A-Class review as a preliminary step to FAC.

The battle of Öland is probably best known for the sinking of Kronan, but its also interesting since it was subject to an official inquiry on the Swedish side and a dispute among the commanders on the allied side, both of which are well-documented and researched. I've tried my best to put the battle into historical context, both militarily and politically.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• Hi Peter, welcome to A-class. I see you're an old hand around FAC, but I have some problems with for instance Battle_of_Öland#State of the fleet, the same problems as I have with the same section in your article currently at FAC. My questions concern this paragraph: "... Previously, naval tactics were based on individual ships or small units within the frame of what has later been called the melee tactic. Decisive action in naval engagements had been achieved through boarding, but after the middle of the 17th century tactical theory focused more on disabling or sinking an opponent through superior firepower from a distance. This entailed major changes in doctrine, shipbuilding, and professionalism in European navies from the 1650s and onwards. The line of battle favored very large ships that were steady sailers and could hold the line in the face of heavy fire. This new style of warfare was marked by a successively stricter organization. The new tactics also depended on an increased disciplining of society and the demands of powerful centralized governments that could maintain large, permanent, loyal fleets led by a professional officer corps. Battle formations became standardized, worked out from mathematically calculated, ideal models.": What's a "melee tactic" ... is that the same thing as hand-to-hand melee? What's a frame of a melee tactic? What does it mean to achieve "decisive action"? What changes were there in doctrine, shipbuilding, and professionalism? What's a "steady sailer" ... does it have bigger or more effective sails, is the hull more streamlined, is it more stable (with a lower metacentric height), is it more seaworthy, or are you saying it could stay afloat after taking a heavy pounding? What does "successively stricter organization" mean? How do you discipline a society? If a battle line is just a straight line, why do you need higher mathematics to calculate an "ideal model"? - Dank (push to talk) 12:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Since it's basically the same text as in Kronan (ship), I'll try to deal with the issue there and then transfer the result to this article. I've tried to take your comments here into consideration in the latest fixes to the Kronan-article. If anything is still unclear, just comment at the FAC. Peter ^Isotalo 16:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Now that I'm supporting at FAC, I'll come back and review this one do some copyediting when it's close to promotion. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Kronan (ship) was just promoted, so I'm switching focus to this review again. Thanks for the tinkering. Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments: G'day, interesting article. It generally looks good to me, but it's not really a topic I'm comfortable reviewing, as I don't know anything about it really. Anyway, I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • is this a typo: "between Dernmark" --> "between Denmark"?
  • "20 ships under admiral Niels Juel", as the rank appears to be a title here, it should probably be capitalised, e.g. "Admiral Niels Juel"
  • in the Forces section, does ref # 37 cover all of the entries? If so, I suggest tweaking the stem sentence to make this clearer.
  • in the References, you appear to be using slightly different styles for some of the entries. For instance, "Rodger, Nicholas" v. "Goran Rystad" ("surname, first name" v. "first name surname"). Additionally, compare the way the years are presented. It might be easier for the sake of consistency to use a template like {{cite book}} or something similar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the pointers. I believe this[59] should address your concerns. Regarding "Forces", isn't this what the note says? If it's unclear, how do you feel it should be clarified? Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
      • G'day again, Peter, your changes look good (I made a minor tweak to the References, though, please check you are happy with that). Regarding the above comment, I'd suggest tweaking the stem sentence to introduce the list. For example, instead of just "The numbers in parentheses indicates the number of guns for each ship.[37]", something like this might be better: "The following list details the forces that took part in the battle. Note: the numbers in parentheses indicate the number of guns for each ship.[37]" AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • typo "indicates" -> "indicate" in this case "numbers" and "indicates" doesn't work together. "the numbers...indicate"
  • in the citations, "Glete (1993), s. 173–78" --> what does "s" mean here? Should it be "pp."?
  • in the citations, "Barfod (1997), s. 54–55" --> as above, what does "s" mean here? Should it be "pp."? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed. It was just the Swedish abbreviations (sida) from the sv.wiki original that I forgot to convert. Peter ^Isotalo 07:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Looks good in terms of sources, although I'm more solid on land history in this period, rather than naval. And it's always great to see more articles on the 17th century! Copyediting points, in the main, follow:

• "Just as the battle began " I'd have added a comma after this
• "and after the loss of a second admiral," "and after this loss of" would make this slightly clearer.
• "Dano-Norwegian naval supremacy" When I first read this I thought I'd missed the Norwegian role in the battle; don't know if there's any easy to explain this?
• "The move was bold royal ambition in a highly militarized society geared for almost constant warfare, a fiscal-military state. Disbanding its armies meant paying outstanding wages, so there was an underlying incentive to keep hostilities alive and let soldiers live off enemy lands and plunder. " - these sentences jarred a bit. I know what each bit means, but I couldn't see how the royal ambition linked to the problems of the fiscal-military 17th century state. If we mean that King Charles couldn't afford to demobilise his armies, so was forced to continue the war on Denmark, fair enough - but is there an easier way to word it?
• "and by September 1675 Denmark" - I'd have put commas around "by September 1675"
• "tactical theory focused more" - do we mean tactical theory? (i.e. was tactical practice different?)
• "The new tactics also depended on powerful, centralized governments that could maintain large, permanent fleets" - minor, but don't we mean "governments being able to maintain..."? The dependence is on the maintainance of the fleets, not the governments.
• "The increased power of the state at the expense of individual landowners led to the expansion of armies and navies" - are you happy that the causal direction is just one-way? (i.e. that the expansion of armies didn't encourage the state to increase its power?) I may be out of date, but I'm sure I've read authors suggesting the latter as well as the former, e.g. Anderson's "War and Society in Europe of the Old Regime".
• "In late fall of 1675" - I can't remember if the article is using US or BritEng. If the former, pls ignore. I'm assuming that we don't have a specific month (otherwise WP:Season would apply)
• "and loss of vital equipment" - "and the loss"
• "On May 25–26" - elsewhere you're using "25 May" etc.
• " the two fleets fought a largely indecisive" - is "largely" necessary here?
• "Creutz was in conflict with his officers after Bornholm" - how about "Creutz argued with his officers..."?
• "After the unsuccessful action" - I'd have put a comma after action
• "as a result of poor communication and signaling" - more out of curiosity, but how did they communicate other than using signaling?
• Worth checking the linking of a couple of nautical terms: e.g ."mainmast", "gunport".
• "The battle of Öland " - capitalisation of battle
• " following the death of its commander by disease." - "from disease"? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I think this should address your concerns.[60] Lemme know if anything i still unclear.
  • Regarding growth of armies and increased power to centralized governments, I'm pretty sure Glete doesn't make much of a distinction between military and political elite. It might be more relevant for states that relied more on trade for wealth, but this isn't really the case with 17th century Sweden. It's more of an issue of the crown growing in power at the expense of the nobility.
  • Denmark-Norway is the formal, "official" term since the two were technically separate kingdoms. However, Danish hegemony was never in doubt. The king and the nobility were Danish, not Norwegian. As far as I understand, Norway didn't have an independent foreign policy or anything like that. Overall, the position of Norway was more akin to that of Finland under Swedish rule. Peter ^Isotalo 16:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

In the map, dates are of acquisition, and in brackets are of loss. So what does the date 1621 mean for Riga (is the date of loss just omitted?) and the dates 1629-35 for 3 other towns.

The Swedish attack on Denmark threatened English interests, and an English fleet was sent to support Sweden. This seems illogical.

"Charles' plans were thwarted" What plans? The attempt to crush Denmark? This could be clearer.

Why was it a high point to join an anti-French alliance when shortly afterwards Sweden allied with France?

"Denmark, the Dutch Republic, and the Holy Roman Empire were all at war against Sweden and France" Separately or as an alliance?

"from the 1650s and onwards" I would leave out the word 'and'.

The Swedish side had problems" Sounds a bit odd to me. Why not just 'The Swedes'?

"Swedish Pomerania, its holdings on the Baltic coast" I am not sure whether holdings is the right word.

Creutz argued with this officers after Bornholm" his officers?

i would link flag officer.

"were captured by Juel and his subordinate on Anna Sophia". Is there a reason his subordinate (first lieutenant?) is mentioned?

"The Swedish fleet had suffered a stinging blow" A bit colloquial. I would prefer a major blow.

"He claimed that if he had gotten proper support" Gotten is an Americanism which does not sound right to British ears. How about received?

Note 38 is not referenced.

These are all minor points - a very good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think these edits should address all the points made.

Elbing, Pillau and Memel were very temporary acquisitions as far as I understand. The year span is simply when they were occupied. The Riga date I'm not sure of. It might have something to do with it's status as a free city within Livonia or something like it. Not 100% sure.

The anti-French Triple Alliance was a success because it allied Sweden with several other states, ei a diplomatic success. Do you feel it needs any clarifications?

Note 38 is just a clarifying comment. The entire list of ships is already covered by note 37.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:54, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Note to nominator @Peter Isotalo: do you feel you have addressed all the above points, or are you still working on it? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the issues, I believe, but not all. Work is taking up a lot of time right now. I'll deal with by the end of next week.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Support and minor comments.

• "the Dutch who were in fierce competition with England at the time)." - orphan bracket.
• A high point joining an anti-French alliance. As Sweden changed sides shortly afterwards I think "a high point" is better deleted as confusing. You have already said it was a foreign policy success.
• There is a stub article on Battle of Öland (1563). Maybe the hatnote should be to a new disambig page for the 3 battles.

Dudley Miles (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This should deal with that. Thanks-a-plenty for the review! Peter ^Isotalo 15:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • No dab links [61] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [62] (no action req'd).
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [63] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and have the req'd information (no action req'd)
  • Most captions look fine, one minor issue:
    • "The view shows the Swedish as a bustling port, and in the foreground the...", specifically "the Swedish" - is this a typo? Should it be "Stockholm"?
  • One duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK
    • Niels Juel
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [64] (no action req'd).
  • Losses for each side appear in the infobox but don't appear to be spelt out in the article itself (unless I missed it).
  • Prose seems a little awkward here: "Uggla himself drowned while escaping the burning ship, and after this loss of a second admiral, the rest of the Swedish fleet fled in disorder." Consider instead something like: "Uggla himself drowned while escaping the burning ship, and with his loss the rest of the Swedish fleet fled in disorder." (suggestion only)
  • Also awkward: "The Danish King Christian V was able to ship troops over to Swedish soil...", consider instead: "The Danish King Christian V was able to ship troops to Sweden..."
  • There is something a little informal sounding about this wording: "The Dutch intervened in 1658 by sending a fleet to stop the attempt to crush Denmark...", specifically "to crush Denmark". Perhaps consider something like: "The Dutch intervened in 1658 by sending a fleet to stop any movement against Denmark..." or something like that.
  • This could possibly be reworded: "The southern Baltic became a strategically important scene for both Denmark and Sweden..." specially not sure about "scene", which doesn't quite seem like the right word and may be redundant at any rate. Consider perhaps: "The southern Baltic became strategically important for both Denmark and Sweden..."
  • Suggest wikilinking "lee side" to explain to readers who don't know what that means.
  • Regard note #1 "See Jan Glete (2002) War and the State in Early Modern Europe: Spain, the Dutch Republic and Sweden as Fiscal-Military States, 1500–1600. Routledge, London. ISBN 0-415-22645-7 for an in-depth study." Shouldn't a short citation be used here?
  • Suggest adding OCLCs to the works in the ref section that are too old to have ISBNs. These can be found through WorldCat.org (suggestion only).
  • Otherwise this is an excellent article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

    Thank you very much for the pointers. And the compliment. Here's the implementation of most of suggestions.[65] And a few comments:

    • Losses aren't specifically spelt out in one place, but they're provided in context. Manpower losses aren't specified in any sources, actually. Only the manpower losses from Kronan, Svärdet and Churprindsen are actually specified in sources. But now that you bring it up, I'm a bit unsure about the actual number of ships sunk. I think I might have forgotten to specify some of them. I'll check my sources in a few days.
    • I like the "crush" part myself. I feel it's more dramatic prose than an informal thang, which to me is valid as long as it's not obvious POV.
    • Glete (2002) is really just suggested reading. The political background doesn't rely specifically on him since the fiscal-military state is a pretty broad concept. Peter ^Isotalo 06:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2014 (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) 23:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nagato-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

The Nagato-class ships were the first battleships to be armed with guns greater than 15 inches (380 mm) and followed the Japanese policy about having individual ships more powerful than those of their potential enemies. They understood that they could not out-build other powers and this was their only route for success. Reserved for the decisive battle that the Imperial Japanese Navy anticipated against the US Navy during the Pacific War, they did not see much action during the war. Mutsu was destroyed in an accidental magazine explosion in 1943 and her sister ship Nagato ineffectually participated in the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. Lightly damaged during the battle she returned home for repairs that Japan could not afford to make. She was modified to serve as a floating anti-aircraft battery and survived the war. She was used by the Americans as a target ship during their post-war atomic bomb tests. She sank during the second one of these and is now a diveable wreck at Bikini Atoll.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments Great work as always. I have the following comments:

• "the Nagato class was designed before Commander Yuzuru Hiraga was reassigned to the Navy Technical Department (NTD) responsible for ship design" - the significance of this should be noted upfront, as it's not clear at present
• " the loss of all four carriers" - didn't the Combined Fleet also include a handful of light carriers during Midway? (from memory, supporting the battleship force and so not engaged by the USN)
• "Nagato departed Truk to avoid an American air raid" - you could note that this was basically a permanent redeployment as Truk was considered too vulnerable
  • Do you have a cite for this? I don't know off-hand any of my sources that address this issue.
    • Pages 342-343 of Japan's War by Edwin P. Hoyt note that the entire Combined Fleet permanently abandoned Truk after US forces captured the Marshal Islands and moved first to Palau and then to Tawi-Tawi off Borneo to be close to a source of fuel. Page 335 of Stephen Roskill's The War At Sea Vol III Part I notes that the Combined Fleet departed Truk for Palau after an American recon plane overflew Truk, and on page 340 it's noted that most of the Fleet moved to Singapore in late March to early April after the USN's Fast Carrier Taskforce was spotted near Palau. The movements of the Combined Fleet/Mobile Fleet in this period are a bit confusing, not least as no-one ever seems to have written a comprehensive English-language history of the IJN in the period after Midway. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• This article gets bonus points for including one of my photos ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • All done. Keep on taking wiki-related busman's holidays and I'll be happy to use any photos that you take. How do you feel about Talcahuano, Chile? There's an ironclad there that needs more photos and that's in considerably better shape than the ones you photographed in the Netherlands. Thanks for the quick review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I've been looking for reasons to go to South America: that seems like a good one to add to the list :) Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I copyedited the article per standard disclaimer copyediting disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for fixing this up. But just to clarify, you prefer not to support on prose until you've had a chance to go through it twice, once at each level?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Replying over at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a couple of nitpicks:

• "the crew totalled" --> "totaled" in US English?
• "layers of HTS, totalling" --> "totaling" in US English?
• "rumours from spreading" --> "rumors"?
• in the References, are there page numbers that could be added for the Lengerer work within the Ahlberg source? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • All done. Thanks for catching these little niggles. I write so much in BritEng that it's getting hard to even notice the spelling differences anymore.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, I've added my support as I don't think I will get back to look at the article again for another week after today. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• I have c/e'd the article, feel free to revert anything where I've changed meaning. The caliber of the armaments are a bit of a mix of abbr and non-abbr, I suggest consistency. There was grammatically dubious initial capitalisation of Turret and Barbette and the terminology used should probably just be consistent throughout.
  • I spelled out all of the armament abbreviations, but I'm rather confused by your second sentence. Barbette was nowhere capitalized at all. I've asked for another opinion when referring to a specific turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • After consultations and looking at reference books, I've decaptialized all uses of turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Check my c/e for Barbette ( it was in the Armor section). I'm happy with it all now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
• no alt text for images (not an ACR requirement)
• toolchecks are all green (no action needed)

---

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) 21:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

SMS Scharnhorst

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

The next article I'd like to run on the Main Page on a major centenary (her loss at the Battle of the Falklands), this article originally dates to 2009 (so there's probably still some dust that needs knocking off), but over the past week I have radically expanded it with new sources and roughly doubled it in size. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment by MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Have you seen this? According to this account, in mid-1915 a coastal steamer off the Brazilian coast discovered a body of a German sailor. Attached to him was a water tight 21-cm water tight cartridge containing the aft flag of Scharnhorst. The flag was sent to the Maritime Museum in Berlin, but it was lost during the World War II. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• HRS also mention this on the last page of SMS Scharnhost section, see small print #5 MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• No, I hadn't seen that (and happened to skip over the notes in HRS when I did the translation work) - I'll take a look at HRS in the morning and add it in. Thanks for letting me know about it. Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [66] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [67] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text [68] so you might consider adding it (not one of the ACR criteria, suggestion only).
  • Images are all PD and appear to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [69] (no action req'd).
  • A few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Amoy
    • torpedo boat
    • Truk
    • Kaiser Wilhelm II
    • German Samoa
    • Apia
      • All removed
  • "sailed across the Pacific ocean", ocean should be capitalised as a proper noun.
    • Good catch
  • "More than 1,600 men were killed in the sinking of the two armored cruisers, including Admiral Cradock...", should just be Cradock, removing rank following formal introduction at first use per WP:SURNAME.
    • Fixed
  • In the references: Hough, Richard (1980). Falklands 1914: The Pursuit of Admiral Von Spee. Periscope Publishing. ISBN 978-1-904381-12-9 - lacks place of publication.
    • Added
  • Overall very little to fault it. Looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing the article and catching all these issues. Parsecboy (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comments
• The first sentence of Service History is a bit muddled:
  • a) When she was laid down, her official designation was Neubau Großer Kreuzer D, she was not named until her launch a year later.
    • Well yes, but it's quite routine to refer to a ship by its name before it's formally christened with that name.
      • Just thought it might be a good opportunity to mention that detail.
  • b) Isn't it a prerequisite for being a veteran to have survived the war? Scharnhorst died of wounds in 1813, that makes him a casualty, doesn't it?
    • I suppose that's true - changed to "military reformer during..."
• In 1912, when Scharnhorst went to Japan, it states "and the coronation ceremony". As there is no crown in Japan, the term is a bit misleading, also in the article on the Taishō_Emperor it states he was not enthroned until 1915. While not technically wrong, maybe this should be rephrased.
  • • Crowns are not required for a coronation, they're just typically used, but the word refers to any investiture of a monarch. And the article says he took the throne in 1912 - the Enthronement of the Japanese Emperor refers to a set of rituals spaced out over the early period of the emperor's reign.
      • As HRS mention a coronation ceremony and it does not concern the fate of the ship it's of no importance anyway. It was only when I followed the link that I stumbled on the enthronement thingy. BTW there also was no "heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary", but it is still the most common description of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
• In the same paragraph we move on to 1913, but unfortunately no year is given.
  • Added
• The next paragraph mentions "Fort Löwenberg". This refers to "Shizi Mountain" or "Lion Rock" in Nanjing (cf. Yuejiang Lou). And if I read Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz correctly, Scharnhorst was not involved in the encounter with Chinese batteries.
  • I'll have to double check later
• Glasgow is first mentioned in the paragraph immediately before Battle of Coronel, but not linked.
  • Good catch, fixed.
• Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz give the coordinates for her sinking as 54°40' South, 55°51' West, while I can't find a reference for the slightly different coordinates in the article.
  • Looks like they were added here with no source - I'll update them to the coordinates HRS provide.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

My pleasure. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Tell the reader that triple expansion engines are steam engines.
  • Done
• Link broadside
  • Added
• Why is there a comma in the middle of this?: SK L/40 guns in casemates, and eighteen 8.8 cm You have a couple of other commas in front of conjunctions like "and" elsewhere.
  • I do have a tendency to overuse commas - I've gotten better but this part of the article is 5 years old or so.
    • You've still got a ton of these; do a search and destroy for "comma|space|and" in your browser.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Cleaned out a bunch of these, thanks.
• unrest had broken out in Ponape, which required the presence of Emden and Nürnberg. Scharnhorst instead went on If her presence wasn't required at Ponape, why is it "instead" here?
  • My thinking was that it wasn't explicit that Scharnhorst wasn't needed in Ponape (since an affirmative of A isn't necessarily a negative of B) and that would make it clearer.
• Typo "Paganm" that's probably another of your middle commas.
  • Fixed.
• detached his armored and light cruisers probably best just to use "cruisers" here instead of this wording.
  • Sure
• Put a comma in between the first two names for HRS in your citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Added. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I've tweaked the infobox and description to use ftin conversions and a few other minor points dear to me, but one point remains. What's the proper ihp for the engines? The description and infobox disagree by a minor amount. When you nom Gneisenau for ACR, be a good fellow and copy these tweaks over for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • It was probably a typo here - 26,000 is the correct figure. I'll update Gneisenau's infobox when I get around to expanding the article. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2014 (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) 12:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

Per Ian Rose's advise, I am nominating the article for an A-Class review to iron out any remaining issues with the article. The article is currently at GA status. It was recently nominated for FA status, but failed due to a lack of interest, most comments focused on issues within the article that could be fixed. I believe the article meets both A-class and FA criteria. All images contain alt text, there are no disambig links on the page, and all external links are working. The previous FA discussion can be found here. All comments are welcome.

Pending a successful outcome of this review, I will be re-nominating the article for FA status and would invite all reviewers to further comment at that stage.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments I'm surprised that this hasn't yet attracted any reviewers given that it's a detailed GA. I have the following comments:

• The opening para is a bit unclear: I'd suggest starting with a strong and clear statement of what this article was and why it mattered, and then getting into the details of when it was signed, etc, in the subsequent paras of the lead
  • I have made a few changes to the first para. Any thoughts?
• The para which starts with 'Most of the major battles on the Western Front had been in France' would benefit from a clearer lead sentence which indicates the content of the para (the different views of the British and French)
  • I have added a sentence in per your advise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• What was the make-up of the "Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties"? Was this a group of at least theoretically neutral scholars, or were they diplomats/government representatives?
  • I have added a detail note, noting the legal background of all involved and link to the majority of them. It maybe overkill.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• " having disregarded the repeated explicit decisions of the government" what was the German government's view? Why didn't they reign in Brockdorff-Rantzau or sack him if he was acting contrary to his instructions?
  • I have been searching, but have found nothing that outright states why. What I have found is that everyone seems to be in agreement that he was at odds with the Government, did immense damage while in Paris (with at least one source suggesting that he deliberately withheld information from the Government to the delegation, which resulted in the animosity the delegation received the peace treaty). After which, he resigned and eventually returned to the diplomatic service and carried on this role throughout the 1920s involving a key role in signing the Treaty of Rapallo.

The closest I have came to finding an explanation as to why he wasn't sacked or replaced, appears to be the implication (rather than outright stating so) that the uproar caused by the treaty saved his job: link 1, link 2, p. 144. The following notes that, despite earlier instructions to the contrary, when Brockdorff returned to Berlin the Government agreed with him and resigned in process to the diktat link, p. 73. Any advise? EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• " This resulted in a prevailing belief of humiliation among Germans as the article was seen as an injustice, and of Germany having signed "away her honor"" - this sentence is a bit awkward
  • Does it read better now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Who were " Binkley and Mahr"? (historians, foreign affairs experts, etc?). This para is also rather long and combines a few different concepts, and would benefit from being split.
  • Partially addressed, it seems I ended editing out who these two were at some point. Both are historians, although I may have gone overboard in describing this.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, I have split the para. Hopefully in the right place! :p EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• "In 1940, French historian René Albrecht-Carrié" - was he writing before the French defeat that year?
  • Based out of New York and writing in March, before the German offensive. I will amend the sentence to reflect the date. Would it be advisable to include his location?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would be a good idea given that a pre-May 1940 writer in France probably wouldn't have anything unbiased to say about the Germans. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• The material on the historiography on this topic is interesting, but the article would benefit from additional material on the political ramifications of Article 231 in Germany: this is discussed at various points, but this material could be drawn together and expanded to make it clearer. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I will see what else I can dig up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I am currently out of town, for the next week, and only able of sporadic editing: I will address this point asap.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Per your comments here and on your talkpage, I have added a section about the long term political impact. I believe this addresses your point, if not please let me know.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • That works for me, though I'd suggest expanding this ahead of any prospective FA nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed

Support Comments: G'day, good work so far. Just a couple of minor nitpicks from me (sorry, the topic isn't really my forte): AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments mate.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• image licencing looks okay to me, although "File:Ulrich Graf von Brockdorff-Rantzau.jpg" might be better with a more specific licence than the PD-old one being used if possible, although the PD-US seems sufficient;
  • I have just looked at the 'Published outside the United States' section of Help:Public domain. If I am not mistaken, there is no need for PD-old. If there is agreement, I can remove it and leave the PD-US in place?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, I believe that that would work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I shall amend it immediately.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• watch the way you present emdashes. Per WP:MDASH these should be unspaced (for instance in the lead);
  • I have addressed the one in the lede. Reworded the sentence on the next occurrence. I think that has addressed them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• in the References, you appear to mix two different styles: "Citation" and "Cite book". For consistency, I'd suggest just using the one style, although the difference is minimal (use of commas instead of full stops, I think)
  • Done
• the duplicate link checker tool reported several duplicate links: World War I reparations, Belgium, World War I, Central Powers;
  • Done
• in the lead, typo: "that that"
  • Fixed. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• "In his "well-researched", but highly..." I wonder if this opinion should not be attributed in text, i.e. who described it as "well researched". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That is how William Mulligan refers to Fischer's work, although I think that is pretty much the consensus of most historians on his work. In my opinion, throwing in another name would break up the flow of the text. Any suggestions on how to approach this (drop the quotations, but keep the text?)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Is it necesary to include the judgement? "in 1970, Fischer wrote...."; if your heart's set on adding the judgement by Mulligan, you could put it in a note. Keith-264 (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have removed it. After having a little think about it, its not the best place for it. I removed similar info from the WW1 reps article about AJP Taylor. While Fisher may be controversial, and highly researched, that is something that should be mentioned on his page not here ... I think ;p EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The solution looks good to me now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• The Background section seems to begin quite abruptly: "In 1914, the First World War broke out". I wonder if the sentence was expanded a little, to provide just a little more context, if it would work better. For instance, what month did it break out, and briefly between whom and why. (Obviously, that could be the subject of a book, but if there was a way to condense that concisely into a sentence or two, it might make the Background section begin a little more smoothly). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Excellent suggestion. I will start on the tweaks.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have threw something together, that hopefully covers all bases in a concise manner.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. I don't think I will get back to view the article for another week after today, so I've added my support as all my points have been discussed/addressed. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much for the review, comments, and support :)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Did a drive-by edit of the references (added issns and oclcs) and altered some from citation to cite book/journal as these ones had red on. I can change the rest to cite book and separate them according to source if desired. Some of the references also appear to have superfluous criteria so I can also blam them. Please revert the changes if necessary. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Finished what I started.Keith-264 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Keith.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Just popping in real quick to say thanks for all the comments. I will address them as soon as possible, more than likely starting tomorrow.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have addressed some of the comments, the rest I will look at tomorrow. Thanks again everyone.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment I've done a little copyediting and I made suggestions during the peer review, but I'm going to stop there for now. Generally, the article could be a bit tighter and clearer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edit :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [70] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [71] (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text [72] (no action req'd).
  • Images are all PD / free and appear to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
    • Lewis, p. 42 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Lewis, p. 43 (Multiple references contain the same content)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [73] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • There are some prose issues which I think could be improved:
    • "...This caused a diplomatic crisis resulting in Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia sparking the First World War...", suggest something like: "This caused a diplomatic crisis resulting in Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia and sparking the First World War..."
    • "...within weeks the major powers of Europe were at war divided into two sets of alliances: the Central Powers and the Triple Entente..." this might work better like this (or something similar): "...within weeks the major powers of Europe—divided into two alliances known as the Central Powers and the Triple Entente—were at war..."
    • repetitive "...in 1918 during the German retreat, German troops..." → "...in 1918 during the German retreat, their' troops..."
    • repetitive "...arguing instead for a lower sum less crippling to the German economy so that Germany..." → "...arguing instead for a lower sum less crippling to the German economy so that it..."
    • Is there a typo in this quote here: "...understand that compensation will be made by Germany for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied...", specifically should this be "Allies"?
    • "...a ready audience amongst 'revisionist' writers in France, Britain, and the USA..." Should be "the United States" not USA per MOS:NOTUSA.
    • "...His war time speeches, however...", should be "wartime" shouldn't it?
    • I'm not an expert in grammar but the punctuation here seems problematic: "...The outrage caused by Article 231 created a psychological and political burden that hindered the efforts of the, newly formed, Weimar Republic to stabilize..." (the commas don't seem quite right to me).
    • Inconsistent use of both U.S. and US in article. Anotherclown (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review and comments. I have made the amendments you have suggested and corrected the reference, comma, and typo issues that you highlighted. I have opted to replace US/U.S. with United States.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2014 (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) 21:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

List of cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

This list is the capstone for this project, which will be the largest Good Topic on Wikipedia at 121 articles. It represents the culmination of 5 years of work (I wrote SMS Fürst Bismarck in June 2009, probably the first article I did in this series). Thanks to all who review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment support I think the reader would profit if the lead would very briefly address a bit more of the historic context which spans from the Kaiserliche Marine in the German Empire, the downsizing following WW1, the resurrection in Reichsmarine of Weimar Republic, to the ultimate destruction in WW2 in the Kriegsmarine of the Third Reich. The current lead assumes that the reader is knowledgeable about these events. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A very good point - I've added a bit about the restrictions of Versailles and included the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine. Thanks very much. Parsecboy (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments.

• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about halfway, at List_of_cruisers_of_Germany#Light cruisers. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• "these heavy cruisers armed with 28 cm (11 in) guns were intended to break Versailles by rendering the new treaty cruisers being built by Britain and France under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. ": ?
  • Funny how your brain shuts off halfway through a.
• FWIW, I copyedited the article per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure, gratz on finishing the topic. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
      • New copyediting disclaimer: copyediting disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comments
• "the German Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy)" why not simply "Imperial German Navy" as in the article linked?
  • I've chosen to use German words for proper nouns (as you'll see on the talk page, incidentally, I opposed moving the article from Kaiserliche Marine to Imperial German Navy in the first place). And that is a better construction than Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial German Navy) because, for one, Kaiserliche Marine is directly translated as Imperial Navy, the "German" is added for English speakers who can't be bothered to know more than one language. And for another, the average reader won't know that the Kaiserliche Marine was a German navy (despite the context clues of the list's title, sadly enough).
    • Being near fluent in both languages doesn't help much in that respect. Just more confusion. And to pop the German Question, which other Kaiserliche Marine would that be?
• Footnote 1: the article limiting the displacement of new cruisers is 190, not 191 (that prohibited Germany from building submarines). Also there is no indication that it refers to long tons. In the French version it says tonnes and in the German translation Tonnen, while the English one uses simply "tons". I would go for metric tons, unless there is a source claiming otherwise.
  • Ah yes, probably a typo on the article number, good catch. You're probably right on metric tons.
• In the last sentence of the lead section: Nürnberg was not scrapped in 1946, but served until 15 February 1961 (cf. Hildebrand, Röhr, Steinmetz,s.v.), when she was eventually broken up. (Also last sentence of Light cruisers)
  • Yes, must have been looking at something else when I wrote that. Thanks for catching it.
• "only eight Gazelle and Bremen-class cruisers were permitted under the terms of the treaty": Article 181 says six light cruisers, but does not specify any class.
  • The Reichsmarine could have 6 light cruisers with a further two in reserve (same for the pre-dreadnoughts) - some of the restrictions ascribed to Versailles were actually put in place by the Military Inter-Allied Commission of Control, not the treaty itself.
    • I somehow knew that, it's just that the source did not mention it.
• "These ships could be replaced after twenty years, ..." counting from the launching of the ship.
  • That's a good distinction to make, added.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, my pleasure. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• There's a reference to the post-war Emden in 1923, but the table says that she was laid down in 1921. Typo?
  • Yup, fixed.
• Multiple links for diesel engines.
  • Removed
• Suggest a bit covering Seydlitz's conversion into a carrier.
  • Added a line on this
• some references have state or nation of publication, others do not. Pick one or the other, although I suggest spelling out the state names for our non-North American readers.
• Suggest spelling out Germany instead of DE.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I've been thinking about this lately and I think I prefer leaving it at just the city name since that's what's in the book and what you see in Worldcat. Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • So long as you're consistent, although I'll point out that the books themselves usually provide state/province unless they're in world-class cities like London, New York, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [74] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [75] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text [76] so you might consider adding it (not one of the ACR criteria, suggestion only).
  • Images are all PD and appear to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [77] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • "...though she wasn't laid down until 1890..." - don't we generally avoid contractions per WP:CONTRACTION?
  • "... And Plan Z, approved in early 1939, projected a dozen P-class cruisers based on the Deutschland design..." Not sure about starting a sentence with 'and'. Perhaps reword? (suggestion only).
  • Otherwise I've read through the article and it looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:21, 24 May 2014 (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) 21:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mahan-class destroyer

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk)

The Mahan-class destroyers incorporated some notable improvements in design over their predecessors. Included was advanced propulsion machinery that changed the technology for future destroyers; the mounting of twelve torpedo tubes, instead of eight, and installing superimposed gun shelters for the first time. Each of the eighteen-member class served in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II; participating in a host of engagements against Japanese forces. Some of the class was at Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941; a few were devastated by the attack and others escaped unharmed. In the South Pacific, members of the class took part in campaigns to retake the Santa Cruz Islands, New Guinea, Guadalcanal, the Philippine Islands, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and others. Six of the eighteen ships were combat losses, two were expended in post war tests, and the remainder were eventually sold or scrapped. Together, the class earned 111 battle stars for their service in the war. This article passed GA review in December 2013. Thanks to those who might find the time to review the article. Pendright (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments - mostly nitpicky stuff, I'm very impressed with the quality of the article:

• I probably wouldn't repeat the two photos of Cassin and Downes at Pearl Harbor - I'd recommend using the first version, since it's cropped closer on the ships in question. You could use File:Uss Downes DD-375.jpg, since it's an interesting close aerial shot and it shows various aspects of the ship in good detail. Alternatively, if you wanted to keep another shot of the ship sunk at Pearl, you could replace it with File:Photograph of warships damaged at Pearl Harbor - NARA - 306534.jpg, which is interesting because it's another angle and shows more detail from Downes specifically.
  • Done – I settled on the first of your two photo suggestions for the reasons you described. Pendright (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Second thoughts: I wasn’t able to find any photos for the Case history, but she was at Pearl on December 7th and escaped damage. What do you think of using the second photo there, drawing the difference between those that were damaged and those that were not with the photo? Pendright (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I tracked down a few photos of Case and uploaded them - you can see them in the USS Case (DD-370) article. I for one like the stern photo since it complements the bow photo of Mahan earlier in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Case's stern photo posted. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• The horsepower figure and the boilers should go in the |Ship power= field in the infobox, also add conversion and a link for shaft horsepower
  • Done - Pendright (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The displacement figure in the infobox should have a conversion (and specify which type of tons are used - we know it's long tons, but the average reader won't)

• Done - Pendright (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• After looking at it some more, I think the columns for name and hull number should be reversed in the table.
  • I’m able to reverse the hull number and name in the table, but I’m not doing as well with reversing or changing the width of the columns. Pendright (talk) 02:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Done - The columns for name and hull number have been reversed in the table. Pendright (talk) 00:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• I'd link torpedo tube and torpedo in the body of the article.
  • Done - Pendright (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• I think it might make more sense to have the Dunlap class section before the Construction section, since you go from talking about technical stuff in the Design and Armament sections, then building info, then back to technical stuff.
  • Done - Pendright (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• I wouldn't capitalize "Naval" (as in "Naval service") - it's only a proper noun when you refer to the US Navy specifically.
  • Now lower case - Pendright (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• "USS Tucker was commissioned as a US Navy destroyer in July 1936" - was there a possibility she would be commissioned as a battleship? :P
  • Redundancy corrected – point well taken. Pendright (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
• I'd avoid slang terms like "battlewagon", and I'd similarly avoid uncommon words like "aviatrix" when "pilot" will be readily understood by most readers
  • I was unable to find any reference to battlewagon, so I assume you meant it as an example. But I did change aviatrix to pilot.
    • It was here ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Thank you! Pendright (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Why are you using two different editions of Chronology of the War at Sea?
  • Ignorance, for the most part: I took for granted that each was a distinct publication and did not look beyond that. I bought the coauthored version first and the current one a bit later. Pendright (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, mostly to fix formatting and add links and so forth. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. Pendright (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• Hi Pendright, good to see you at A-class, I hope your Peer Reviews and Good Article Nominations have been going well. A-class is just a stone's throw away from Featured Article status and your very own day on the WP:Main Page, so I'm going to be a little bit fussy in my copyediting, to try to help you get past the (sometimes fussy) reviewers at FAC. Feel free to revert anything you don't like. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• Sometimes you convert tons to metric, sometimes not.
• So far so good on prose per copyediting disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about halfway, at Mahan-class_destroyer#Lamson. Hopefully someone else will pick up the copyediting work from there. These are my edits. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Pendright (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• I finished up copyediting the article per my copyediting disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you for improving the quality of the article. Pendright (talk) 01:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Happy to help, it looks really good. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support: impressive article. Well done. I have a couple of minor nitpick comments/suggestions, that do not impact upon my support:AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "The Mahan-class destroyers of the United States Navy were 16 destroyers..." seems inconsistent with the infobox "Completed 18". I understand that there is some discrepancy/disagreement about Dunlap and Fanning, so I'd suggest probably slightly tweaking the lead. For instance, perhaps this might work: "The Mahan-class was a class of destroyers commissioned in to the United States Navy in 1936 and 1937. The class consisted of 18 ships, although two, Dunlap and Fanning, are sometimes considered part of a separate class..."
  • inconsistent presentation: "16" v "eighteen" (e.g. numerals over spelling) in the lead;
  • I found and fixed a few instances of where ship names weren't in italics, please check if I missed any;
  • I tweaked a few myself, but where possible, if you mention an action at a location, I think the convention is to include the link to the battle/campaign article rather than the location, for instance Battle of Balikpapan (1945) rather than just Balikpapan;
  • spelling inconsistency: "Finchhafen, "Finschhafen" and "Finchhaffen";
  • this seems a little awkward: "...was demolished by one or more mines". To my ear demolished doesn't quite seem right. Perhaps this might be better: "The ship entered the harbor by the western entrance where she struck at least one mine" (or something similar?)
  • "steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her" - do we know the name of the troopship? If possible, please add it here;
  • "A court of inquiry found the captain, the navigator, and the officer of the deck at fault for the collision" - were these Perkins' crew, or the troopship's?
  • "File:Photograph of the wreckage of the USS Downes, hit by bombs during the attack on Pearl Harbor - NARA - 306547.jpg": if possible, this image should cropped to reduce the effect of the whitespace. If you are not sure how to do this, please let me know and I will have a crack;
  • wording: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when an Australian troopship rammed her." For me, the word rammed makes it sound intentional, so I'd suggest rewording slightly. For instance, perhaps this might work: "Late in November, the ship was bound from Milne Bay to Buna, steaming independently, when she collided with an Australian troopship." Either that or "when an Australian troopship accidentally rammed her";
  • "when rammed by an Australian troopship" (as above, probably use "collided with", or similar). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • AR, I think I've fixed all these that were in the text, except for changing links. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 25 May 2014 (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) 04:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Another article I wrote and took to GA a few years ago, then left alone to see if anything more turned up in the way of sources. Little has, so I think we have pretty well the full story here. This incident was extraordinary not only for the collision itself and its immediate denouement, but for an aftermath that would be comical if it wasn't so tragic – and to top it off the third picture of the entangled aircraft is courtesy of someone near and dear to me, who just happened to be one of the local flying school's young instructors at the time. ;-) I really would like to see this on WP's front page some time, so that means FAC but, before that, let's see how it fares here... Thanks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Do you know of any other planes that landed safely after colliding and interlocking in the air? If not, do you know of any sources that claim that this event was unique? - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Re. "a/an historic", I prefer "an" myself but don't feel strongly about it, so no prob with your edit. Re. "uniqueness", the only documentation I've seen for myself that mentions similar accidents is the Flight International page that I put in the EL section. It suggests that two instances occurred in Canada (again with Ansons -- they must've been built for this sort of thing!) during the war, both after this one took place. Only one of those Canadian incidents is described as "well-authenticated" but I haven't seen the presumed reliable sources for it (I found a blog that suggested a few places to look but they're not books in my local library system). The bottom line is that I believe the Brocklesby accident was certainly "unique at the time" but perhaps not "unique in all time" -- so I didn't use the term at all out of pragmatism... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Ian, fascinating topic. I have a couple of minor comments by way of review: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• the images seem appropriately licenced, but on the topic I wonder if a couple of the images should be removed, currently the article looks a little cluttered, but that might be my small screen...If you do decide to remove a couple, it might make sense to create a Commons category for those you remove
  • I guess I tend to space things based on my two laptop screens (10-in and 14-in) rather than mobiles, and it seems all right on them -- perhaps I might wait and see if anyone else has thoughts...?
• "emergency 'pancake' landing" --> should pancake be in double quotes?
  • I'll admit I'm not sure of the rule but I tend to use double quotes only when reporting what someone's said, and single quotes when it's a figure of speech.
• same as above for 'circuits and bumps';
  • Ditto -- although I'll double-check and see if anything links to them in which case I might drop even the single quotes.
    • Found a link for circuits and bumps but not for pancake landing per se. Perhaps I should create a redirect for it, pointing to emergency landing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• a couple of the external links report as dead (is it possible to add a link to Web Archive/Wayback Machine?): [78]
  • Yes, I use Wayback quite often. I thought I'd checked all the links in the article to ensure they were live but will go through them again.
    • Mmm, tried each external link myself and all worked, so maybe a furphy before. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• "and created a spotlight on..." This sounds a little awkward to me. Perhaps, "cast a spotlight on..."?
  • Yes, definitely -- tks.
• are there publisher details that could be added for the World War 2 Nominal Roll entries? Perhaps, Commonwealth of Australia? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Vets Affairs from memory -- will check and add. Many tks for review/support, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments Great article Ian, and your father's photo adds a lot of value. I have a few comments though:

• "The RAAF's Inspector of Air Accidents, Group Captain Arthur "Spud" Murphy was quickly on the scene" - this seems a bit surprising. Was he based in this area? (which would make sense given it's where most of the air accidents would have been taking place)
  • I could try going back to Winneke's bio and see where he and Murphy were based and/or precisely when they arrived. I suspect they were in Melbourne, at Point Cook or RAAF HQ, and so could have travelled to the NSW border in a matter of hours. Do you feel that "quickly" implies almost momentarily (I got the impression that anything up to a day after was "quick" back then)... ;-)
    • "Quickly" implies he was among the first to arrive. You could tweak this to "When the RAAF's Inspector of Air Accidents, Group Captain Arthur "Spud" Murphy visited the scene"... Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Clarified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
• "and created a spotlight on the small town of Brocklesby" - did it really lead to coverage of the town other than it happening to be near the crash? If not, I'd suggest omitting this.
  • The actual wording from memory was "put Brocklesby on the map" so happy to take suggestions for rewording but I felt it was worth including something to this effect, that most people in Australia -- never mind the world -- had never heard of the place before this.
    • "bringing reporters to the little-known town" perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Well we could infer that but the source doesn't go into detail. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I'd suggest cutting this outright given that the fame was limited and fleeting, but it's much of a muchness. It's interesting that the town has built a memorial to the accident! Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I guess it's their way of accepting that this incident was indeed the town's fifteen minutes of fame (although if this eventually gets to TFA we'll give 'em a whole 24 hours, seventy-odd years after the event)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
• Did the pilots receive any punishment for colliding in the first place? (accidents weren't as big a deal at this time as they are now - for obvious reasons - but it seems to have been an avoidable accident). Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The only punishment I've been able to reference was for Fuller talking about it out of turn. The initial incident report is on NAA but tells us nothing we don't know from other sources and of course pre-dates any inquiry. Certainly nothing happened that curtailed their flying careers (though of course there was a war on)... ;-) One news report said Fuller was even considered for a decoration, but as that was the only source I decide to leave it out. Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I imagine that pilots who were skilful and lucky enough to survive this situation were considered a real asset. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2014 (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) 04:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

As the RAAF's premier squadron, active for most of the 98 years since its formation during WWI, this unit has generated a good deal of source material so, unlike many of the articles I've attacked, what to put in has been less of an issue than what to leave out and which references to emphasise. Aside from dedicated unit histories and operations books (the latter mainly for confirming aircraft and personnel strengths at various times) I've tried to ensure that the most recent in-depth studies of each major period are well utilised (i.e. Moltenkin for WWI, Coulthard-Clark for between the wars, Johnston for WWII, Stephens for the Cold War, and McPhedran for recent years), augmented by the official war histories and other works. Similarly I hope the balance of info across the unit's long history is satisfactory, and am of course open to suggestions for redressing any concerns in that regard. I'd like to acknowledge the contributions over the past year or so by several people, in particular AustralianRupert, Nigel Ish and Nick-D, as well as Sturmvogel_66 for his recent GA review, since when I've further tweaked and expanded the article. As you'd guess, the ultimate destination for this article is FAC, so any suggestions on that count are more than welcome! Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments Great work as always Ian. I have the following comments:

• "During World War II, the squadron flew Lockheed Hudson bombers in the Malayan and Dutch East Indies campaigns before being reduced to cadre in 1942" - it might be worth tweaking this to note that the squadron was basically destroyed during these campaigns
  • Added a bit, and took the opportunity to expand slightly on the post-war era.
• " it was also under threat for a time of being renumbered as an RAF squadron" - not sure that this wording is totally neutral ;) (though it would have probably reflected the views of the Australian airmen)
  • Heh, fair enough.
• The photo of the Canberra bomber is a bit blury and unexciting; I'd suggest replacing this with another alternative (unless this is the only or best confirmed-to-be-1 Squadron photo we have?)
  • Judging by the tail fin flash, I think it might even be a 2Sqn plane, but at least it's in the right silver colour scheme. The only better-quality PD pictures I'm aware of in the appropriate livery are the air race ones (which certainly weren't 1Sqn) on Commons, and a couple of early British-made models at the AWM. Suggestions welcome!
• The recent news coverage of the F-35 purchase has noted that a decision to buy an additional 24 aircraft to replace the Super Hornets will be made in the (possibly distant) future, so the last sentence is probably too strong. The RAAF's website notes that "In the future, a fourth operational squadron will be considered for RAAF Base Amberley, for a total of about 100 F-35A's." [79]. The DMO's website notes says that a decision will be made at some point after 2015, and this will affect when the F/A-18Fs leave service [80]. From memory, the 2013 Defence White Paper stated that the RAAF had a requirement for about 100 F-35s, and this appears to be the current government's position as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this was always going to be a bit complicated. Tks for the links, I'll take a look when I can -- for now I've softened the existing statement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi again Nick. Checking over those links, and re-reading Australian Aviation, I think I was in fact reporting the latter accurately (it used the word "likely") and that this contradicts somewhat the RAAF/DMO pages, or at the very least offers another scenario, so be interested in your take on that. I was also interested to see that the DMO suggests buying more F-35s will depend on a decision about retaining the Rhinos, not the other way round, which is how I'd always read the situation. Do you think the appropriate way to go is to essentially note all this, explicitly attributing the possible Rhino replacement scenario to the government pages, and the "likely" Rhino retention scenario to Australian Aviation? Personally, I think the magazine is right on the money, but that's of course neither here nor there! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't think that there's necessarily a contradiction between the official line and the Australian Aviation story: the DMO says that a decision on the extra F-35s is "not expected before 2015" and this will flow on from a decision on what to do with the F/A-18Fs (AFAIK, these are still officially considered an interim type, so they could be sold back to the USN), and this seems consistent with the AA story about the F/A-18s being regained until they wear out and then being replaced with F-35s. I'd note that Australian Aviation has been pushing for a split Super Hornet and F-35 combat force for years so that the RAAF doesn't end up with its entire air combat force reaching block obsolescence at the same time, or being grounded if a serious mechanical fault with the type turns up (a position which makes a lot of sense to me IMO). Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Well I think you, me and AA are in violent agreement here, for me it makes sense to have a mixed force with some cross-over of mission capability, and not put all our eggs in one basket... That aside, sure, AA isn't so much contradicting the govt pages as emphasising one possible long-term scenario, i.e. the mixed force with just 72 F-35s and the Rhinos/Growlers seeing out their full life-of-type, which the govt pages merely imply. I do think however that the RAAF F-35 page muddies the waters by postulating just one F-35 squadron for Amberley, since another 28 aircraft is more like two squadrons (as AA suggests). So I might take the AA and DMO pages and smash their info together to recast the last part a little -- stay tuned... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
          • Heh, I obviously missed it before but the DMO page also talks about one squadron at Amberley, though again I'm not sure why one additional squadron needs 28 planes... OTOH, they're talking about 1Sqn operating all 24 Rhinos when 6Sqn gets the Growlers, so maybe there's something in it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
            • I'd be really surprised if the RAAF can resist the temptation to not re-raise a historic squadron/OCU HQ here to provide the operational conversion capability ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Don't get me started... ;-) If it were up to me, when the Growlers arrive the Wedgetail unit would be renumbered after one of the old maritime squadrons (say 9 or 20) while 2Sqn, as a long-time 82Wg unit, would be re-formed for the Growlers, and 1 and 6 carry on as they are now... Anyway, had a go at rejigging somewhat the last bit of the article so let me know how it reads to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
                • There are a few World War II fighter squadrons which I imagine the RAAF is keen to bring back as well. That change looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments are now all addressed: great work Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• A little over my head here, but I like to link multi-role fighters. IMO, it's not obvious to all of our readers what the various roles are. (push to talk) 20:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Dan, if you mean when it appears after an aircraft type, I left it out because I prefer not to have concurrent links if avoidable, and the reader can find out more by clicking the aircraft link; if you mean when it's used (or implied) in isolation, e.g. "multi-role capability", then I wouldn't have a particular issue linking that. Others may have an opinion so happy to be guided by consensus... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• "(ACO)": The acronym doesn't appear again in the article ... so we're omitting those, right?
  • I just used it because it's a valid acronym that might not be obvious given "air combat officer" isn't capitalised, but I don't have a strong opinion on it if you feel it should go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • If you're saying that some people might recognize the officer more readily as an ACO than as an "air combat officer", that's a legitimate exception to the MOS advice. In that case, stet. - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• "'"": {{' "}}
  • Sorry, where was that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • "called 'sir'" and that officers". - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• "Commander-in-Chief Far East Air Force": A few years ago, I think we (me, Hawkeye, a few others) decided that a comma sometimes gets inserted after "Chief", because it's pretty jargony without the comma. If you don't see commas in this construction, then it's fine to leave it out.
  • I don't have the source at hand and can't recall if it used a comma or not. I know those titles can take commas but where there's doubt I'd prefer to omit it as we have another comma before the chap's name/rank, which neatly subdivides those from the position title. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'll add this to my list of things to test on Wikipedians for comprehension and flow. My theory is that that noun phrase consisting of noun-prep-noun-adv-adj-noun-noun is going to be misread, or at least pondered over, by some readers who aren't expecting it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• "In the event,": Ugh.
  • All right, so I was trying it on... ;-) "As it happened..."? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Sure. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [81] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [82] (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text [83] (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine.
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals one (very) minor issue with reference consolidation:
    • 1SqnRole (Multiple references are using the same name)
      • Tks for spotting that! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [84] (no action req'd).
  • A large few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Sinai Campaign
    • Frank McNamara
    • Victoria Cross
    • RAAF Station Amberley
    • No. 82 Wing RAAF
    • Boeing Australia
    • Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets
    • McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet
      • I did this deliberately as sort of an experiment, treating the Role and equipment section as almost another introduction, separate to the History section. Certainly the last five links don't appear again until quite a way into the remainder of the article, though I grant you the first three show up pretty early on... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
        • No worries makes sense. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "where it bore the brunt of the Commonwealth air campaign against communist guerillas" - wonder if it would work better as "where it bore the brunt of the Commonwealth air campaign against the communist guerillas."
    • I guess I felt that using "the" presupposes the reader knows what the Emergency was about and leaving it out sounds more explanatory -- not sure if that makes sense or not, maybe it's just how it sounds to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • "and an inspection of RAAF procedures in 1938...", might work better as "and a review of RAAF procedures in 1938..."
    • It generally seems to be referred to as an inspection but I agree "review" probably makes more sense for the general reader -- done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Should the bit on INTERFET should at least mention Indonesia as the possible adversary?
    • I suppose it should do at that -- reworded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Cutlack, F.M. in the references seems slightly inconsistent using initials when all the rest use the author's full name. Perhaps expand (Frederic Morley)?
    • I've always used "F.M." because that's how he's named in the book, and I've never heard him referred to as anything but... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Minor nitpicks aside this is a very good article in my opinion. An excellent job summarising a large amount of literature into a succinct and accessible article. Anotherclown (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks AC -- that's appreciated (I know you've made a few edits to it yourself in the past). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2014 (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) 09:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

George Kistiakowsky

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Presenting George Kistiakowsky, inventor of the edible explosive. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Support -- as ever, let me know if I misunderstood anything when I copyedited...

• Structure/prose/content-wise, the only outstanding query I have is re. "Kistiakowsky was unhappy with the state of American knowledge of explosives and propellants. To remedy this, Conant established the Explosives Research Laboratory..." -- does this mean Kistiakowsky convinced Conant of the deficiency, and if so can we mention/cite that explicitly?
• Image licensing looks good to me.
• Sources look reliable and I couldn't see any obvious formatting problems.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Addressing the issues about the EBL: Dainton says: [Kistiakowsky] found that U.S. research in explosives and propellants was seriously deficient and this was reflected in lower quality weaponry. To remedy this he set up a special laboratory adjacent to the laboratories of the U.S. Bureau of Mines at Bruceton, Pennsylvania. (p. 383) But Noyes (written by Kistiakowsky and Connor) says: The Explosives Research Laboratory (ERL) originated with the decision of Drs. Conant and Davis, in the summer of 1940, to centralize the testing of explosives in one location and to place it in the hands of a staff which was already familiar with the subject. (p. 26) So I've re-worded to avoid giving this impression. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. "Taylor and Kistiakowsky published a series of papers together, Encouraged by Taylor, he published a American Chemical Society monograph on photochemical processes.": Something's wrong, and I'm wondering if that can be tighter. - Dank (push to talk) 03:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

A comma where there should be a full stop? Re-worded to: Taylor and Kistiakowsky published a series of papers together. Encouraged by Taylor, Kistiakowsky also published a American Chemical Society monograph on photochemical processes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• This looks a little odd in its context: He watched an implosion weapon that was detonated in the Trinity test in July 1945.
  • Re-worded. Better now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Is there anything more available for the International Education Board? If not, then I suggest a redlink.
  • Red linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Why did Baratol need to be used?
  • Explosive lenses require a fast and slow explosives to produce the required waveform. Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• What did he do after the Manhattan Project and before working for Eisenhower?
  • Changed the start of the first sentence of the "later life" section to Between his work for the Manhattan Project and his White House service, and again after his White House service ended. This is like it was before the GA review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • A little repetitive; how about "after he left the White House" to avoid the repetition?
      • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Use endashes in lieu of hyphens for all number ranges, including date and page ranges.
  • Ran the script. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Be consistent if you're going to use ampersands for multiple authors or not between refs and notes. You can add it to the cite book format with |lastauthoramp=1.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • That's a new one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I live to teach! Ref 31 uses an ampersand, most of the others don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Interesting. Anyhow, it's just the citation style. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
        • While you are free to chose your citation style, you do need to be consistent.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I am. The footnotes are generated with the {{sfn}} template and the citations with the {{cite book}} template. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
            • Then look up the documentation for the sfn template and figure out how to turn off the ampersand or add it to all of your multi-author works. I don't use it so don't know myself how to do that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Two or three use an ampersand; four or more use et alii. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
                • et al is fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • Anyhow, I have made the change. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2014 (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) 11:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

HMS Indefatigable (R10)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Indefatigable was one of two Illustrious-class armoured carriers modified to carry more aircraft at the expense of reduced armour. She was not completed until 1944 and her aircraft attacked the German battleship Tirpitz several times before she was transferred to the Pacific to support the American invasion of Okinawa and attack targets in the Japanese Home Islands. After the war she helped to repatriate troops and ex-PoWs home before she was placed in reserve. The ship was recommissioned in 1950 to serve as a training carrier for the Home Fleet until she was again reduced to reserve in the mid-1950 and sold for scrap. I trust that reviewers will spot any infelicities in language and BritEng before I send this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments: a couple of minor comments (not a full review): AustralianRupert (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Pacific Theater" --> "Pacific Theatre" (for British English)?
• in the Notes, "The mystery deepens!" --> I suggest removing or commenting this out as it probably doesn't belong in the article
• "South East Asia Theater" --> "South East Asia Theatre"?
• the duplicate link check highlights a couple of duplicate links: ship commissioning; HMS Victorious (R38); escort carrier. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking this over. I always forget about theatre!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Any way you can split up the design/description section a bit? It seems a bit wall-o-text-ish to me.
  • Better?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yup.
• Any line-drawings available? I'd wager that ONI produced recognition drawings during the war.
• I'd probably shift the launching photo to the right side - the angle of the slipway tends to draw the eye from right to left (or at least it does for me ;)
• It seems a number of good photos could be used in the article to help break up the paragraphs a bit:
  • File:USS Randolph (CV-15) off Japan 1945.jpg - would work well in the Indian/Pacific operations section, and particularly interesting since it shows UK/US joint operations
  • File:The Royal Navy during the Second World War A21197.jpg - a particularly impressive photo
  • File:HMS Indefatigable FL22353.jpg - don't know if you can date the camo scheme to find out when this was taken, but it's nevertheless a nice profile shot
  • File:Aircraft carriers, c.1946 (5124135353).jpg - also an interesting photo, since it shows all the activity that goes on while a ship is in port (and looks to be taken during the stop in Australia in mid-1946
  • There are also a number of photos in the Commons category of aircraft aboard the ship - it would be nice to add one of those.
    • Thanks for these suggestions; I really did forget about images for this article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
• Check BrEng/AmEng - I spot a "neutralize" and an "authorized" (I think these should be "ise" instead, but I'm a Yank so what do I know? ;)
• Probably best to spell out BPF the first time in the body again - I'd say it's far enough away from the lead to warrant it.
• Spell out small numbers - WP:NUMERAL suggests spelling out numbers less than 9, and either option for larger numbers up to those that require more than two words
  • Can't. MOS:Number says, under notes and exceptions:
    • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.
• "While visiting the latter city, the Governor-General of South Africa toured the ship in addition to the public." - sounds like the Governor-General toured the public, and also that he was visiting Cape Town ;) Might be better to word it as "While Indefatigable was visiting the latter city, she was opened to the public and the Governor-General of South Africa toured the ship."
• I made a few edits - make sure they're all ok. Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • They look fine. Looking for a line drawing now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No joy on a line drawing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll see if I can dig one up tomorrow. Parsecboy (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
        • If this is as complete as it appears to be, it doesn't look like ONI produced one (which is odd, but they're the Navy, so no surprise). Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Support:

• before joining the American forces preparing to invade the island of Okinawa in Operation Iceberg in March. Ambiguity here. Can you make it clear that the Indefatigable joined in March rather than the invasion of Okinawa being in March?
  • See how it reads now.
• What is the source for the pennant number being R10?
  • During WW2 it was just 10, I suspect that the 'R' was added after the war. Cite added.
• They were designed to be 2 knots faster and to carry an additional dozen aircraft It would help of course if I knew how fast an Illustrious class carrier was, and how many aircraft it carried. (And is that with or without parking them on the deck?)
  • The RN didn't use deck parks when the ship was designed. In the flight deck para I mention that the 48-aircraft capability was for internal storage.
• She was commissioned on 8 December 1943 Is this so we don't start two paragraphs in a row with the name of the ship?
  • Yes.
• On 19 September, she sortied from Scapa Flow to attack targets Don't we normally use the name first in the paragraph, then switch to the pronoun?
  • Nope, or at least, I never have.
• Their aircraft, 40 Seafires, 12 Fireflies, and 21 Avengers Who's flying the Avengers? You haven't mentioned (or linked) them yet.
  • Good catch. They're flown by 820 Squadron, but I didn't want to interrupt the flow to say that they'd converted from Barracudas to Avengers. The embarked squadron table makes that clear, though.
• Captain Quentin Graham was appointed to command the ship We link Captain but not rear admiral?
• After her return, Admiral Louis Mountbatten, South East Asia Theatre commander, Shouldn't it be Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, him being the second son of the Marquess of Milford Haven and all that sort of thing? And he was the Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia Command (SEAC).
  • I didn't want to give his full duty title as it's only mentioned once, but...
• A combination of bad weather, refuelling requirements and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima delayed the resumption of air operations How did the atomic bombing of Hiroshima delay air operations?
  • All carrier ops were cancelled and the ships ordered away from the home islands from 4-7 August. In reality this just meant that they scheduled an extra day to refuel during this period. Do you think that I need to explicate this more?
• On 17 August Admiral Bruce Fraser Admiral Sir Bruce Fraser
• Indefatigable was sold for scrap in September 1956 Why is "scrap" linked in the lead but not here?
  • Generally I only link once per article.
• Why is this in category 1942 ships? Is the category for when it is launched or commissioned? Was it launched in 1942 like it says in the infobox, or 1941 like it says in the article?
  • Fixed. Categories are for launch date.
• While we're at it, did it carry 73 aircraft (infobox) or 81 (article)?

Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Capacity for 81, only carried a maximum of 73 in service. No idea why not, probably shortage of aircrew, but that's just speculation on my part. Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Structure, level of detail and prose are fine by me following my habitual copyedit, just one query: "sea trials revealed a significant number of problems" -- if we can safely substitute "many" for "a significant number of" then it'd read better (and quicker!).
  • Good idea. I do have a bad habit of using "a number of" rather than "some" or "many".
• Citation formatting and sources look fine to me.
• No image licensing issues leapt out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for giving this a thorough look and copy-edit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments. This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)

• HMS_Indefatigable_(R10)#Postwar: Per WP:HEADING, use a noun phrase. Also, consistency needed: post-war
  • Done.
• "887 Squadron sank seven seaplanes ...": Numeral at the beginning of a sentence. Passive voice will fix it.
  • It's a proper name and thus I don't think that the rule really applies, especially since I don't really want to use passive voice if I can help it.
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about halfway, at HMS_Indefatigable_(R10)#Indian Ocean and Pacific operations. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Glad to see that you're back in the saddle reviewing; you've been missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks Sturm. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 11 May 2014 (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) 11:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Death on the Rock

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Strictly speaking, this probably doesn't fall within our scope, but it's a documentary about a military operation (Operation Flavius, which has just been through ACR and is now at FAC), and given the controversial nature of the subject matter, I'd really appreciate some feedback before I take it to FAC. This one's a bit shorter than Flavius, so it shouldn't take too long to read. The documentary is on YouTube in case anybody wants to watch it; it shouldn't take more than about five seconds to find it, but I won't link it because it's probably a copyvio! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I had a go at copy editing the article. These are my edits: [85]. Please check you are happy with them. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, more than happy. Thanks very much, Rupert. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Structure: I don't review that many media articles but this seems to follow a logical, linear sequence.
• Prose/content: I haven't read a WP article in a while that needed less copyediting, so well done! Just a couple of outstanding points:
  • "two or three time at point-blank range" -- Is "time" the actual quote or is it a typo (for "times")? If part of the quote, you may want a sic in there...
  • With a slightly altered rationale, Howe again attempted to prevent the programme's broadcast on the day it was due to be shown -- Do we know exactly what the "slightly altered" rationale was, or did I miss it?
• Image licensing looks good.
• I have to admit I'm not a fan of referring to citations as "specific" references and cited sources as "general" references but if you've generally found it to be accepted, so be it. Other than that, referencing looks thorough, sources reliable, and a cursory check revealed no obvious formatting issues.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Ian. I don't write many media articles, so I welcome all input! I fixed the typo. The altered rationale was a bit complicated, but essentially was that Howe believed DotR would contaminate witness evidence (as opposed to it being inherently prejudicial to the inquest). I didn't include the detail because I didn't think it was that significant, and because the second attempt seemed to be essentially one last role of the dice, but I can if you think it's worthwhile. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't affect my support here but I suppose as it is it does leave one hanging -- do you think something like With a slightly altered rationale--that the documentary would contaminate witness evidence--Howe again attempted to prevent the programme's broadcast on the day it was due to be shown would be okay? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I can live with that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• really well written article, interesting topic, nice to read a media article on a military subject for a change
• suggest the success of Proatta's libel suits be mentioned in the lead
  • Done.
• there is tension between the last sentence of the first para of the lead and the last sentence of the third para of the lead, you've already established the controversy and notability in the first sentence, but the two mentions of the Act makes it a little repetitive
  • Tweaked.
• I know people can read Op Flavius for the full story, but you might like to link the IRA ASU members in the Gibraltar shooting section
  • Done.
• Treacy only appears in the Broadcast section, when was she located etc? She seems quite important, as she was the one that saw Savage shot while he was running away
  • I've tried not to go into huge detail in the investigation section to avoid duplication between it and the broadcast section, but if you think Treacy needs more background, I can look at adding something.
    • I just found that when her name appeared, my first thought was "where did this sheila pop up from?" Perhaps a mention that she was located (when?) and said she (saw ?). Maybe I'm being pedantic...
      • Leave it with me. I'll see if I can add a sentence on her before I take the article off to FAC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
• suggest adding alt text to the images for accessibility (not a A-Class requirement)
• all other toolbox checks are green (no action needed).

Well done.

Thanks very much for the review, Peacemaker. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No probs, a pleasure to review an article as well written as this one. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 16:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Thames lost its franchise": Non-Brits might not get that this means "lost its license to broadcast".
• "Thames lost its franchise": I'm not sure if you need to say this twice in the lead.
• "decisions which many people believed were influenced by the government's anger at "Death on the Rock".": Some people say :) that "many people believed" is sort of prohibited per WP:WORDS; I don't agree, but I think there probably ought to be a punchier way to conclude the lead section, something that demonstrates that the government's actions had a chilling effect that kept the public from seeing other shows with similar information. (There's also an argument that mindreading the government's "anger" plays into their position. They probably claimed that their motives were pure, but if the question is the ability of journalists to report accurately on the actions of a government without being punished, then what's relevant is whether the government's actions effectively stopped other programs on the same subject matter from being aired, and according to your sources, they did.) Here are two examples, from your next-to-last paragraph: "Two other programmes were made about the Gibraltar shootings for British television, both by the BBC. BBC Northern Ireland produced an episode of Spotlight which arrived at similar findings to those of This Week; Howe attempted to have the programme delayed, using the same rationale with which he requested "Death on the Rock" be postponed. The programme was eventually broadcast, but restricted to Northern Ireland. The BBC's flagship current affairs series Panorama made a programme about the SAS and its role in the Troubles to coincide with the end of the end of the Gibraltar inquest; it was postponed by BBC executives in the wake of the controversy surrounding "Death on the Rock"."
• "the first such inquiry into a single television programme": appears twice in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 10 May 2014 (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) 23:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

House of Lancaster

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was suggested by three editors during a recent failed Featured Article attempt. Has been tidied up and given a thorough copy edit since then Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments (NB: I've just realised that I've been reading the House of Plantagenet article, vice the House of Lancaster! Dough!)

• You'll need to check throughout for the use of "king" and capitalisation; see WP:JOBTITLES. "The king changed from being the most powerful man in the country..." is right, for example, "Friction intensified between the barons and the king." is wrong.
• Similarly check for lower-case battles, e.g. "at the battle of Mirebeau" - should be upper
• Check for overlinking (Battle of Bosworth Field is linked twice in the intro, for example)
• "Family tree" section; on my screen, it looks unreadable (lots of overlapping text). Not sure why.
• "a deeply engaged and mature kingdom" - I'm not sure I understood what "deeply engaged" meant here. I'd also query the "mature" - even by 1066, the kingdom is regarded as being pretty mature.
• "Henry II accumulated a vast and complex feudal holding with his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine" - as written, suggests he got the holding due to his marriage to Eleanor; much of it he already had, and he didn't get some of it (e.g. Ireland) until rather later.
• "Winston Churchill, the twentieth-century British prime minister, articulated this in A History of the English-Speaking Peoples; "[w]hen the long tally is added, it will be seen that the British nation and the English-speaking world owe far more to the vices of John than to the labours of virtuous sovereigns" - I'm really not convinced I'd be quoting Churchill as an historian in a modern article, unless for historiographical purposes
• "The king changed from being the most powerful man in the country with the prerogative of judgement, feudal tribute and warfare into a polity where the king's duties to his realm," - the king didn't change into a polity... :)
• "No royal dynasty was as successful in passing the crown to a succeeding generation as the Plantagenets from 1189 to 1377." - no royal dynasty in the world? Or just England?
• " Destitute soldiery returned from France had turned to crime to survive, while feudalism declined into bastard feudalism, " - you could avoid the pluperfect here (e.g. "Destitute soldiery returning from France turned to crime to survive, and feudalism declined..." I'm not sure that contemporary historians would go for the "decline of feudalism" argument in quite this way.
• Angevin origins section. Note the MOS guidance on not putting images on the left hand side of sections as they begin.
• "to Henry's daughter and only surviving child, Matilda." - only surviving legitimate child. There were many, many more...
• " It is obscure why Richard chose this specific name" - obscure, or uncertain? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As per message left on the talk page of Hchc2009 these comments, useful as they are, appear to be about the House of Plantagenet article rather than the House of Lancaster so I am a bit confused :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support (on the right article this time!)

• The "king" versus "King" issue applies to this one as well (see above)
• Ditto "battle" v. "Battle".
• "After Henry III of England's supporters suppressed opposition from the English nobility in the Second Barons' War, he granted to his second son " - the "he" here isn't quite right, as the active part of the previous clause is the "supporters"
• " forfeited by attainder of the Barons' leader" - "barons'"
• "the first Earldom of Lancaster on 30 June 1267 " - how did he give him the first earldom if they were forfeited titles?
• "Edmund was also Count of Champagne and Brie from 1276 by right of his wife" -full stop needed at the end.
• "His income was £11,000 per annum—double that of the next most senior earl" - "senior earl"? I don't think there was a ranking like this. Do you mean "richest"?
• "Thomas carried a great sword and Henry carried the royal sceptre" "a great sword"? I was wondering if this was the Sword of Mercy? I will see if I can check source Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Thomas saw this as an end in itself and he retreated to Pontefract Castle, taking little part in the governance of the realm." - I know what you mean here, but the point about Thomas and the Ordinances wasn't that they were an end in themselves, but rather that he lacked a political programme beyond them; he also took little part in the governance of the realm even when he was holding formal offices.
• "Edward's rule collapsed into anarchy again in 1321. " - typically this is described as "civil war" rather than genuine "anarchy".
• "In a show trial, he was sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered" - I'd be careful about terms like "show trial" - it was a mirror of Gaveston's, in that he wasn't allowed to answer the charges against him (and we don't describe Gaveston's here as a "show trial").

Attempted to address all of the above, apart from the sword question. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Worth noting Henry of Lancaster's increasing blindness at the end of the 1320s? (through to the end of the Origin section) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• • All done, I think - sword at the coronation largely thought to be Curtana & added a sentence on blindness Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Further

• I'm not sure that the lead adequately summarises the Legacy section.

• Added refereneces to legacy sectionNorfolkbigfish (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Worth checking for spaces in the right place with citations (some appear after the space, rather than before it)

• I think these are all fixed now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Still a couple of lower case "the king"s which need dealing with I think.

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Bedford wanted to defend Normandy, Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester just Calais," - did this mean that Bedford wanted to defend Normandy and Calais?

• Reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• "The English ambassadors’ refusal to renounce the claim to the French crown at the congress of Arras led to the defection of England's ally Philip III, Duke of Burgundy to Charles and the French had enough time to reorganise their feudal levies into a modern, professional army with superior numbers." It's a very long sentence. I'd query whether Weir's got it right; doesn't Paris fall the year after the congress, whereas the military reforms take a number of years? If memory serves, though, they'd almost always had superior numbers.

• Reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• "and recruited militarily" - an odd phrase... "recruited an army"?

• Reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• " While they are factually inaccurate, they demonstrate how the past and the House of Lancaster are remembered in terms of myth, legend, ideas and popular misconceptions" - what are the myths, legends etc.? The paragraph doesn't actually say.

• Added some more and additional source Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Henry VI continued the architectural patronage ..." Is it worth explaining why? (It's usually seen as a form of architectural propaganda)

• Expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article is a bit light on how the Lancastrians, particularly Henry IV, justified their rule through propaganda etc.. Is it worth explaining how Henry IV used the church and religion to buttress his legitimacy, for example? (there's a fair bit out there, I think, on his coronation etc. "Henry IV: The Establishment of the Regime, 1399-1406" is supposed to be quite good. There's also a bit out there I think on how the Lancastrians used Chaucer and his disciples for propaganda purposes.

• Added section to legacy, although Chaucer was dead by 1400 and appears to be considered a Ricardian appropriated by the Yorkists.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• "For Dan Jones, the accession by force of the throne broke principles..." I was a bit surprised to see Dan Jones singled out here for cited comment. He's not exactly the most heavyweight historian of the period... Hchc2009 (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Changed to a more general "Many historians" Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Query

• "It was through descent from Edmund, rather than from the main Plantagenet line, that the three Lancastrian monarchs legitimatised their reigns."

This is not my period, and apologies if I have got it wrong, but this statement seems to me highly dubious. As stated later in the article, the myth that Edmund was the eldest son of Henry III was not widely believed, and seems to have been a short term expedient when Henry IV seized the throne. Once Richard was dead, Henry had a much stronger claim from Edward III's 1376 entailment of the throne in the male line, and the sources I can find say that this was the basis of Lancastrian claim. The statement that descent from Edmund was crucial is referenced to Alison Weir, but did she say that the three kings legitimatised their claim through Edmund, and is she WP:RS? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I have amended the lead to come some way towards this. Yes, it was expedient - Henry became de facto king because he was the most powerful male adult Plantagenet. The child Edmund Mortimer had been Richard's heir presumptive - female line, but more senior - de jure next in line. Except for Henry V, VI and VII all English monarchs are descendants of Edmund. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport A fascinating bit of history, but not one I'm very well-read on unfortunately. Still, I'll offer a few comments:

• ...but as Edward's cousin this was commuted to beheading. What does this mean? Presumably you mean the sentence was commuted because he was Edward's brother?
• It would be Henry who would knight the young King Edward III of England before his coronation. It would be or it was?
• When Edward called a parliament to make this permanent... To make what permanent? "This" in this context is a little sloppy.
• It is a sign of Edward's high regard for Henry that he would bestow such extensive privileges on him. That sentence strikes me as out of place in an encyclopaedia article, and there's no reference for it.
• link to Southampton plot is a bit of an Easter egg.
• However, the marriage of his sister Anne de Mortimer to Conisborough, son of Edward III's fourth son Edmund of Langley, consolidated Anne's claim to the throne with that of the more junior House of York. However is a word to watch, and I'm not sure it adds much in this context; could it just be removed?
• comparable with the murder of Thomas Beckett, Comparable in what way? Just checking, but is the comparison made by the source?
• the church was in schism with two competing popes Were there actually two popes, or two rivals for the papacy? Why were the two rivals keen on Henry's support?
• Henry IV was succeeded by his son Henry V, and eventually by his grandson Henry VI in 1422. Arguably common knowledge, but there can't be any dearth of sources, so you need a reference there really.
• Henry V and the Hundred Years' War—the Lancastrian war Do we need the —the Lancastrian war? It's not really 'house style' (though, granted, we struggle to agree on what exactly 'house style' is)
• He was quick to resume the Hundred Years' War... Presumably it wasn't known as the Hundred Years' War at that time?
• Henry and Catherine's heirs would succeed to the throne of France. I've never been sure on these, but I think this should be Henry's and Catherine's heirs, because the statement applies to the heirs of both parties, not to Henry and the heirs.
• Henry's brother Thomas, Duke of Clarence was killed in the defeat at the Battle of Baugé in 1421, Henry V died of dysentery at Vincennes. That's a comma splice.
• Henry VI and the fall of The House of Lancaster De-cap the The.
• The refusal to renounce the claim to the French crown at the congress of Arras led to the defection... Whose refusal?
• All English holdings in France [...] were lost forever. Try to avoid passive voice.
• Be consistent with your past participles: you use 'burnt' (as opposed to 'burned') and 'spilled' (as opposed to 'spilt'); pick one and stick with it.
• 'King' is not a proper noun in its own right
• more radical demands came from John and William Merfold. What sort of demands? Who were the Merfolds and how ere they in a position to make such demands?
• defeated them at a skirmish called the First Battle of St Albans. Do we need the at a skirmish called?
• According to Goodman, You should tell the reader who Goodman is in the prose.
• Ditto According to Davies,
• However, the remnants of the Lancastrian court party coalesced support around Henry Tudor... Consider what purpose that however is serving.
• Some detail in the see also section about how some of those articles are related to this one might be nice.
• Lancashire is linked in the see also section, but there doesn't seem to be a link anywhere to Lancaster the city.
• Be consistent in whether you give locations for publishers; they're not a requirement, but you give them for some sources and not for others as it is.
• ISBN for Hicks would be nice.
• Ditto Davies, R R (1995)
• Publisher information is lacking for Fowler 1969.
• What's going on with references 10 and 28? Why do you provide the full citation for them in the references section rather than the bibliography?
• Just a personal thing, but I always wonder whether a further reading section with only one entry is of much value; if it were my article, I'd find a way to cite Nuttall and add it to the bibliography but YMMV to borrow Dank's phrase.
• Are you satisfied that you've covered the breadth of the literature on the topic? Not my area of expertise, as I say, but I would have thought that it would have been possible to find more than sixteen books and the ODNB for such an important area of English history and considering the relatively broad scope of the article.
• The style of writing is quite unusual for Wikipedia (I've mentioned one or two examples above). Is that just the way you normally write? It's not a problem if it is, but I just want to check that it is your style. Please don't take offence; I just haven't reviewed one of your articles before and it just stands out.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Harry, I think I have covered most of these now, what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy with the prose. For the benefit of others, we're discussing the references on my talk page. If other reviewers want to chime in, please do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "This brought the Earls of Lancaster into conflict with their cousin Edward II of England before they gave loyal service to his son Edward III of England." They can't have given loyal service as Thomas was dead by then. Also it is not clear that Earls of Lancaster refers to Thomas and Henry. As the lead is not long I think it is worth explaining here that Henry was Thomas's younger brother and inherited his title.
• "This gave John the vast wealth of the House of Lancaster, which some take as the founding of the Royal House." The expression "which some take as" does not sound encylopedic to me - perhaps "some historians view as". Also I am not clear what is meant by "founding of the Royal House". Does it mean gave Henry the power to seize the throne or something broader?
• "murder of Henry VI following the execution of his son Edward". Why the distinction? Weren't they both thought to have been murdered?
• "When Edward called a parliament to make his new powers and estates permanent with the title of Earl of March in 1328" I think this should be Mortimer not Edward.
• I am doubtful of the emphasis on the myth that Edmund Crouchback was the eldest son. It is not mentioned in ODNB on Richard II and Henry IV, which say that Henry justified deposing Richard because he had misgoverned the kingdom, and attempts to restore Richard had little popular support. ODNB also appears to give as much credence to reports that Richard deliberately starved himself to death as those that blame Henry.
• As a general comment, this is an interesting summary, but I am not sure whether it over-emphasises the importance of legitimate succession. Other kings who were not the legitimate heir seized the throne - e.g. William II, Henry I, John, Henry VII, and were able to pass on the throne to their own heirs. It was Henry VI's incompetence which allowed the doubtful Lancastrian claim to become a crucial issue. However, editors with a better knowledge of the period may disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think I have some way towards addressing these. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at House of Lancaster#Duchy and Palatinate of Lancaster. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Further point

• I think it would be worth looking at ODNB on Henry IV. For example "Whether Henry set off with the intention of deposing his cousin or only of recovering his inheritance can never be known for certain, but the likelihood is that by now Henry knew Richard well enough, and particularly his suspicious and vindictive qualities, to understand that, once back in England, he could never be secure unless he replaced Richard entirely or assumed an effectively viceregal authority over him." This puts his actions in a different light to the sources you cite which only look at arguments about legitimate inheritance. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• This would be true if the only question was regarding Henry's intentions, whereas the questions of the legality of his actions has more historical resonance and remained contentious up to the 17th century, as illustrated by Shakespeare's history plays. I have referenced the ONDB and tried to present a balance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

* As far as feedback is concerned I feel I have covered it all - is there anything else to be considered? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to be a spanner in the works, but you never did come back on my point about the sourcing (now archived at User_talk:HJ_Mitchell/Archive_79#House_of_Lancaster). Through a few minutes of searching, I found nine books that look (at a glance) like valuable sources, a couple of which you've since incorporated into the article. I'd be very happy for you to come back and tell me you've consulted those works and that, on further analysis, they're not suitable sources if that's the case, but it is a requirement for FA status to have consulted the breadth of the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: just so you don't miss the above. I'm happy with everything else, it's just the sourcing that is preventing me from supporting at the moment. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Just goes to show you where right about not using your talk to discuss - I must admit I had forgotten this one. Will try and pick up and address this week - Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Hello HJ - not a spanner but an interesting question on sourcing. Books 3,4,6 and 9 were respectively published in 1852, 1827, 1792 and 1897 and the historiography has moved on since then away from the Whig view they largely expose. 7 (Castor) I have added and cited and although it rather excellently goes into immense detail based on the Paston letters gives a good summary of the role of patronage in the Wars of the Roses that the anthology that was book 9 also covers. I didn't add 9 for that reason. 2 was a pocket guide of a single battle by a non-hostorian which really didn't add much. Added 1 Storey for the quote on Henry VI's recovery. Lastly 5 was already in the bibliography! I have also added further ODNB references to less prominent members of the House. I know a point by point reply was the point of your comment but I am just using it as a method of showing that these have been considered. Cheers R Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Hi HJ - could you please give me further notes on this one to see if I need to take it further at this point? Also there is a debate on the talk page of House of Plantagenet that your view on "House of" articles would be welcome. Ta Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

That's all I wanted—just for you to show that you've evaluated the sources available and picked the ones you think are the most useful rather than anything else. Happy to support now. I'll look at the other article at some point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I know next to nothing in this subject area, so wouldn't know what to look for, but the tables don't comply with MOS:DTT

Provisional Support -- looks like a good piece of work to me; specifics:

• I've copyedited throughout, so pls let me know if I misunderstood or broke anything.
• Not exactly my area of expertise, although the rough outline/lineage is reasonably familiar, so while I'm happy enough with prose, style, structure and readability, I'd like to see that Hchc's outstanding content points are resolved before I sign off unconditionally.
• Image licensing generally looks okay to me, though I'd have thought we needed more info on File:Agincour.JPG -- without source or author, how do I know it's not a recent image in medieval style, rather than a reproduction of the genuine article?
  • Was there a response to this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The original picture is in the Lambeth Palace Library, London, if that helps at all; it is Ms 6 f.243, from the St. Alban's Chronicle, 15th century in origin. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll certainly take your word for it, Hc, and I think it'd be worth adding that info to the file as it's pretty threadbare at the moment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I've added the info hc provided Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
• I haven't done a source review, and hope Nikki or another kind soul might be able to take care of that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Given Hchc's and Dudley's supportive comments, Nikki's source review, and resolution of my image query, I'm happy to offer unconditional support. Perhaps you should tackle WP's articles on the Lancastrian kings next, and get some of them to A-Class as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Source review

• A couple of the titles in the infobox aren't sourced - done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• "As a child Mortimer was not considered a serious contender and as an adult he showed no interest in the throne, instead loyally serving the House of Lancaster. Mortimer informed the new king when Conisburgh, in what was later called the Southampton Plot, attempted place him on the throne instead of Henry's newly crowned son—their mutual cousin—leading to the execution of Conisburgh and the other plotters" - source? Sourced to ONDB Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments Just a couple of queries.

• "For many historians, the accession by force of the throne broke principles the Plantagenets had established successfully over two and a half centuries and allowed any magnate with sufficient power and Plantagenet blood to have ambitions to assume the throne." It is a pedantic point, but two and a half centuries is a bit of an exaggeration. John usurped the throne 200 years earlier and had the rightful heir, Arthur, murdered with far less justification than Henry.

• Not sure this is correct from my sources. Arthur was never crowned or accepted in England so couldn't be usurped. While French precedent was based on male primogeniture Anglo-Norman was based on proximity - John's being a brother and son of the preceding two monarchs trumped Arthur's nephew and grandson—this diffence led to the split in the Angevin Empire.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• "This division led to Gloucester's wife being accused of using witchcraft with the aim of putting him on the throne; Gloucester was arrested and died in prison." This is not quite right. According to ODNB on Gloucester, the charge against his wife was justified and although it discredited him, he was not arrested until six years later and then died within days.

Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• Corrected to reflect this using the ODNB as source, thanks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: @Hchc2009: Guys, thank you. I have tried to address all your comments and don't think there is anything left—Unless I have missed something, added errors or generally cocked something up—what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2014 (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) 14:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Andrea Doria-class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) and Sturmvogel 66

This is a joint effort between Sturmvogel and I - these two ships had relatively uneventful careers for vessels that were in service for both world wars. They spent WWI in port but did see some action during WWII, including the raid on Taranto in 1940, where Caio Duilio was torpedoed. Both ships survived the war and were permitted to remain in Italian hands - they continued to soldier on, alternating as the fleet flagship until the early 1950s, when they were finally decommissioned after nearly four decades in service. The article is part of the nearly complete national topic for Italy, and it will eventually go to FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments As usual, this is a very fine article. I have only the following comments:

• The second sentence in the first para (a partial summary of the ships' service) doesn't fit in well with the rest of this para at present
  • I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly; the second sentence in the first para in the design section fits the rest of the para, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I think he means in the intro - the bit about them not seeing action in WWI specifically. I've moved that clause so hopefully that will address it.
• "During World War I, a pair of 50-caliber 76-millimeter guns on high-angle mounts were fitted as anti-aircraft (AA) guns" - do where know where they were mounted on the ship?
  • Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
• Do any sources discuss why it was decided to rebuild these fairly elderly ships in the late 1930s? Some context on why this was done and what was hoped to be achieved would be useful. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Basically, it was a cost issue - Italy had 70,000 LT of battleships available to build under the WNT, but the Italian economy was so weak that no new ships could be built. It was cheaper to rebuild these ships. I can't track down anything specifically on the issue right now, but I'll keep looking. Parsecboy (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Added a bit on this. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Hey Nick, does this answer your question? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I was out of town and missed this. Yes, it does. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Drive by comment: (not a full review, sorry) - I saw a minor inconsistency in the References: "Annapolis, Maryland" v. "Annapolis, MD". If I get time, I will try to come back and look at the full article (sorry, ATM I have a three month old and am working 13 hour days so I haven't been reviewing much lately). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Do you know what the effective range of an excuse is, Rupert? More seriously, thanks for spotting that and we all appreciate whatever time you can spare.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Actually I do...it cooks off in the barrel and you get a face full of shrapnel! ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: G'day, I had a better look this morning and I'm happy the article meets the A-class criteria. I have a couple of observations/suggestions, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• inconsistent: "bow...to 186.91 meters (613 ft 3 in)" (body) v. "Length: 186.9 m (613 ft 2 in)" (infobox)
• inconsistent: "their beam increased to 28.03 meteres (92 ft 0 in)" (body) v. "Beam: 28.3 m (92 ft 10 in)"
• not sure about this: "a dozen 135-millimeter (5.3 in) 230 millimeters (9.1 in) guns in four triple-gun" (why the two measurements?)
• is this a typo? "In early 1942 the rearmost 20-millimeter guns mounts were..." --> "In early 1942 the rearmost 20-millimeter gun mounts were..." (remove the 's' from guns)? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • <blush>All fixed.</blush> Thanks for looking so closely at this stuff.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Support -- copyedited as usual, so let me know if I misunderstood or broke anything...

• Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
• Happy with prose now, just not sure what you std is for quantities under 20: you say "sixteen 152-millimeter (6 in) guns in lieu of the eighteen 120-millimeter (5 in) guns of the older ships" and later "20 Yarrow boilers, 8 of which burned oil and 12 of which burned both oil and coal". Also, you generally use numerals for figures of 20 or more but I see "twenty-one Fairey Swordfish torpedo-bombers".
  • • WP:NUMERAL specifies: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures" so all measurements/quantities in a single paragraph are treated uniformly when dealing with alike things like gun calibers. Also the next bullet also applies: "But adjacent quantities not comparable should usually be in different formats".
      • Also probably a result of the fact that Sturm wrote the technical portion and I wrote the service section. Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Images:
  • US copyright tag for File:Andrea Doria class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg?
    • The drawing was used in the 1915 Brassey's so I've added a US PD tag.
  • Someone's tagged File:Duilio 1948.jpg for source info so you may want to deal with that.
    • It's being moved to Commons, so presumably the reviewer didn't see any significant issues with it.
      • I added a source to it between when Ian and you looked at it ;) Parsecboy (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
        • Cool.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Sources look reliable and no formatting issues leapt out.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• • Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
    • No prob, nice work as usual guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2014 (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 - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hans Philipp

Nominator(s): Dlthewave (talk)

I am nominating this article to be delisted from A-Class because it recently failed a GA reassessment due to verifiability and neutrality issues. Steinecke 2012, which is considered unreliable per a recent RfC, is still used as a source throughout the article. This means that it probably does not meet A-Class criteria A1. –dlthewave ☎ 19:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delist: a demoted GA, where the issues identified during GAR have not been addressed, is very unlikely to meet the A-class's stringent criteria. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Delist per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, per MisterBee1966's comments below. Neutral for now. I find the RfC arguments against Steinecke unconvincing. All of the substantive posts seem to have been in favour of his being a RS. The GAR was, reasonably, a straight implementation of the RfC. I await possible further comments here before deciding which, if either, side of the fence to get off on. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Looking through the RfC, all of the longer responses are either off-topic arguments in favor of including Wehrmachtbericht references in general, an editor who assumes that the source is reliable due to a perceived lack of evidence otherwise, and MisterBee's comment which is based on an unsourced dewiki article. I assume that the closer took these factors into account and discarded the non-policy-based commets. –dlthewave ☎ 11:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• I am regurgitating my comment from the RfC, the author de:Gerhard Steinecke who wrote Ritterkreuzträger Profile Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — Einer von Vielen [Knight's Cross Profiles Nr. 11 Hans Philipp — One of Many]. According to his German Wiki article, Steinecke studied history in Berlin from 1965 to 1970. He was the museum director of de:Schloss Kuckuckstein and later in Nossen. In 1984, he was released out of political reasons (not stated which) by East Germany. Following the German reunification, he wrote a variety of books about the history of Meißen, Philipp was born in Meißen, and other history related topics, see also Literature by and about Gehard Steinicke in the German National Library catalogue. Professor Jonas Flöter, in his book Eliten-Bildung in Sachsen und Preussen: die Fürsten- und Landesschulen Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal und Pforta (1868-1933) [Elite Education in Saxony and Prussia: the Prince and Country Schools Grimma, Meissen, Joachimsthal and Pforta (1868-1933)], thanked Steinecke for his contribution, see pages 11, 470, 471. In addition to my earlier comment, I want to point out that Steinecke is predominantly used to reference Philipp's early life, his role in Meißen at the time, and less so with respect to his military career which, where appropriate, is seconded by other sources. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• The following article "Einer von vielen" was published on 18 March 2017 in the Sächsische Zeitung, a regional German daily newspaper. According to the English Wikipedia article, the Sächsische Zeitung has close ties to the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). The SPD has no political far-right nor even right affiliation. This article states the following about historian Gerhard Steinecke and his book on Hans Philipp: "Gerhard Steinecke ist es zu verdanken, den in sich widerspruchsvollen Menschen hinter der verzerrenden Aufzählung militärischer Erfolge sichtbar gemacht zu haben. [It is thanks to Gerhard Steinecke who made the self-contradictory man behind the distorting list of military successes visible.]" This assessement by the Sächsische Zeitung (Peter Anderson), does not match the conclusions drawn in the RfC. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep There seems to be no basis in the idea that the sources of this article are unreliable. A publication with reputable links to the Sächsische Zeitung certainly is reliable. The author of one of the principal sources is a reputable historian. I didn't agree with the delisting from GA; I considered it part of a broad wiki-wide bias against articles on the Luftwaffe pilots. I certainly don't agree with delisting this article from MH A class. Just because an article hasn't passed GA doesn't mean it does not meet the project's criterion for A class. auntieruth (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I stand with the keepers for the reasons already given. I'm not impressed with Dlthewave or his friends. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Dapi89 (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

and yes, I invoked Hitchens's razor. Dapi89 (talk) 16:39, 17 June 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 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

List of unprotected cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another entry in my series of lists on German warship types, this covers the handful of unprotected cruisers Germany built in the 1880s-90s. It's the capstone list for this topic, which is in turn the final component of the overarching cruiser topic. Thanks to those who review the list and help to improve it on its way to FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• comments support and suggestions (bitching at a high quality level)
  • • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 2. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 978-3-8364-9743-5.
    • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 3. Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 3-7822-0211-2.
    • Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe 7. Ratingen, DE: Mundus Verlag. ASIN B003VHSRKE
  • The sources could profit from some uniform representation of location, publisher and isbn. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I cut the DE bit from the 7th vol., but unfortunately, I can't track down ISBNs for volumes past 5, either in Worldcat or Amazon or anywhere else. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I clicked on the first (978-3-8364-9743-5) 13-digit isbn and it took me to a book called "Neuartiges Sekundärradar zur Entfernungsmessung Konzept, Analyse, Erprobung" (World Cat). I think the correct 13-digit isbn is 978-3-7822-0211-4. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Hmm, don't know how I got the wrong ISBN. Thanks for checking that. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the use of File:Naval Ensign of Germany.svg in the {{German Navy ship types}} is good and fair representation of all the various German regimes. The various ships listed in this template date back to Prussia, Imperial Germany, Nazi Germany, Weimar Republic, East? and West Germany? MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. There really doesn't need to be an ensign at all, I just based the template originally on {{United States Navy ship types}}. Parsecboy (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Every ship, excl. Gefion, was named after some kind of bird. Do you know the story behind this? Is this worth pointing out? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • For some reason, the KM had went into a short "mythological names" phase in the early 1890s - Undine, Thetis, Heimdall, etc., but I don't know why. I can tell you that by the late 1890s, the naming rules changed to be city names for small cruisers and either states or names related to royal houses (Zähringen, for instance) as part of a strategy to rally public support around the fleet.
  • In the lead "In the 1880s, Germany built nine unprotected cruisers between three classes. These ships proved to be transitional designs, and along with experience gathered with a series of avisos, they helped to produce the first light cruisers of the German Navy" The underlined text points to two lists. I suggest that it may be helpful to first tell the reader what an aviso or a light cruiser is before sending them to a list of things they don't know what they are. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • See how it looks now.
  • "1889–1890" and "1900–1901", should this be "1889–90" and "1900–01" according to WP:DATE (see ranges)? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport. Looks good to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if the meaning of "class" in the opening sentence is immediately obvious to the layman. Is there a reasonable article we can link to?
  • There certainly is - good idea.
• they helped to produce the first light cruisers of the German Navy presumably it was the experience/expertise gained from these that helped produce light cruisers, rather than the unprotected cruisers themselves?
  • See how its worded here.
• Condor, Schwalbe, and Sperber were all broken up for scrap in the early 1920s, while Gefion was briefly used as a freighter Why no mention of their careers during WWI?
  • Added a line on that.
• File:S.M. kleiner kreuzer Gefion - restoration, borderless.jpg needs a copyright tag to indicate its status in its source country.
  • The one tag covers it too, since it also includes the 70 years PMA (which applies in the EU).
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 134-B0211, Kleiner Kreuzer "Schwalbe".jpg dates from 1887 and is therefore almost certainly in the public domain, though it's free enough for our purposes regardless, so it's not a big deal.
  • Maybe, maybe not - it's quite possible that whoever took the picture was young in 1887 and lived into the 1930s, which means it still would have been copyrighted in Germany in 1996 and thus had its copyright extended in the US by the much hated URAA. Without a date of publication and a date of death for the author we can't be sure, so the license from the Bundesarchiv will certainly do instead.

This is a nice piece of work; just a few minor quibbles and it'll be easily up to scratch. I made a few copy-edits, which you might want to check. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing the list, HJ. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: not much from me. I made a minor tweak but overall, I think it looks up to the required standard (caveat: I know nought about lists, so apologies if I missed anything):

• this clause seems a bit awkward: "the old sailing ships were woefully insufficiently armed to be useful as fighting ships" (the two words ending in "ly" next to each other). I'd probably just say "insufficiently armed"
  • I was trying to drive home the point that they were next to useless when it came to actual combat - just "insufficiently armed" doesn't seem strong enough to me. Two "ly" words can work together, from a grammatical standpoint (since an adverb can modify a verb and another adverb), but I understand it might read a little awkwardly. Would "were far too insufficiently armed" be a better substitute?
    • G'day, that doesn't quite sound right to me either (but I think I've been so institutionalised by working as a staff officer, that I've removed all emotion from my writing). What about "so poorly armed that they were ineffective as combat ships"? Anyway, I'll leave it up to you. The list looks great either way. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• "two and a half years" (does this need hyphens? Not sure, I would normally hyphenate it, but I'm not sure about US English)
  • I don't think so, though Dan would know better than I do.
• in the References, Ratingen is probably over linked. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed, good catch. The result of copy+paste and not enough attention ;) Thanks for reviewing the list AR. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 20 April 2014 (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) 09:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Kn–Kz)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Another Knight's Cross list for A-Class review since it follows the same layout and citation style previously established in numerous A-class reviews of similar content. Please help me improve the article to meet out A-class criteria. Thanks, after this one, only two to go. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This is the ninth review I have conducted of lists in this series. This one is at the same standard as those that have previously passed A-Class review. I have not identified any issues with this one, and all of my comments from previous reviews have been incorporated in this nomination. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - excellent job as usual. At this point, the only thing that really needs checking are the notes, and those all appear good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: I made a minor tweak, but otherwise not a lot leapt out at me. I didn't check the image licencing, though, because my internet connection is not co-operating at the moment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 20 April 2014 (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, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Peresvet

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Peresvet was designed to defeat enemy armored cruisers defending convoys of merchant ships, but ended up fighting battleships when she was sent to Port Arthur before the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She was badly damaged in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and was scuttled in harbor once the Imperial Japanese Army could bombard it effectively. She was salvaged by the Japanese and placed into service. She was sold back to the Russians during World War I and was in the White Sea when the British decided to intervene in the Russian Civil War in 1919. Although her crew had earlier declared their allegiance to the Bolsheviks, they did nothing to stop the British landings. She was eventually scrapped in 1924, well after the British withdrew from the war. The article passed GAN several years ago, but it's been expanded and extensively rewritten using information from new sources. I expect that infelicities remain and hope to work with reviewers who spot them before I send it up to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • Same issue with Poltava re: the order of the first para of the Port Arthur section.
  • The first para of the Yellow Sea section is a bit long and could probably be split.
  • Retzivan?
    • I always mess this spelling up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • "Her repairs began on 30 September, although she participated in the review of captured ships on 23 October, and continued until 20 July 1908." - this is a little unclear. I know you mean that repairs continued until 20 July, but the wording is a little funny.
    • See how it reads now.
      • Much better now, thanks.
  • "during the war," - same as in the other review: which war?
    • Specified in the lede, but I've clarified it regardless.
  • "resumed her former name" - you don't resume a name, but you might re-assume one.
    • You say potatoe, I say po-tat-oe.
      • I'm fairly sure that one can only resume action verbs, not abstractions, but it might be best to get the advice of an expert.
        • No, I think that you're probably right now that you've explained your reasoning.
  • Same question on the nav template links. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean; I've edited the redirect for Sagami to go to the Japanese career section of the Peresvet article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.
  • You've got a Harv error with the Westwood citation now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Stupid copy-paste and sfn-using editors.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good now. Parsecboy (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments -- as ever, pls let me know if I stuffed anything up with my copyedit; other points:
  • You mention/link Siege of Port Arthur in the lead but not in the main body. IMO should be both or (preferably) neither or only in the main body, reason being that I think it confuses the lead to have both Battle of and Siege of Port Arthur.
    • I've added a new header for the siege and tweaked the wording for the siege as opposed to the battle that should clarify things.
  • "The bombardment, coupled with a direct order from Tsar Nicholas I, forced Vitgeft to make an attempt to reach Vladivostock" -- unsure of what "the bombardment" refers to specifically; was it her shelling Japanese positions around Port Arthur, or the damage she took from the Japanese batteries (however "slight")?
    • Clarified.
  • Aside from the above, pretty happy with prose/detail/structure.
  • Image licensing and source reliability/formatting look okay to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review and copyedit, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Okay, I can live with those changes -- happy to support, well done as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: overall this article looks quite good and I believe it meets the A-class requirements. I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• seems inconsistent: "draft of 26 feet 3 inches (8.0 m)" (body) v. "Draft: 26 ft (7.925 m)" (infobox)
• seems inconsistent: "displaced 13,810 long tons (14,030 t)" (body) v "Displacement: 13,320 long tons (13,534 t)" (infobox)
• seems inconsistent "Peresvet's waterline armor belt consisted of Harvey armor and was 4–9 inches (102–229 mm) thick" (body) v "Belt: 7–9 inches (178–229 mm)" (infobox)
• seems inconsistent: "Peresvet entered service in August" (body) v "In service: June 1901" (infobox)
• please check your English language variation. I see "armor" but also "defences";
• this seems a little awkward:"About 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) north of the harbor, the ship struck two mines, one forward and the other abreast a boiler room, on 4 January 1917 that had been laid by the submarine SM U-73 and sank after catching fire with the loss of 167 or 116 lives...". Perhaps this might be smoother, "On 4 January 1917, about 10 nautical miles (19 km; 12 mi) north of the harbor, the ship struck two mines that had been laid by the submarine SM U-73. Holed forward and abreast of one of her boiler rooms, the ship sank after catching fire. Losses are reported various as either 167 or 116 lives." AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the eye-eyed review, Rupert, and your suggestion for the last section was right on. I do have a habit of cramming a quart of information into a pint-sized sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2014 (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) 01:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

I'm putting this article, which passed GAN almost two years ago, up for ACR now because of one of those chance things that IMO makes what we do here so enjoyable. Back in the day when I only took biographies to ACR and beyond, I asked Nick-D's opinion on a few of my unit articles, since he'd already taken some through the ACR/FAC processes. When it came to No. 1 FTS, he thought that we really should explain why it was disbanded during World War II. It was a very valid point but none of my research up until then made it clear, so I left the article as GA and thought little more about it. Then a couple of weeks ago, during some routine trawling of records in the National Archives, what did I find...? Well, that was all I needed to revisit the article and expand the entire history to what I now think is an A-Class (and indeed FA-Class) level of comprehensiveness, so please have at it and we'll see if I'm right... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Support: looks quite good to me, Ian, as usual. I have the following comments for review and a couple of suggestions:

• images look correctly licenced (and I liked the personal touch), although I'm not sure of the date on "File:RAAF CAC CA-8 Wirraway A20-309.jpg" (probably better to have "c. 1950s" instead of "6 Febraury 2011" etc
  • Tks mate -- if anyone ever thinks I'm going to far with snapshots from the family album, as it were, I'm more than willing to reconsider them but OTOH, aside from its aesthetic qualities, I'm not aware of another shot out there labelled specifically as a cadet about to take a solo flight... ;-) As to the Wirra, I didn't upload it myself and the Flickr source file says 2011 (presumably the upload date) but the design and paint scheme is certainly consistent with post-war livery up until the mid-50s, when the now-familiar leaping kangaroo roundel was introduced (e.g. this, which I didn't use because I wanted the subject facing 'inwards' if possible). I could also use this instead...
• referencing seems comprehensive (no action required);
• there are no dab links, and no duplicate links;
• one external link reports as dead: [86] (if possible, can you please try to re-aim this one?)
  • Gah, thought I caught 'em all... Old faithful AWM has changed its urls for the official histories yet again in the past year or so... ;-)
• "resemble more closely the cadet colleges run by the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Army" --> this might be better as "...resemble more closely the cadet colleges run by the Royal Australian Navy and the Australian Army: the Royal Australian Naval College and the Royal Military College, Duntroon" (as it might avoid the slightly confusing link);
  • Heh, I thought it was quite elegant piping but happy to alter...
• J.H. Summers' full name was John Hamilton, if you want to use his full name instead of initials: ([87])
  • Tks, laziness on my part... ;-)
• "Its complement of aircraft included one Anson, two Tiger Moths, and 55 Wirraways, though little flying was carried out..." --> do the sources state why little flying was carried out? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Training had effectively stopped dead around that time and most units were just responsible for 'care and maintenance' of their aircraft -- should be able to source something to that effect... Many tks for review, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Excellent work Ian, and I think that this has the legs to go to FAC. I have only the following comments:

• "It was re-organised several times in the ensuing years, beginning in World War II." - this is a bit clunky. How about "It was re-organised several times between 1940 and 1952"?
  • I preferred not to use dates there as I think its whole existence was marked by reorg, including in 1969. If it helps to lose "beginning in WWII", I'd be happy to do that...
    • That tweak sounds good Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• The gap between the formation of the unit in 1921 and its first training course in 1923 is a bit odd. Do any sources explain this? - it would appear to be the fault of the organisational problems in the RAAF at the time (which I imagine may have had more pilots than it needed) from what's in the article though.
  • Re-checking The Third Brother, the implication seems to be a combination of time spent organising the new service as a whole, a plentiful supply of veteran pilots from WWI, and funding issues, but nothing specifically tying those to delays in commencing flying training. FWIW I did tweak some other info in the pre-war section...
• "the total duration varied during the war as demand for aircrew rose and fell." - I think that the overall capacity of the training system (and in turn the supply of pilots) also affected this, especially if Australia could sustain longer training courses in 1942 than in 1940.
  • Tks, will look into that...
• In regards to the unit's disbandment in 1944, there's some useful material in Air Power Over Europe, 1944–1945 on the over-supply of aircrew in Europe which you could possibly draw on to illustrate this issue (I included some material on this topic at Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy#Aftermath) Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, will try to include some facts and figures in due course. Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Note -- For those interested, I've just taken advantage of a lull in reviewing after addressing Nick's comments to add/clarify some details. I'm not planning to make any other changes now, except in response to further review comments. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support
  • The citation check tool reports one minor error with ref consolidation:
    • "Stephens, Going Solo, p. 151" (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • Well spotted!
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [88] (no action req'd).
  • Is there a typo in fn 18 ("Coulthard-Clark, The Third Brother, pp. 186–i187"). I.e. should the "i" be in there?
    • All I can say is "oops!"
  • Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Tks for that, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2014 (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) 21:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mackensen-class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

I had more or less written this article off as a perennial GA, but I've been able to overhaul and expand it a bit, and now I think it has legs for FA. These ships were never completed, but the design was slightly modified for the Ersatz Yorck class, which were also never built but in turn provided the basis for the WWII-era Scharnhorst class. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have a few comments before supporting MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it would help to mention the namesake, August von Mackensen, in the lead. The reader has to read 2/3 of the article before finding this info.
    • Added.
  • I would link the ships Mackensen, Graf Spee, Prinz Eitel Friedrich, and Fürst Bismarck in the lead.
    • There's no point in doing that - they don't have articles and won't ever be created. General practice is to not have articles on unfinished ships unless they were otherwise still particularly notable (see for instance Japanese battleship Tosa, which is significant because the armor tests done with her unfinished hull provided the basis for the Yamato-class battleships)
  • the word Ersatz should be explained, footnote would do
    • Added the usual footnote.
  • Every German ship is named without the prefix SMS while Hood is named with HMS.
    • Added to the first German ship
  • The HRS books are listed with their ASIN id. I think there is an ISBN number available.
    • Replaced with ISBNs.
  • On the Mackensen-class template, why is the text "class battlecruisers" in bold text?
    • The full title is usually linked in the template so it shows as bold text (see for instance Derfflinger class battlecruiser)
      • I made a small change to the template, please check if you approve MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Yes, that seems fine to me. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • " SK (Schnelladekanone) denotes that the gun is quick firing" It literally translates to fast loading.
    • Yes, though it seemed better to me to translate it parallel to quick-firing gun
  • Question: "Mackensen was stricken" checking my English here, but I would have wrote "Mackensen was struck".
    • Stricken is the past participle (and see the 4th example there), struck is the simple past. Thanks for the review, MisterBee. Parsecboy (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No ambiguous entries found, moving to Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Support with minor comments

• " based on experience at the Battle of Jutland in 1916." - it felt like something was missing here. "based on the experience at the Battle"? "based on experience from the Battle"?
  • Yes, I think "from" is better.
• " with work to begin in the 1914 budget year. " - "with work intended to begin"?
  • Sure.
• "six 38 cm" "30.5 cm" Probably a matter of personal taste, but I'd have repeated the imperial conversion given in the lead.
  • Added the conversion for the second 38cm, but the 30.5cm is converted in the first para of that section.
• " drove a three-bladed screw that was 4.2 m in diameter." - I'd advise "screw propeller" to make it easier to skim read, and 4.2m will need an imperial equivalent.
  • Added both.
• "20 percent" - consistency over use of "%" versus "percent"
  • Standardized to "percent"
• "the central citadel of the ship, where the most important parts of the ship were located." - "most important parts of the vessel" would avoid repetition of "ship" Hchc2009 (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed, all good suggestions Hchc, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Support: looks very good to me. Well done. I have a couple of minor nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• slight discrepancy between the infobox and the body, for instance "beam 30.5 m" (body) v. "Beam: 30.4 m" (infobox)
  • I'm sure one is a typo - I don't have Groener on hand though, so I can't check it right now.
• slight inconsistency in presentation "15 cm" guns (body) v. "150 mm" guns (infobox); "8.8 cm" guns in body v. "88 mm" guns in infobox
  • Fixed, good catch
• "The design staff suggested to use triple or even..." seems a little awkward, perhaps: "The design staff suggested using triple or even..."
  • Much better, yes.
• in the infobox "draught" --> should this be "draft" if you are using US English?
  • Fixed.
• in the Footnotes, note 2 is missing closed quotation marks;
  • Fixed, eagle eyes ;)
• in the References, the third instance of Annapolis is linked - this should probably be moved to the first;
  • Fixed
• in the References, inconsistent presentation: "Annapolis" v. "Annapolis, MD". AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Standardized to include the state abbreviation. Thanks a lot, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• 30.5 and 35 cm were converted in the lede and you convert them as well in the first para of the Design section and elsewhere.
  • Removed the redundant conversion in the armament section, but another editor asked to have the conversions repeated once in the body.
    • Not a long-enough article to matter, I'd have thought, but OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
• Split ship power and ship propulsion in the infobox.
  • Done
• suggest adding link to the unfamiliar units in the infobox and the main body.
  • Added, let me know if I missed any
• Formatting of the armor section in the infobox looks odd.
  • Yeah, that was odd - don't know what I was doing a few years back ;)
• direct coupled should be hyphenated as a compound adjective.
  • Fixed.
• Link torpedo, torpedo tube and Kiel-Nordmole.
  • Added.
    • Move the redlink to its first appearance. I presume that Kiel-Nordmole is a suburb of Kiel itself, would it be better to link to Kiel proper?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Moved and simply linked Kiel, though I'd imagine that some point the suburb articles will be created (for instance, as with Harburg and Altona in Hamburg). Of course Kiel isn't as much of a major city as Hamburg is, so it might take some time. Parsecboy (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• You have more information on the armor scheme in the main body than in the infobox. Suggest that the latter be expanded to match.
  • Added the deck and CT
• You've got more redundant conversions in the armor section and also some significant rounding errors.
  • I think the only redundant one was the 150mm for the 15cm guns, right? And the only rounding error I saw was the 300mm -> 12", though admittedly my eyes are a little burned out at the moment - long day at work ;)
• Add the hyphens to the ISBNs for HRS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't forget this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, added now.
• Oh, and watch your ampersands between the cites and references.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Added, thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2014 (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.

---

Mark Oliphant

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Australian pioneer of microwave radar and nuclear weapons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments This is another great article in your series on early nuclear weapons scientists. I have the following comments:

• When did Oliphant return to Australia during World War II? - was this only for a few months in 1942?
  • Yes. He embarked from England on 20 March 1942, and arrived in Fremantle on 27 May. He then flew to Melbourne via Adelaide and took the train up to Sydney. The Oliphants embarked from Melbourne on 26 October 1942, and reached Glasgow on 29 February 1943. Thus, although he was gone from the UK for 11 months, he spent only five in Australia. The rest was consumed in travelling. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank goodness for intercontinental passenger jets, and global transport networks that don't need to be routed around submarine wolfpacks or travel at the speed of the slowest ship! Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• "During the 1950s, Oliphant would not be permitted to travel to the United States" - why was this?
  • Because he was "a do-gooder, one of the boys who monkey around with pinkos.... Oppenheimer lovers and that sort of thing." Expanded the sentence on this to a paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Can you add material specifically on why the governments were reacting against/being paranoid about? I presume that this was part of the red scares of the era which damaged the careers of a number of eminent scientists. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
      • I've added a bit more in the way of explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• There have been claims over the years that the establishment of a world-class nuclear physics research capacity in Australia (and possibly the entire ANU and Snowy Mountains Scheme) was motivated by the government wanting to have the option to start a nuclear weapons program. Is this credible enough (and with firm enough links to Oliphant) to mention in the article?
  • Will Reynolds do? He even quotes Oliphant. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Henceforth, it would no longer be a research university, but a regular one, with responsibility for teaching undergraduates" - not sure if this is entirely accurate. Research has always made up a much larger share of the ANU's activities and budget than just about any other Australian university, and until recent decades it was distinctly unenthusiastic about teaching undergraduates. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I have to agree with that. Not all of the university ever got the message, and even looking at the latest strategic plan gives me "ANU is a research-intensive, research-led university. Research is central to everything ANU does." Added a few more words. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks good. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

'Support My comments are now addressed. The remaining comment above is probably more relevant for a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. A really good read. Minor points:

• "60-inch cyclotron" - should this give a metric equivalent?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• " It paid 10/- a week" - for younger readers, would it be easier to say "It paid 10 shillings a week."?
  • Done. I'm not old enough to remember before decimal currency, but the old coins still circulated. I'm tempted to write "10 bob", which would extend understanding to my generation, but those still younger would remain be none the wiser, so I've added a link and a currency conversion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• "he wired Trinity College, Cambridge" - again, for those not familiar with the telegraph phrase, could this be "he contacted Trinity College"?
  • Don't like doing that, as we lose information, and it makes it harder for the kids to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Linked "wired" to "electric telegraph". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• "his was a massive machine, containing three discs 3.5 metres in diameter and weighing 38 tonnes. " - again, probably needs equivalents.
  • Done, but it always seems unnecessary to convert things that are already in metric. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to mention that I asked WM-GB to acquire a photograph of the University of Birmingham for this article, and they sent a photographer all the way out there just to get get it for me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: not much from me. I made a couple of tweaks and have the following observations:
  • the duplicate link checker reports a few examples of overlink: nuclear fusion; hydrogen bomb; University of Liverpool; radar; Canberra; and University of Adelaide;
  • inconsistent presentation: "U-boat" and "U-Boat"
  • inconsistent presentation: sometimes the quotes appear in italics, but other times they don't. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2014 (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? 20:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian battleship Poltava (1894)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Buggie111 (talk)

Poltava was one of five Russian battleships captured and put into service by the Imperial Japanese Navy after the Russo-Japanese War. She was sunk by land-based artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur in shallow water that allow the Japanese to refloat and repair her. Her only combat during World War I was during the siege of the German-owned port of Tsingtao. The Russians bought her back in 1916 and she had little to do in the White Sea in 1917–18. Her crew declared for the Bolsheviks in October, but they must have been pretty apathetic as the ship made no resistance when the British intervened in the early stages of the Russian Civil War in 1918. No longer seaworthy, they used her as a prison hulk before abandoning her in 1919 when they left North Russia. The Bolsheviks recaptured her in 1920, but just scrapped her in 1924. Buggie111 did the original work several years ago and I've expanded it with material from new sources. I trust the reviewers will point out any infelicities of text and errors of omission, etc. in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Signing on to this ACR. I'll put a few sources here for refs for myself. Buggie111 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources removed. Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • Magazine linked twice.
  • Is this written in BrEng or AmEng? I see "armor" but also "defences" (and later, "defenses").
  • Is it necessary to specify that the radio was permanent? Shouldn't it be assumed in the absence of an indication that it was temporary?
    • Other Russian ship had had temporary installations added for tests. But it not a big deal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The first few sentences of the Port Arthur section are out of order - it makes much more sense to give the background first, which explains why there were tensions that made the fleet anchor in the roadstead.
  • Specify what type of cruiser Boyarin was.
  • "She was hit on 18 August by four 4.7-inch (120 mm) shells fired by a battery with a narrow view of the harbor that wounded six men." - the shells wounded six men, not the narrow view of the harbor.
  • "In October the advancing Third Army began to bombard the harbor with 28-centimeter (11 in) siege howitzers, firing at random, and hit Poltava twice on 7 October that only started fires." - this sentence is a little convoluted too - it'd be better to split it as "In October the advancing Third Army began to bombard the harbor with 28-centimeter (11 in) siege howitzers, firing at random. They hit Poltava twice on 7 October, though the shells only started fires." or similar.
  • "...shortly after the war began." - which war?
  • Make sure Tango is always italicized (apart from the province name, of course).
  • Is there a reason the nav template links to this article three times, twice via redirects?Parsecboy (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

All fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Check spellings again, I spy a "harbour" as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably missed something, but harbour is fixed. Buggie111 (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that Buggie's caught everything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to go. Parsecboy (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• where were the torpedo tubes mounted? Russian and Japanese fit-outs.
• Vladivastok spelling error
• dab link to Breech
• images should have alt text, not an ACR requirement though.
• otherwise great job.

• There is no article for breech specifically, so the DAB defines it. My source doesn't provide the exact location of the Japanese torpedo tubes, but I'd bet that they were also on the broadside.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comments Support by MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "1904–1905" I think this should be "1904–05" according to MOS:DATE
  • The ISBN 9780253352149 would profit from dashing
  • How can "(subscription required)" be resolved?
    • What do you mean resolved? It's a perfectly valid source that people will have to buy if they want access. Other issues fixed. Thanks for reviewing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 10:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • It was meant purely for my education. I have not seen this before in a reference. Please excuse my ignorance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2014 (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) 10:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Schnaufer was the leading German World War II night fighter pilot. I recently expanded the article and it was peer reviewed and just passed the GA review. I hope it also meets the more stringent A-class criteria of the military history project. Thanks to all willing to review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Initial comments from Hchc2009

• Images look fine, although File:Kammhuber Line Map - Agent Tegal.png needs a German tag as well as the Crown Copyright tag (the UK one covers the photograph, but the photograph was of an original German map, which would carry its own copyright). Hchc2009 (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure how to address this. Can you point to an example of what you intend to achieve. Sorry for my lack of knowledge. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not an expert on tags, but you would be looking for one that said "PD in Germany" or something like that, either because of its age, or because it was produced by the Nazi government, I suspect. Might be worth asking at the Commons if you get stuck. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
      • It should be {{Anonymous-EU}}, which should satisfy the requirement for Germany, but we also need to establish that it is PD in the US (since Wikimedia's servers are in the US). That basically means we need to establish that it was PD in 1996, else its copyright would have been extended by the URAA. For that, we'd need an assertion from whoever holds the actual map (presumably somewhere in the British National Archives or the IWM) that it constitutes seized Nazi property and thus ineligible for copyright in the UK and US (similar to this photo or any of the Heinrich Hoffmann photos, for example). Parsecboy (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
        • Hm, I am not sure if I am in the position to establish this. I noticed that the same image, although different color scheme, is published here. Unfortunately the up-loader of the image at Wikipedia, Ian Dunster (talk · contribs), has retired from Wikipedia. It also seems that the user has a track record of questionable uploads. I will therefore remove the image for now, unless someone is able to establish its safe use. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The lead image seems rather large, probably because it's so tall - is there any way to reduce it slightly? I don't know exactly how the military person infobox works exactly.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• "Operation Cerberus (Channel Dash..." - this formatting makes it look like "Channel Dash" is the translation of Cerberus (to those who are unfamiliar with what Cerberus is, which I imagine is a great quantity of our readers)
  • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • It's better, but on looking at it again, I think the parenthetical date should come after the first mention of the Channel Dash - otherwise it sort of looks like the date range refers to the period when the operation was code-named Cerberus. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
      • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Check for duplicate links - there are a few (Nuremberg, United States Army Air Forces, and others)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Lichtenstein is not italicized on the first mention but is later on.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• I've made a handful of changes, mostly for grammar and the like - make sure they're all ok.
  • Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• I don't have a problem with the quote from the Wehrmachtbericht but I know other editors will probably oppose it at FAC (or at least I did with Tirpitz and Bismarck). Just something to think about. Parsecboy (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Acknowledge, but the articles Werner Mölders, Helmut Lent, Ernst Lindemann and Heinrich Bär all FAC, have a Wehrmachtbericht section MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I guess we've had different experiences with it :) Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• As the war progressed, he accumulated further victories and was given leadership responsibilities, at first as a technical officer, then as a squadron leader and group commander. I'd trim the bit about leadership responsibilities and say only that he later became a squadron leader and group commander.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• After completing his six grade What does this mean?
  • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Capitalize flight training regiment since you've identified a particular one and do the same for the other units that you mention by number or name.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• (left tube) indicated other aircraft ahead as bumbs. (centre tube) indicated range to a specific target and whether they were higher or lower. (right tube) indicated whether the target was to left or right. Is this caption supposed to be three sentences or three clauses in one sentence?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• headlights Do you mean landing lights?
  • yes, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure that the reader needs names of British casualties of Schnaufer's victories. If you do use their initials, add periods after their names.
  • Thanks, I added their names because I ran into this when reading Hinchliffe's book. Added the periods, done. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Don't capitalize first wave.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Watch your possessives: Bomber Commands attack on Düsseldorf
  • okay thanks, I hope to get this right someday. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• Are the circumstances of Gardiewski's loss relevant for Schnaufer? The occasion certainly is, but I don't think that the details are.
  • Hm, if it wasn't for Gardiewski's loss, the position would not have been vacant at the time. So it was an opportunistic advancement in Schnaufer's career. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Much like the von Strachwitz article, this too is lengthy and extraneous details like rescued by an RAF rescue boat really aren't relevant to Schnaufer's career and life. The fact that Gardiewski was shot down is hugely important, as you state, but nothing else about the shootdown is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Acknowledge, thanks for your opinion. I put the info in a footnote for those readers, like myself, who want to know what happened to the guy. I hope this strikes an acceptable compromise. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Provide a conversion from metric into English units for 6-ton load.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• In lead, suggest "He was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross on 31 December 1943 for reaching 42 aerial victories." The current wording is a little unclear.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
• Knights Cross is overlinked in the lead
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• suggest "in 1919, shortly after World War I."; "until the children" ("her" begs the question of who the father was); "Nazi State" should probably be "Nazi state"; "In November 1939, aged seventeen, he graduated with his Abitur (diploma) with distinction"; "In 1939 Schnaufer" needs a comma after 1939.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Also in Early life: suggest "The Potsdam-based Flying Platoon (Fliegerzug) centralised all the Napola flyers." is very clumsy, and I'm not sure about the initial caps on "Flying Platoon".
• more to come tomorrow."graduation from school" needs a comma after school.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• replace "present-day" with "now"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• "At Wunstorf, Schnaufer"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• drop "aerial" before radio, unnecessary
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• replace "in defence of" with "to defend against"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Training at night focused on night
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Fw 58 is overlinked
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• done to end of Early life, more to come

World War II

• "In November 1941" needs a comma after 1941
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• I think "the" in front of roman numerals is grammatically incorrect, as II doesn't mean 2nd per se. It is also usual in English for groups and squadrons to referred to as "Ninety Two Wing" for example, to I think you can dispense with "the" in front of II, 5. etc.
  • I don't fully agree, check Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The II./NJG 1 saw little action in the first few months of 1943, and Schnaufer did not claim his next aerial victory until 14 May 1943. The II./NJG 1 Himmelbett control areas The first usage reads oddly, and is not how I see the unit name rendered in English translations of German books. The second usage is perfectly fine. For Anglophone designations we'd use the ordinal form of the unit designation with "the", like "The 122nd did"..., and the German ordinal period just doesn't register as such for English readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Agree with Sturm, "II./NJG 1 saw little action..." is preferable to "the II./NJG 1 saw little action..."
        • okay, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• night fighter intercept tactics... itstheir early...
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• comma after July 1040
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• it wasn't Schnaufer's Gruppe, I'd drop "Schnaufer" where you have done this (a couple of spots)
  • done, except when it would have started the sentence with a numeral, which I think is a no-go. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's ok if it can't be fixed by re-wording and is a formal numerical designation, per MOS:NUMERAL Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "for the most part were" becomes "were usually"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• While Lieutenant General is the literal translation of Generalleutnant, the equivalent Western rank in WWII is actually Major General.
  • Hm, that's not what the Generalleutnant link says. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Try Comparative officer ranks of World War II. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
      • reworded, please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
        • That's fine, you could do it as a note instead. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• comma after Conceptually
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "Flight operations were also hindered by bad weather in the first months of 1942, so II./NJG 1 only saw very limited action during that period."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• RAF and Gruppenkommandeur are overlinked
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Knights Cross is overlinked at the bottom of Group commander... subsection
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• NJG 4 is overlinked at top of its section
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oberst is overlinked in the NJG 4 subsection
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• POW is overlinked in that section
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• more to come.
• suggest "On 8 February 1942, II. Gruppe was transferred to Koksijde Air Base without having scored any victories while stationed at Sint-Truiden."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "On the evening of 12 February" needs a comma after it
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "On the afternoon of 13 February" does too.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure what "and relocated to Westerland on the island of Sylt" means. Did they recon the island, or based themselves off of it?
  • Westerland is a town with an air base on Sylt. I don't understand the question. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Did they land there, or just fly over it? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Relocated means that the unit transferred to Westerland. The text is fine as written.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "In total"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "They" is being used to refer to Schnaufer and his radio op (I assume), it is confusing and could be read to mean the staffel. I suggest the couple of sentences beginning "On the afternoon of 13 February..." need re-writing for clarity. I would, but I really don't understand what he did.
• they "returned to 5. Staffel's new base" if it was new, had they been there before? Confusing.
  • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "On 14 February"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "These decisions,..."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "crews were deployed"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "left out" instead of "bypassed"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest " although the attacking force actually numbered"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "The Halifax went into flamescaught on fire"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "who had hoped that the bullet lodged in his calf would isolate itself", not sure isolate is the best word. expel, heal? Not sure what you mean.
  • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "From 29 November to 16 December 1942"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "Between 14 May to 3 October 1943, Schnaufer claimed 21 further aerial victories in Rumpelhardt's absence."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "12 of which with"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "radio operators"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Errant apostrophe in "flight's"
  • removed MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "first few months of 1943"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "areas where located"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "in that directionregion"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "Consequently"
  • MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "On the night of 29/30 May"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "In June 1943", "Düsseldorf" and "However"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "shot down a Stirling from No. 218 Squadron on 22 June 1943 at 01:33"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "On 29 June 1943"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "up to 17.seventeen."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "Following Baro as his radio operatorHis next radio operator"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "In mid-July"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• "as Schnaufer's radio operator and thehis last..."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• down to 12./NJG 1, more to come.
  • Thanks for all the effort so far MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, a very interesting read.
• "perceived to beas arrogant"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• "Although uncertain" - why? Records incomplete or destroyed?
  • The source doesn't specify MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "two-man"
  • MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• "over a No. 218 Squadron..." what? Lanc? Halifax?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• "claimed two aerial victories on 9 October for aerial victories 29 and 30" is repetitive
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Generalmajor was equivalent to Brigadier or Brigadier General.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• down to Group commander, more to come.
• suggest "On 6 June 1944, the Western Allies landed in Normandy, during Operation Overlord."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• "invasion of Normandy, the Supreme Allied Commander" not "Invasion of Normandy"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• "to support of the ground forces"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "On the night of 12/13 June, Schnaufer claimed his first victory following the invasion when 671 bombers attacked various railway targets in France."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "Schnaufer claimed three bombers shot down that night, the first a Lancaster and the second and third as a Lancaster or a Halifax, between 00:27 and 00:34."?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "For Schnaufer, July 1944"
  • done 04:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comma after "On 2 September" and after "on 9 October 1944"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Bochum doesn't appear to be linked?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Commas after "In recognition of this achievement"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• down to Wing commander subsection. (BTW, the English/German section headings are confusing, English only for section headings.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "at (the age of) 22"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "as well as the" should be "and"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "Gütterloh" should be "Gütersloh"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
• "He surpassed Oberst Helmut Lent's, killed in a flying accident on 7 October 1944, record of 102 nocturnal victories after he claimed three Lancasters shot down from a force of 235 Lancasters from No 5. Group which attacked the Dortmund-Ems Canal." should be "Schnaufer surpassed Oberst Helmut Lent's record of 102 night-time victories, after he claimed three Lancasters shot down from a force of 235 Lancasters from No 5. Group which attacked the Dortmund-Ems Canal on 6 November 1944."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "It was thehis first month"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• suggest "in an enemy facing position" should be "fighting the enemy"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• down to Later life and death, more to come.
• "managed to make contact towith"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• "in the London's"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

General comments

• Gerber appears to be self-published.
  • I am unsure what you mean? I am not using any reference called Gerber. If you are referring to Berger, yes it is self published. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Berger. Why is it necessary to use a self-published work? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• no dablinks
• checklinks all ok
• some alt text needed on images per this
  • correct, not all have alt text, which I believe is not mandated at A-Class. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yup, just pointing it out. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• no copyvios detected
• I'm done, a few points to be addressed. Great article! Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:32, 5 April 2014 (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) 20:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Æthelred was important as the ruler of Mercia and an ally of Alfred the Great in the war against the Vikings at the end of the ninth century. His acceptance of Aflred's lordship was a stage in the unification of England into a single kingdom. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Æthelred died in 911 and Æthelflæd succeeded him as "Lady of the Mercians",": I pointed out the problem here in your previous article, I think. "succeeded as" can have two meanings; one will make some readers giggle, and not in a good way.
• "He is sometimes called "ealdorman", but also "Lord of the Mercians", "subking" and in the Handbook of British Chronology he is given the designation": Please see WP:Checklist#series, and watch for nonparallelism. This expands to: "... he is sometimes called "Lord of the Mercians", he is sometimes called "Lord of the Mercians", and he is sometimes called in the Handbook of British Chronology he is given the designation ...". Often, the fix is to fill in the missing "and". Put an "and" before "subking" here, and a comma after.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Support - just a couple of minor points:

• Check your links - a number of terms are linked on later instances (for example, thegn and Edward the Elder) and mancus is linked twice
• Both images are suitable licensed. Would it be worth adding File:Æthelflæd as depicted in the cartulary of Abingdon Abbey.png to the article?

Good work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I have amended the links and added the image. Thanks for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Provisional Support -- Copyedited so pls let me know if I misunderstood anything; assuming not, happy with prose and readability for the non-expert such as myself, likewise structure and referencing, so the only reason support is 'provisional' is that I'd prefer someone more familiar with medieval history such as Hchc2009 or Ealdgyth to review for comprehensiveness before I sign off on it unequivocally. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Your copy edits look fine. Thanks very much for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A little earlier than my usual period, but I'll take a quick look. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• With the caveat that I'm no an expert in this period, I think the referencing looks good. The current generation of Anglo-Saxon specialists are represented, and there's enough of the recent discussions of "kingship, power and culture" cited to make me feel reasonably good about it. A minor nit pick would be the Stenton 1971 volume is a reprint of the 1948 (?) original, and so a bit more dated than the 1971 date would imply - it might be worth adding the original date into the template as well. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Stenton 1971 is the 3rd edition, and I have added that into the template. That is how it is usually cited. Some bibliographies add '1st ed 1943', and I can add this also if you think it would be advisable. Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ian: are you happy with that? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yep, that'll do me -- tks HJ (and Hc!). Nice work Dudley, great to see early Middle Ages getting attention, to augment the later periods already covered in some depth. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2014 (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, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently underwent a peer review and GA review. No major concerns have been flagged so far. Please share your feedback. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments Support:

• "Strachwitz was appointed ordnance officer." - it would be worth adding "in his unit" or something like that, or "was appointed as an ordnance officer"; at first, I assumed that this meant he was some sort of national-level ordnance officer.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• " NSDAP" - I'd go for calling this the Nazi party, as you do in the later text (more readers will recognise it by that name)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• "By the time of his release, " - I'd add the year in here, as you can't deduce it from context.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• "He had an older sister, Aloysia (1892–1972), followed by his younger brother Johannes (1896–1917) nicknamed "Ceslaus", his sister Elisabeth (1897–1992), his brother Manfred (1899–1972), his brother Mariano (1902–22), and his youngest sister Margarethe (1905–1989)" - Personally, I'm not convinced the dates add much - but they do make the sentence harder to read.

• I like to keep them for now but I am not making this a show stopper. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• "After one year at Avignon he was put in a German uniform and taken to Fort Barraux." - worth adding that the Fort was a prisoner of war facility?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• "He returned to Berlin via Konstanz," - repetition of "returned", which was also used in the previous sentence

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Also his father had to go to prison." - this sentence felt a bit jarring to me (and it was also unclear why the son's actions resulted in the father's imprisonment)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• " He believed that only the Italians had played an honest and neutral role in the situation." - in the situation? Not sure if this meant the war, the events of 1919, or something else.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The conflict pinnacled " - "At the peak of the conflict"?

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• "In the belief that he could better politically represent his Upper Silesian agricultural and forestry interests, he applied for membership in the Nazi Party" - how good is the sourcing for this? I'm not an expert on this officer or on Rolls (the cited source), but I'm always a little nervous about how we assess the explanations that people gave for joining the Nazi Party - particularly when they were fairly right wing individuals to start with, by the sounds of it, and then joined the SS. Are you confident that this is a genuinely fair assessment of why he joined the party?

• Good question! I would point out that the picture that the author draws is that of a national conservative and not right wing individual. The reason Röll states is exactly what I wrote in the article. To lessen the emphasis of the wording I suggest to write that he joined the Nazi Party and put the reason in footnote stating "According to Röll Strachwitz joined the ..." Would this work for you? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Seems a good way of dealing with it, works for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• "General Kirchner received the order for Fall Gelb..." I was having trouble working out what Strachwitz was doing during the events of this and the following paragraph. Is there anyway of pulling out more about his role?

• Strachwitz was responsible for organizing the supply of the fighting troops. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Strachwitz led ad-hoc formation in Operation Doppelkopf (double-head)" - there's something missing here - "an ad-hoc formation" or "led ad-hoc formations"? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments

• You list the new book by Bagdonas in English, but make no references to it. Why?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Because I planned on buying it and have not received it yet. I will put it under further reading for now MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Coming back to this after quite a while, so: Did Germany have any system of national events like track meets, etc. before the Olympic games? If so did he compete?
  • The sources do not mention this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• The transition from the Olympics to the plans for war is very disorienting. I'd move the war plans to the start of the WWI section.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Interallied Committee Fix this to match the earlier usage.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• lime kiln and quarry in Klein Stein—present-day Kamionek—and Groß Stein, a distillery in Groß Stein and Alt Siedel some problems here. Were there kilns and quarries in each town, or one of each that was in both towns? And the same for the distillery.
  • According to the source both in each town. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Then be sure to clarify to ensure that the reader understands as much.
• Strachwitz was back with the 1st Panzer Division You never told us which panzer unit he had transferred to in the first place.
  • I wrote earlier in the article that he is with Panzer-Regiment 2, which is subordinated to the 1st Panzer-Division. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed you did. My apologies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• alert, he along with Panzer-Regiment 2 were Missing some punctuation here.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• 1st motorcycle infantry battalion Capitalize this.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• bridge and marshaled the anti-aircraft ammunitions Couple of problems here. Ammunition is plural and doesn't need the 's' and "marshalled" is used oddly. Perhaps ensured delivery of the ammunition or some such.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Whose tanks?: More than 70 tanks were left
  • done French tanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• enemy occupied baracks add a hyphen between enemy and occupied and fix the spelling of barracks.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• 1st Panzer Division flanked on the left by the 1st Panzer Division Missing digit here, I expect.
  • fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• the Aisne and Aisne channel What's the Aisne channel?
  • done, linked to Canal de l'Oise à l'Aisne MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• In early May 1941 Oberstleutnant Rudolf Sieckenius was given command of Panzer-Regiment 2, succeeding Oberst Hero Breusing. Why is this important?
  • It helps set context and puts his promotions into context. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Not sure that I agree with you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
      • You don't have to, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
        • True, but this is a very long article and should be trimmed of extraneous details as much as possible, IMO.
• In the resulting battle Strachwitz was hit and wounded in his left arm, which caused severe bleeding. His injury was bandaged and he remained with his unit. Cut out the middle bits as unimportant and consolidate the two sentences.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• tanks had stronger armor heavier or thicker.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Are you writing in BritEng or AmEng? Because your conversions are in BritEng, but armor isn't.
  • BritEng, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• was hit again by shrapnel in the arm the next. Rephrase to clarify that his arm injury occurred the following day.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Panzer's Panzer shouldn't be capitalized unless used in a unit title and no apostrophe here.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• However, he had not participated in the final battles of 1941. Delete as redundant.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• 16th Panzer Division next formed a part of IIRC, 16th Panzer was assigned to the 6th Army well before this.
  • • Don't forget this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strachwitz had to hand over command of his I./Panzer-Regiment 2 to Was he in command of the regiment and I. Batallion at the same time?
  • In the lead of the "Balkans campaign" section I wrote that he had command of the I. Battalion until October 1942. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• He received the award together with Georg-Wilhelm Postel who had been awarded the Oak Leaves to his Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross on this day. Why is this important?
  • It helps set context and puts his awards into context. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Without more info on why Postel got his award, this is pretty meaningless and should be deleted. Details about awards ceremonies are pretty unimportant, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Presentations of higher grades of the KC were group presentations. I find it an interesting aspect of the KC to know who was present at these award ceremonies. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm often bemused by the attention drawn by KC winners because there's no such phenomena in the Anglosphere. While MoH and VC winners are well covered, there's very little coverage of American DSC/Navy Cross winners or the British equivalents. Both of which were awarded in smaller numbers than the lower grades of the KC. But my main point is that it's a bit of extraneous detail that you would do well to cut, together with all the other bits about the actual award presentations, etc. Unless, of course, something notable happened at one of the ceremonies, but I don't really think that was really the case with Strachwitz.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strachwitz has been criticized for his regiment's poor performance during the Battle of Kursk; why isn't this mentioned?
  • It is not mentioned because the sources do not speak of this. I am not that familiar with Kursk, I will have to consult other/further sources on this. Can you assist? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Are you referring to this situation? It reads more like Karl Decker made an operational error which made Strachwitz furious. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Von Lauchert also apparently wrote a letter to Guderian detailing von Strachwitz's poor handling of the Panther units, but I don't know any further details. Perhaps Guderian wrote about the issue in one of his books? But if it's this difficult to find out what the problem was, it's probably not important enough to cover here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
        • I bought Nipe's book and made a brief reference to Strachwitz's failure on 5 July 1943. Good point and thanks for the suggestion MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Rifle corps should only be capitalized when used with a number which makes it a proper noun.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• intending to leave an impression of aiming to cut them out from the west flank. awkward use deceive or deception.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• Mention of the 59th Army comes out of nowhere.
  • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• The forest in the positions of the 59th Army was ignited and bombed by dive bombers This is also awkward. Set afire is better than ignited and I doubt that the dive bombers bombed the forest.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Their attempt to cut out the Tiger I tanks from their rear was repelled by Lieutenant Günther Famula, who received a posthumous Knight's Cross for these actions, keeping the road to the supplies open. I'm not sure what's going on here and I thought that that the Tiger Is weren't being used in this battle.
  • Panther tanks were used offensively, while the Tigers remained in the rear. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
    • There were few to none Panthers in this battle, it was mostly StuGs, PzKpfw IVs and Tiger Is. I've rewritten most of the Narva section as it was easier than explaining what needed to be done. As well as the beginning of the final battles section. See how it reads to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
• exception of the artillery, air, sniper activity delete "the"
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• tank hunting brigade add a hyphen between tank and hunting
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Most readers won't understand the collective nature of verbände and einheiten without translations.
  • provided, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• The other Panzerjäger Brigades should be redlinked.
  • done where I found sufficient info (only brief research into this) that might justify an article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
• When was he promoted to Oberst and then Generalmajor? Why aren't they mentioned in the main body like all the others?
  • Listed in the summary section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Some of the info in the Personal life section has already been covered.
  • addressed MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strachwitz tanks would have shot add possessive "'s" after Strachwitz.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab link [89] (no action req'd).
  • External links checks out [90] (no action req'd).
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [91] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD / free and have req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Caption for File:Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz.jpg probably would work better as a full sentence (for instance "Strachwitz as Oberst and commander of Panzer-Regiment "Großdeutschland", June 1943") - rest of the captions look fine to me.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [92] (no action req'd).
  • One duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Oberleutnant
      • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • In the lead "He then fought in the battle of Kursk..." think this requires caps as a its a noun. I.e. "Battle of Kursk".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The phraseology seems counter-intuitive to me here: "After the Armistice with Germany in November 1918..." this would seem to me what the allies would have called it. A German, like the subject of the article, probably wouldn't have though. Perhaps just say "After the Armistice in November 1918..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a little repetitive: " He journeyed to Berlin via Konstanz, at the Swiss-German border, and Munich. On his journey..." (journey twice in close proximity). Perhaps reword one?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...had asked to be transferred to the Panzer force and now, in May 1936...", consider more simply :...had asked to be transferred to the Panzer force and, in May 1936..." (not really sure "now" is correct as you are writing 78 years after the fact).
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure about using the definite article here: "The Panzer Regiment 2, under the command", probably more correct as "Panzer Regiment 2, under the command..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...totaling 54 Panzer I, 62 Panzer II, 6 Panzer III, 28 Panzer IV and 6 command Panzer..." should the plural form of panzer (i.e. "panzers") be used here?
  • Is this a typo: "the Wehrmacht invaded Poland without a former declaration of war..." (specifically should "former" be "formal"?)
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Typo here: "...they concurred Petrikau on 5 September...", "concurred" should be "conquered".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • There look like there may be some missing commas in this sentence: "At the end February 1940 the commanding general of the 1st Panzer Division Generalleutnant (Lieutenant General) Rudolf Schmidt was replaced by Generalmajor Friedrich Kirchner."
  • "...The Stab established the headquarter..." should be "headquarters"
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • " The division, along with 2nd and 10th Panzer Division..." → "The division, along with 2nd and 10th Panzer Divisions..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "The 1st Panzer Division had the orders..." → "The 1st Panzer Division had orders..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "under the command of Heinz Guderian..." Guderian's rank should be included here per WP:SURNAME
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "General Kirchner received...", delete "General" here, no req to use rank fol formal introduction at first use (see [[WP:SURNAME).
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • grammatically incorrect: "The German attack began at 5:35 on the early morning of 10 May 1940..." → "The German attack began at 5:35 on the morning of 10 May 1940."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...through Luxemburg and reach the Belgian border at 10:00..." → "...through Luxemburg and reached the Belgian border at 10:00.."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...breached the 2nd Belgian line of defense at Bouillon and Neufchâteau on 11 May...", 2nd should be "second".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of "Panzer-Regiment 2" (sometimes you don't use a hyphen).
    • fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The meaning of this is unclear to me: "had built strong defenses around the in parallel running Aisne and Aisne channel..." (specifically around the in parallel). Is it a typo?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Heeresgruppe A (Army Group A), under Gerd von Rundstedt..." Rundstedt's rank is required here per WP:SURNAME
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure about this: "This ended the Battle of France for the Strachwitz regiment." Do you mean "for Strachwitz's regiment"?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Strachwitz asked the divisional commander Hans Hube..." Hube's rank needs to be included here.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "He returned via his home town and 24 hours later a telegram from general Hube called him back" - delete "general".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "This was preceded by series of events in Belgrade." Some missing words here?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Their next objective was the river Danube..." this is a proper noun so needs a capital, i.e. "River Danube".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Redundant language here: "They reached the Danube at Pančevo only to find the Pančevo Bridge crossing the Danube destroyed." Consider rewording more simply as: "They reached the Danube at Pančevo only to find the bridge there destroyed."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • " On 16 April General Hube..." delete "General" per WP:SURNAME
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Strachwitz injury was bandaged and he remained with his unit...", consider instead: "His injury was bandaged and he remained with his unit." Otherwise you need an possessive apostrophe 's on Strachwitz.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "... not before 28 June were his regiment resupplied..." → "... not before 28 June was his regiment resupplied..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "During the Battle of Uman (15 July–8 August 1941..." believe the date requires a spaced dash here per MOS:DATE.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Caps needed here "Following the battle of Uman..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Think there is a missing word here: "...3. Panzer-Division hooked up Panzer-Regiment 2 on 15 September 1941..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "The spearhead of Panzergruppe 2, under Generaloberst Guderian and Panzergruppe 1, under Generaloberst Von Kleist..." delete ranks here per WP:SURNAME.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "... he stayed at the hospitals in Opplen and Breslau..." → "... he stayed at hospitals in Opplen and Breslau..." (no req for definite article here I believe).
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Caps need here as proper noun: "...led his tanks in the advance to the Don river...", i.e. "Don River".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Typo here "He then had to be flown out and was treated a hospital at Breslau..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...He then learned that General Hube..." delete "General".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Some missing words here: "End of January 1943 Strachwitz was ordered to the Führerhauptquartier..."
  • Is the punctuation right here?: "The objective was to capture the hill 258,4,"
    • Name of hill was 258.4, okay now? MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • repetitive language here: "roughly 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) west of Werchopenje. The battle group encountered roughly..." (roughly twice in close proximity). Perhaps reword one?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Strachwitz arm was put in a cast..." → "...Strachwitz's arm was put in a cast..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "The severe injury of Strachwitz's left arm had forced him to retire from the front line..." → "The severe injury to Strachwitz's left arm had forced him to retire from the front line..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...splitting the bridgeheads in two halves..." → "...splitting the bridgeheads in two..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "The forest in the positions of the 59th Army was ignited and bombed by diver planes..." Is the terminology right here? I am unfamiliar with "diver planes". Pls check this.
    • fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • " Their attempt to cut out the Tiger I tanks from their rear..." Tigers should be wikilinked at first use, not here.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...had reached his headquarter on the early morning....", should be "headquarters".
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "The 8th Army repelled the German attack...", 8th Army should be wikilinked at first use, not here.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...was 13,274, all causes...." → "...was 13,274, from all causes..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • " The Soviet casualties in April are unknown..." → "Soviet casualties in April are unknown..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...but are estimated by Mart Laar to at least 30,000 men for all purposes..." → "...but are estimated by Mart Laar as being at least 30,000 men." (I really don't know what you mean by "for all purposes").
  • "...Strachwitz attack on its left flank was preceded..." → "Strachwitz's attack on its left flank was preceded..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "...deploying hand-held weapon such...", should be "weapons" (plural).
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Are there some missing words here: "This threatened the in Silesia..."?
    • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Some parts of the "Personal life" section repeat information already present above. Is there a reason for this? It seems redundant. Suggest removing the section entirely and working the information into the rest of the article in chronological order (specifically the After World War II section). (suggestion only).
    • I would like to keep it as is, if I may, acknowledging that it is bit redundant. I find it easier to look up since it is very much outside of his military career. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Happy to wait and see want other editors think about this section before a decision is made of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Strachwitz died on 25 April 1968 of lung cancer in the hospital of Trostberg..." → "Strachwitz died on 25 April 1968 of lung cancer in hospital in Trostberg..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy to discuss any points you disagree with. Will re-read the article once these have been dealt with. Anotherclown (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your thorough review. I beleive to have addressed the bulk of your comments. Those not addressed I did not understand. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Gday I've done a copyedit to fix the remaining issues that I saw - pls see my edits here [93] and revert any that you disagree with / changed the meaning of your writing unintentionally. Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks, they look good MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
          • @Anotherclown: How are things looking to you now after MB's changes following your comments (and Dan's/Parsec's)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Gday - I honestly do not understand the rationale behind the personal life section which repeats some information already presented in earlier in the article, while the rest could easily be presented chronologically in the other sections and the section done away with. That said the article is quite good in my opinion, so I neither support nor oppose its promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
              • I believe this to be a question of style. I have written articles with an explicit personal life sections (see Werner Mölders or Ernst Lindemann; both articles are FAC today) and without (see Helmut Lent also FAC). I therefore conclude that breaking this info out is not inherently wrong (at least it was never raised before), but as said, a question of style. I am not fundamentally opposed to addressing this request, if this is mandated by popular demand. However, I checked WP:MOSBIO and MOS:LAYOUT. Unless I overlooked something, it is not mandated. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
                • That is only half the issue identified though. As I said this section repeats information you presented previously in the article, and is therefore redundant. Whilst the use of a dedicated "personal life" section may indeed be a question of style (hence why I didn't oppose), repeating information isn't. Would really be surprised if that would pass at FAC - but I have been wrong in the past and will be again. Anyway I'm not requesting you do anything - I just haven't added my support due to the current form the article takes. If others are happy with this then there is nothing stopping its promotion. Anotherclown (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • That's fair. Let's see how it turns out. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
                    • by popular demand I removed the section and integrated the content into the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
                      • Might be worth pinging Anotherclown to see if his concerns are now addressed fully for him to support the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "He emphasized many sporting activities": I don't know what "emphasized" means here.
  • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "the train track Paris–Limoges–Bordeaux": "the Paris–Limoges–Bordeaux train track" is possible; "the train track from Paris to Limoges to Bordeaux" is better.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Strachwitz ordered a messenger with the gathered information to break through to the German lines and make a report, which the messenger achieved.": Strachwitz dispatched a messenger, who broke through to the German lines and delivered the intelligence they had gathered.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "The patrol then blew up": The patrol blew up
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "Now, their progress slowed by a wounded comrade and wearing civilian clothes, they were caught by French forces.": Their progress was slowed by a wounded comrade, and they were caught in civilian clothes by French forces.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "The torture included being chained naked to a wall, deprival of food and severe beatings.": The torture included being chained naked to a wall, deprived of food and beaten severely.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "After four trips without food and reduced to a skeleton": Appearing skeletal after four trips without food
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "A medical inspection by the Swiss medical commission": An inspection by the Swiss medical commission
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• "in Switzerland. After days of unconsciousness he awoke in a hospital bed in Geneva, Switzerland.": in Geneva, Switzerland, where he awoke after days of unconsciousness.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• So far so good. I got down to Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz von Groß-Zauche und Camminetz#Interwar period. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestions so far MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • It strikes me a bit odd to read that the Germans mobilized in 1914 before reading about Franz Ferdinand's assassination.
    • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It might be worthwhile to include a sentence or two on the Schlieffen Plan and the general situation in 1914 - many readers won't know why the assassination of an Austro-Hungarian archduke would prompt Germany to invade France (through Belgium).
    • good point, added. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • It's better, but part of what I was getting at was the alliance structure in 1914 - most readers will follow up through the bit about Russia mobilizing, prompting a German mobilization, but will not understand why the bulk of the German Army went to France instead of Russia. It might be best to split the bit about the Schlieffen Plan into its own paragraph at the start of the section (at add it to the last paragraph of the previous section) and add the basic logic of the plan - that France could be defeated very quickly, before the Russian steamroller would have time to fully mobilize so Germany could fight, in essence, two one-front wars instead of one two-front war. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Understood! Have another look if this now meets the needs, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Looks good to me. I made a couple of small changes, since the final version of the plan avoided violating the Netherlands' neutrality. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In general, you give the German name first followed by an English translation, except for the "Silesian Eagle (Schlesischer Adler)" - why is this?
    • carelessness, thank MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Should his NSDAP membership number be rendered as in English rather than German (which is to say, with commas rather than with periods)?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Was von Weichs promoted between when he was introduced and when he was dismissed? If not, it's better to give his specific rank first and then omit it thereafter.
  • "two middle companies" - would two medium companies make more sense? I'm assuming the "middle" refers to the type of tank assigned (the IIIs and IVs, right?).
    • done, my English needs to improve MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • It's the Meuse in France - why bother giving the Dutch name?
    • Hm, must be my German heritage. It is not only the Dutch name but also the German name. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, I didn't know they were the same - fair enough then. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The "Tanks must be led from the front!" bit needs a citation, even if it's the same page range in Röll as the rest of the paragraph.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • What's the relevance of pointing out his battalion being equipped with submersible tanks in the Barbarossa section? It was already mentioned earlier and doesn't seem to be directly related to the action on 25 August.
    • good point, removed MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Führerhauptquartier" should be italicized.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Same for "Unteroffizier"
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I made a few small changes to the article, make sure they're all fine. Parsecboy (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks much appreciated MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

question Before at some point the reviewers cast their final verdict on this article I would truly like some very generic feedback on this article. I worked over a year on this. I found it very challenging at times to cover such a wide variety of historic events, condense the information and put it into perspective so that the reader can follow and understand this biography (so I hope). It also required a lot of translation and investigation to find the correct and sematic English representation. Most of the feedback I received so far very much focusses on my linguistic limitations, not that I mind that, on the contrary. But what I truly wish to read from you reviewers: does this make sense to you and is the information at the right level of detail? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the article is very good on this count (and I would guess the others agree, which is why we're picking on small details for the most part). The only thing that really caught my eye was the background to the outbreak of war in 1914, which I mentioned above. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2014 (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) 09:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ka–Km)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Another Knight's Cross list for A-Class review since it follows the same layout and citation style previously established in numerous A-class reviews of similar content. Please help me improve the article to meet out A-class criteria. Thanks, only three to go MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - as with your other lists in the series, excellent work. I made a few small edits (see here) - make sure they're all ok. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Support. Yet another excellent list. Glad to see you've made some significant headway down the alphabet since the last time I reviewed one of these. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 18 March 2014 (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) 09:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ha–Hm)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am putting this list up for A-Class review since it follows the same layout and citation style previously established in numerous A-class reviews of similar content. Please help me improve the article to meet out A-class criteria. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support - nothing to pick on. You've got these lists down to a science, MB. Parsecboy (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic work. The detailed notes are particularly excellent. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2014 (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) 09:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

SMS Emden (1908)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

The first light cruiser article of mine to grace the ACR pages - I'm hoping to get Emden to FA in time to run on 9 November 2014, the centenary of her loss at the Battle of Cocos. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

commentsSupport good to go MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• the Dresden class article states (see table) that she was laid down 6 April 1906 (source is Forstmeier, p. 2). The article only states a vague date of 1906. If I read HRS v3 top of page 39 correctly she was built as Ersatz Pfeil and laid down on 1 November 1906. Am I reading this correctly? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, this will require some looking into - I don't have HRS or Forstmeier in front of me at the moment though.
    • I'll wait until you check into this MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Based on this, it looks like Forstmeier was confused - 6 April was the date the order was placed with KW Danzig, not the date her keel was laid. We'll go with the date from HRS. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• the ISBN number for HRS is formated differently then the other ISBN numbers. You used 3782202112 maybe use 3-7822-0211-2 or 978-3-7822-0211-4 MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Added the hyphens, thanks.
• side note not related to this review: I would like to understand better what the criteria for winning the Kaiser's Schießpreis were. It seems that it was awarded/winnable in the infantry, artillery and navy. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell, each unit (the Squadrons of the HSF, the East Asia Squadron, etc.) competed, so in a given year, there would be winners from each unit, and I'd imagine each Army division would work the same way. But I don't really know for sure.
• Is Karl von Müller overlinked (in lead and in main text)? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I usually link things in both the lead and main body, which is acceptable per WP:OVERLINK. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• captain the ship during her career in World War I howzabout deleted "her career"?
  • Good point.
• How many prop shafts?
  • Added.
• annual repair work awkward, how about "refit" instead?
  • Sounds fine to me.
• she left Tsingtau on 28 December, and Nürnberg left Hong Kong too many "left"s here.
  • Changed the first to "departed"
• landing corps is rather strange terminology, how about "landing force", or if you're really traditional, "landing party"
  • Yeah, I was probably hewing a little too close to the Landungskorps ;)
• Why didn't Müller destroy Glen Turret? She was British.
  • I asked that question myself, but I don't know the answer. Perhaps she wasn't carrying anything that could be construed as having a military purpose? But the sources don't say.
• wireless station wireless compartment?
  • Sure.
• Where is Lyons Press based at?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Added, thanks for the review Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• "Emden was decommissioned in September after she completed her trials.": It strikes me (as someone not overly familiar with the Germany Navy) as odd that a brand new ship is decommissioned so may warrant an explanation.
  • The source (Hildebrand et. al.) doesn't say specifically, so I can't really add anything, but generally, the German navy was expanding rapidly at the time and didn't have the manpower to keep all of its ships in commission. For instance, the brand-new battleship Rheinland had to be decommissioned to provide a crew for the battlecruiser SMS Von der Tann.
• Oberbürgermeister: translations are provided for other German terms eg ranks, but not this one.
  • Added.
• Some inconsistencies in spelling here: Tsingtau / Tsingtao.
  • Translating from German, sometimes I get stuck in German spellings for places :)
• "She anchored at Papeete, Tahiti on 12 July, her coal bunkers nearly empty after crossing 4,200 nautical miles...": Did the Emden recoal prior to reaching China?
  • Yes, at Papeete, but I see that that's not clear from how it was worded. Should be better now.
• "The two cruisers reinforced German forces there...": Probably should be specific if "there" means Ponape or the Carolines.
  • Good point.
• Vizeadmiral is linked twice.
  • Fixed.

The above points are pretty minor issues in the scheme of things, this is a really good piece of work which I found particularly interesting. Zawed (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Zawed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2014 (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) 09:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Operation Flavius

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

In 1988, as "the Troubles" raged on in Northern Ireland, the Provisional Irish Republican Army began a plot to attack a military band in Gibraltar. On the personal orders of Margaret Thatcher, they were pursued by the SAS. Exactly what happened next may never be known, but what we do know is that three members of an IRA active service unit died at the hands of the SAS in one of the most controversial moments of "the Troubles". Such was the impact of this event that six more people died in Belfast as a result of it, and the controversy raged for almost a decade until a judgement from the European Court of Human Rights. There was further political and legal fallout as a result of an equally controversial piece of investigative journalism, but that's my next project!

Given the controversial subject matter, I would (even more so than normal) appreciate plenty of neutral eyes on this before (hopefully) I take it to FAC. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "had "access to and control over 140 pounds (64 kg)" of Semtex.": Should that be "control of over"?
• "while they were on the floor": ... on the ground?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dan, thanks for your edits. I might have some queries on those when I've looked at them in more detail but I'm pressed for time atm. your quibbles here:

• floor/ground, I'll change it to ground
• "Over 140 pounds": That's verbatim form the IRA statement. I read it as meaning "control of". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Dan: Just looking through your edits.

• Does raising speculation sound right to you? It sounds odd to me, but in the absence of a better suggestion, I'll defer to you if you think it sounds okay.
  • Scolaire made this recent edit ... whatever you two want is fine. - Dank (push to talk) 21:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• I've added a quote from "Soldier G" wrt the aerial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • "...now inactive, is a paramilitary organisation..." - if it's inactive, shouldn't it be past-tense?
    • It's a bit convoluted, but that's a compromise solution we've come to (the IRA and its current status is a matter of considerable controversy); the IRA still exists, so past tense isn't really appropriate, but it has been inactive for a few years.
  • "... were, according to one author..." - which author? There are 3 citations at the end of the para. And it's best to be specific anyway.
    • Good point, done.
      • And he has a Wiki article, even better.
  • It would probably be good to introduce Operation Flavius by its name in the Build Up section - I came away from that section wondering what Flavius exactly was, when it started, that sort of thing.
    • Leave this with me.
    • There's not much available without indulging in supposition because the British government officially denies almost everything leading up to the shootings, but does this edit do anything for you?
      • I suppose that's the best we can do, since there's no real access to exactly what the government was doing and when it was doing it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Check for duplicate links, there are quite a few. There's a script Ian told me about (though I'm blanking on where you can find it) that can highlight them for you.
    • I found the script and caught three duplicate links.
  • "...was shot and allegedly beaten to death..." - what part of this is uncertain? Did he die, allegedly by being beaten? Or was he allegedly trying to attack soldiers?
    • It's not disputed that he was trying to attack soldiers, that he died, or that he was shot; the allegation is that he was beaten between being shot and dying. Does this tweak make things clearer?
      • Yeah, that's clearer.
  • There's a Harv error in the O'Leary ref (it's a named ref with no citations pointing to it - again, I think Ian can point you to a script that can help you detect these problems). Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know what that means, much less how to fix it. :S Thanks for your comments, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I don't know exactly what's going on - it's usually caused by an unused, named ref, but there's no name parameter in that ref. But converting the template from citation to cite book seems to have fixed the problem. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources and images

• GBooks links don't need accessdates and can be truncated after page number
  • I've removed the links.
• Windlesam or Windlesham? Bladachino or Baldachino?
  • Well spotted; fixed
• File:Flag_of_Gibraltar.svg and File:Coat_of_arms_of_Gibraltar1.svg should both include info on the copyright status of the original design as well as a source to verify it. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I've removed the former until its copyright status can be established; I can't work out how the latter is being transcluded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Both fixed now. A friend pointed me to coat of arms of Gibraltar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments This is an admirably detailed and well illustrated article, and I have only the following comments:

• "The deaths were the first in a chain of violent events in a fourteen-day period" - I'd suggest noting that these other attacks weren't in Gibraltar
  • Done.
• "Daniel McCann, Seán Savage, and Mairéad Farrell were, according to journalist Brendan O'Brien, "three of the IRA's most senior activists"; McCann was "a high-ranking intelligence operative" and Savage was an explosives expert, while McCann and Farrell had both served prison sentences for offences relating to explosives" - I'd suggest splitting this into two or three sentences as it's a bit complex at the moment (looping back to mention McCaan twice in the second half in particular)
  • Fixed.
• Why was the SAS given the role of arresting the bombers? - did the police not have personnel with the necessary skills (eg, something like a SWAT team or an anti-terrorist squad), or was there a concern that an attempt to arrest them could quickly turn into a battle? Was this standard practice at the time? I imagine that the British Government provided a rationale as part of the various inquests.
  • I don't think there's anything about this in the sources (other than the speculation about a conspiracy, which is covered in some detail in the inquest section). To engage in a little synthesis, Thatcher made a great deal of use of the SAS after the Iranian Embassy siege, and there was infamously bad blood between her and the IRA, so it was quite common for the SAS to be used in operations against the IRA. Eventually they came to be used in all sorts of incidents, to the extent that it was eventually decided that they were being over-used and police forces had to take on more responsibility for major incidents. I'm thinking of writing a more general article about the SAS' role in the Troubles, so I could link that from this article when I get round to it for a little background on the SAS' relationship with the IRA.
    • That seems a bit surprising given that this has been covered in legal inquires, but on the other hand it would also have been a sensitive cabinet/prime ministerial decision and the files may not have been declassified yet. Anything on this topic would be good. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• "(50 miles [80 kilometres] from Gibraltar)" - weren't both Spain and the UK using the metric system by this time? If so, I'd suggest leading with metric in all units of measurement
  • I'm not sure the UK or Gibraltar have ever used metric measurements for roads (you can still buy milk and beer in pints in the UK, though it's illegal to sell veg in pounds and ounces!), though most of continental Europe does.
    • OK Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• While more relevant for a FAC, the coverage of the European Commission of Human Rights case seems rather brief in comparison to the blow-by-blow account of the inquest
  • There's very, very little coverage of the commission in the sources (even the weighty legal textbook); if you mean the court, the coverage is small compared to the inquest because the inquest is where many of the facts (or lack thereof) were established and where the government presented its version of events for the first time. The court didn't do much fact-finding (and indeed ruled that inquest was a sufficient investigation), so I've focused on the legal reasoning. The court case also has its own article, which is on my to-do list, whereas the inquest doesn't.
• A map showing the location of the shooting would be good Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It would, actually; any idea how I'd make one? I'm no good at that sort of thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Screen shots from Open Street Map :) Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed. My remaining comments above are really relevant to a FAC, which is where I hope this fine article is headed. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2014 (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) 09:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

España-class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Something of a side project for me (and a break for y'all), this article covers the only Spanish dreadnought-type battleships, and the smallest vessels of that type. All three were lost, the first to a rock off Morocco, and the other two during the Spanish Civil War by a mine and an internal explosion, respectively. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

SupportComments (very close to a support) with minor comments:

• "The construction of the ships, particularly the third vessel, took so long due to shortages of material supplied by Great Britain during World War I, particularly armament." - It wasn't clear at this point in the lead that the construction of the ships had taken a long time, as the previous sentence referred to the construction of the class (each ship might have been constructed in only 12 months, for example, with gaps in between each). How about "The construction of the ships, particularly the third vessel, were significantly delayed due to shortages..."?
  • I guess I took it for granted that ships of any type shouldn't take over a decade to build. Your suggestion seems fine to me.
• Worth linking Spanish economy?
  • Sure.
• "seven 15,000 metric tons... battleships " - should this be "ton", as it is an adjective?
  • Yes, good catch.
• " and three 10,000 t" - three what? Battleships?
  • Funny how your brain shuts off mid-sentence sometimes...
• "United States with its first ship of the type" - "with its own new battleship, USS South Carolina." or something like that might be clearer (otherwise the two sets of "firsts" can read in a confusing way)
  • Sounds good.
• "And due to rapid technological change at the time..." - I'd avoid starting a sentence with "And..."
  • See how it reads now.
• " their freeboard was 4.6 m (15 ft) amidships" - freeboard is already linked above
  • I thought I caught all the duplicates...
• "The ships reasonably stable compared to foreign designs," - a missing "were"
• "and were considered cramped and unhygienic." - unless this is strictly an opinion (in which case we would need to say whose it was) you could just say "and were cramped and unhygienic"
  • Good point.
• " The turbines drove three-bladed screws that were" - "screw propellers" would make it read more easily for the casual reader
  • Fixed.
• " kept the latter's spotting top free from smoke interference" - it took me two goes to work out what a "spotting top" was.
  • Would a link to spotting top help?
• "The turrets used hydraulics to operate" - "The turrets were operated by hydraulics"? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
  • How about "turrets were hydraulically operated"? Thanks for your review Hchc2009. Parsecboy (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Ping - Hchc, is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport

• check ISBN format of 0839361750 it should probably be 978-0-8393-6175-6 or 0-8393-6175-0 MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed, good catch.
• I think the Wikitable should probably make use of row and col scope; check WP:ACCESS MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll have to get to this later - templates aren't my area of expertise :)
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for taking care of that for me! Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Question: Is the name España—Spain so obvious in the English speaking world that it doesn't require a formal introduction or translation? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Probably not, unfortunately - added a parenthetical to the lead.
• "These guns were housed in four twin turrets, arranged with "A" and "Y" on the centerline, the others en echelon on the wings." What are "the others en echelon on the wings" called? "B" and "X"? MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Fixed - see comment below in reply to Sturm.
• "The Spanish public blamed the disastrous losses in the Spanish-American War of 1898 on the Navy, but recognized the need to modernize and rebuild it." I don't understand the "but" in this sentence. The sentence would make more sense to me if it said "The Spanish public blamed the disastrous losses in the Spanish-American War of 1898 on the Navy, therefore recognized the need to modernize and rebuild it." MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • My sense was that there would be no inclination to "throw good money after bad", especially given the weak Spanish economy. Is there something I could add that would make that clearer? Parsecboy (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Still missing adjective code for the templates in the first paragraph of the development section.
  • Added.
• I think SECN was formed by the three English companies, not really a conglomerate per se.
  • Good catch, corrected.
• Link displace, torpedo bulkhead
  • Torpedo bulkhead is already linked in the first para of the armor section, added link to displacement.
• 12 inches converted multiple times.
  • Removed the second instance.
• Explain why they were obsolescent before completion.
  • How does the addition of "...due to rapid technological change—most significantly the rise of the superdreadnought battleships—and..." work?
• You first give turret designations as letters, but in the modifications section you refer to them by numbers.
  • Letters removed - I think that was a remnant from the old version of the article.
• Link the British AA guns used on Jaime I.
  • Missed this one, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Indeed I did - link added now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• five years for the second, and seven years for the second. Headspace and timing error, I suspect.
  • Indeed, fixed.
• Probably best to spell out the state names, and make sure that every book has one, other than New York.
  • Fixed.
• No commons category for these ships?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's in the notes section.
    • Ooops.
• If you add |lastauthoramp=1 to the book cite template they will display with the ampersand to match your usage in the notes. Otherwise Nikki will ding you for not having them match. :-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Good catch, thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2014 (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) 09:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Roy Phillipps

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Following on from Elwyn Roy King, another article on an Australian ace of World War I that I felt might be worthy of A-Class after expanding it with additional sources since its GAN a couple of years ago. Like King, Phillipps left military flying after the Armistice to run a business and raise a family but joined the RAAF after the outbreak of World War II and died relatively young while commanding a training unit. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "he attacked one of the German fighters and shot away its wing, causing the others to retreat.": I don't know what "causing" means here.
  • Tweaked/simplified.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Support: looks good, Ian, up to the usual standard. I have a couple of suggestions, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• images look good (in terms of licences and visually), I particularly like the one with his daughter from a personal perspective... ;-)
  • You ol' softie (what can I say, it got me too)... ;-)
• "and his wife Cecil..." is this a typo? Do you mean "Cecilia?" or something like that (just checking...)
  • Fair question, I had to double-check myself when writing the article but it's Cecil in the ADB and in his personnel file at NAA.
• "pastoral property in the Kimberley when war broke out in August 1914" --> perhaps the details of the war could be clarified here. For instance, "pastoral property in the Kimberley when war between the British Empire and Germany broke out in August 1914..." or something similar;
  • I felt it best to keep it simple and general to reflect the sources.
• "he joined the 28th Battalion, raised the same month at Blackboy Camp, Western Australia..." --> you might add here that the 28th Battalion was an infantry unit, to clarify for the readers. For instance, something like this might work: "he joined the 28th Battalion, an infantry unit raised the same month at Blackboy Camp, Western Australia..."
  • Sure.
• "The 28th Battalion was not heavily engaged on the peninsula, suffering relatively few casualties before the evacuation in December..." Again, perhaps it could be clarified as to why. Understood, this is not an article about the 28th Battalion (ack, I'm working on writing that offline myself currently), but it might be good to clarify a little. For instance, "The 28th Battalion, which had been sent to Gallipoli late in the campaign as reinforcements, was not heavily engaged on the peninsula, suffering relatively few casualties before the evacuation in December."
  • Good, yes.
• "Phillipps and the battalion deployed to France for service on the Western Front in March 1916." There is a slight gap in the narrative here, for instance, it could be clarified that the 28th (as indeed were all the Australian battalions) was withdrawn to Egypt after the evacuation of Gallipoli;
  • I kinda feel that with the paragraph break we can afford such a gap...
• "Phillipps took part in the Battle of the Somme" --> not sure about this, the Battle of the Somme was the wider battle that took place between July and November, so technically when Phillipps fought at Pozieres, he was taking part in the Battle of the Somme...
  • Very good point, not sure how that ref to the Somme made it in there in the first place...
• "as an adjutant in No. 2 Squadron" --> "as an adjutant" or "as the adjutant" (I could be wrong, but most units usually only have one in my experience)
  • I might just hedge my bets and say "as adjutant" (could probably stand being linked too)...
• "and "fell like a stone"..." (should the quote be attributed in text here?)
  • Well I did attribute it to the official history earlier in the sentence...
• "and "their machines came back full of bullet-holes"..." (as above) AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Thought it'd be overdoing it to mention the same source again... Tks for review Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport. Looks good to me now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I know you're trying to be concise in the lead, but awarded the Military Cross and Bar makes it sound like he was awarded the MC and the bar simultaneously
  • Fair enough, what about "awarded two Military Crosses"?
    • Works for me.
• Is war broke out not a bit of an Easter egg?
  • Maybe -- I don't have a strong feeling about it so don't mind losing the link.
    • I don't think it adds much, so I'd suggest removing it if you're happy with that.
• requiring repatriation to England Isn't repatriation usually to one's home country? Would "evacuation" be better?
  • "Repatriation" was the term used in the source but don't mind altering to "evacuation".
    • I'd go with "evacuation" unless a dictionary disagrees with my interpretation (I had a quick check of Cambridge, which seems to agree with me).
• Phillipps rejoined his unit in October but was wounded again the following month Do we know what sort of wound he suffered?
  • Secondary sources don't say, although the implication seems to be that it was again in the leg, since he was invalided out on account of it being part-paralysed. OTOH I could scour his personnel file at the Archives and see if that turns up more?
    • It's worth a look if it's not too much effort, but it's not essential.
• altering his birthdate from 1892 to 1896 to do so Why did he need to alter his birth date?
  • Frustratingly the sources never made this explicit when I first wrote the article; again by implication, the assumption was that there was an upper age limit for pilot training. Since you bring it up, I do notice that in the latest book on the AFC it mentions that although the official age limit was 30, the "strong preference" was for those under 23, so I could mention that as a standalone statement/clarification.
    • It would be nice to have this in there in some form.
• Phillipps married Ellen Robinson Do we know much more about her? Presumably he took leave to get married; was that unusual in wartime?
  • I think what we have, i.e. daughter of so-and-so from wherever, is about the max info one usual gets about soldiers' wives, at least in my experience. Based on the number of personnel files I've seen over the years, a few days leave here and there during combat service was not unusual.
    • Fair enough. Would have been nice, but again, not essential. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Many tks for looking it over, Harry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

All done now, I think -- incidentally when adding the second thigh wound I dropped the bit about a partly paralysed leg because it's not mentioned in the personnel file and the secondary sources that do mention it also say it led to him being repatriated to Australia before joining the AFC, which further contradicts what's in his file... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2014 (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, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Hn–Hz)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

This is the second part of the all Knight's Cross recipients starting with the letter "H". It completes the list "Ha–Hm" currently under review as well. Just like the other list follows the same layout and citation style previously established in numerous A-class reviews of similar content. Thanks in advance MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - up to your usual, excellent standard MB. Good luck at FLC. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support: nothing major stood out to me, but I saw a couple of minor things (otherwise looks fine for A-class, IMO):
  • "60ties" --> "60s"
  • "Domschk" -->"Domaschk"
  • English variation: "Labour" (British English) but also "honors" (US). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2014 (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? 17:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Norris Bradbury

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Robert Oppenheimer's successor at the Manhattan Project's Los Alamos Laboratory Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Support - enjoyed reading it, with minor points below:

• " the final assembly of the Gadget," - I'd have put "the Gadget" in speech marks (it's done that way in the article it's linked to, btw, and seems to be the style later in the article)
• "They were married in 1933.[4] They had three sons, James, John, and David" - minor, but would it be worth flowing these two short sentences together?
• "submitted his resignation at director of the Los Alamos Laboratory" - "as director". Should director be capitalised?
• V. minor, but is gangrene actually a disease? "The disease spread to his left leg..." I think its actually a condition, which can be caused by certain diseases. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [94] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [95]:
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [96] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images are all seem to be PD and are appropriate, captions ok.
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [97] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • "During the war he was..." I wonder if we need to specific which war? (suggestion only)
  • Something seems a little off with the wording here (I think), but I can't put my finger on it: "that spoiled the required perfect spherical shape desired from the implosion process..." Should "from" be "for" and is "required" contradictory with "desired"? Perhaps consider revising? (suggestion only)

    Re-worded to "that spoiled the perfect spherical shape desired for the implosion process"

  • I changed a few things which looked like typos to me. Pls revert if I got them wrong.
  • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comments, leaning to Support:
  • Prose-wise, copyedited as usual but not a lot to do; as ever let me know if you disagree with anything.
  • Structure-wise, I felt the lead just a bit titchy, even though the article isn't particularly long.
    • Expanded the lead. I find these very hard to write. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Content-wise, the only snippet that left me wanting more was his dismissal following the campus disorder -- any thing further on that?
    • Really? I found the bit about NERVA fascinating enough to read a whole book on the subject. Anyhow, I've expanded the sentence to a paragraph. There are snippets about the incident elsewhere on Wikipedia. Alas, no one is likely to go looking here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't disagree about NERVA but unlike this incident, it has an article of its own... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as referencing and supporting materials go, I haven't done a source review a la Nikki, but happy to go with AC's image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ian, do you still have concerns outstanding or are you happy for this to be closed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Tks Harry, supporting after requested changes, though I'd still have preferred one of Nikki's patented source reviews. Looking over refs and citations myself, nothing much stood out except:
  • I notice some citations use just figures for page numbers rather than "p. nnn" or "pp. nnn–nnn" but that's probably down to the vagaries of the templates.
    • The difference here is between the standard way that books are cited and scientific papers, which is enforced by the cite journal template. "37 (10): 1311–1319" is volume 37 issue 10, pp. 1311–1319. I could insert the "p." and "pp." but it will probably be removed by a wiki gnome. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need OCLC when there's an ISBN. Not deal-breakers, though -- the support stands. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Usually the OCLC is more useful. There was a review once before where another editor wanted OCLCs, so I insert them always now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - though I do have one question: did Bradbury play an active role of any sort in the 1970 incident at UNM or was his just another head that rolled in the aftermath? I'm assuming the latter, but it'd be good to make it explicit. Parsecboy (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The whole incident is probably worth its own article rather than being tucked away in the UNM and Kent State articles, but I could find no mention of Bradbury playing any role, so it is assumed that his was just another head that rolled in the aftermath. But I cannot be explicit without an explicit source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping Hawkeye: Are you able to address Ian's and Parsec's last queries? I suppose I could close this now as they've both explicitly supported, but I'd prefer to see all the loose ends tied up first. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC) {{subst:arvhive bottom}}

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? 17:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Empress Matilda

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the Empress Matilda was one of the medieval period's rare female, war-time rulers. Proud, imperial and unwilling to give up what she regarded as her rightful inheritance, she helped shape the course of the Anarchy in 12th century England. Definitely a powerful individual and enjoyable topic to research. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Huge thanks for the copy edit Dank, very much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Support A well-written and thoroughly researched article. A few comments:

• Minor disclaimer: we're talking about events that my own ancestors participated in. So when I saw Stephen of Blois I instantly thought, well of another Stephen of Blois that I thought was more famous. But alas, he only has a start class article. But I digress.
• Empress Matilda (c. 7 February 1102 – 10 September 1167), also known as the Empress Maude or Matilda of England, was the leader of one of the factions in the English civil war known as the Anarchy. I don't think this really sums up her major claim to fame. Was she not the first and only woman to claim the English throne in her right before Tudor times?

• Probably - although it isn't something that stressed in the works I've read about her. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• the Empress's attempt to be crowned at Westminster Is this Westminster Abbey?

• More specific link added. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The final details of the deal were negotiated at Westminster in June 1109 Is this the Palace of Westminster?

• The original source simply gives Westminster as the location. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The Anglo-Norman barons were gathered together at Westminster on Christmas 1126 Is this the Palace of Westminster?

• Again, the original source simply gives Westminster as the location. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Matilda now began to take the necessary steps to have herself crowned queen in his place, which would require the agreement of the Church and her coronation at Westminster. I think this should link to Westminster Abbey and not westminster cathedral.

• Agree, fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Excommunication" appears in the Marriage to the Emperor section but is linked further down.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Several of Matilda's key supporters passed on. Per WP:EUPHEMISM, it would be better to say they "died".

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Popular, and not always accurate, biographies were written by the Earl of Onslow and Nesta Pain in 1939 and 1978, Suggest Popular, and not always accurate, biographies were written by the Earl of Onslow in 1939 and Nesta Pain in 1978

*Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• "According to 16th century standards, Matilda had a clear right to the English throne" Would they not then have wondered why Henry VII was on the throne and not Margaret of York?

*Possibly - although historians aren't always logical (and I doubt anyone would have wanted to tell the Tudor kings that...) Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Succession box: Stephen of Blois did not succeed Matilda as the Lady of the English. Not sure what this box is supposed to convey.

• Agreed - fixed. Thanks for the review Hawkeye. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• One last thing: her father's relationships with numerous mistresses resulted in around 23 illegitimate siblings vs Footnote 2: Henry, had a considerable sexual appetite and enjoyed a substantial number of sexual partners, resulting in a large number of illegitimate children, at least nine sons and 13 daughters but 9 + 13 = 22 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, the maths was out. Corrected! Hchc2009 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - a really superb article. I made a few small edits, and have one question: is it FitzCount or Fitz Count? I saw both in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ping Hchc2009. If you can address Parsec's query, I'll promote the article. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry Parsec, I missed your comment during the week! Can be spelt either way, but yep, should be standardised, and have done so. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (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) 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

SMS Wörth

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another overhauled German battleship article up for ACR. This one served as the flagship of Kaiser Bill's little brother for the first years of her career, and she ruffled some diplomatic feathers, since her namesake, the Battle of Wörth took place during the then still-recent Franco-Prussian War. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments

Hey! Been a while since I've done one of these. Figured this would be a good way to get back into it.

• The first thing that jumps out at me are the amount of red links. Not really a huge deal to me, but a little bit of a distraction. Some of them, such as Yangtze River are because of typos.

• Fixed the typo, but the rest are perfectly fine per WP:REDLINK.

• I think it would add more to the article if you could expand the World War I section, and split part of it in two, and expound upon what happened to her post-WWI that led to her being scrapped.

• Unfortunately, there's not more to say. And as for what happened to her after the war, there's nothing more to say. I can't even tell you that she was scrapped under the terms of Versailles, because she was stricken from the register before the treaty was signed.

• You could use a few more citations in the beginning of the World War I section where you talk about her being used in the V Battle Squadron as coastal defense in the north sea.

• It all comes from page 99 in HRS. There's no need for more citations.

• I really like the article, it just seems to me as if the WWI section was a little rushed. Best of luck with continuing towards A-class! ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 23:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• It may be that the WWI section seems shorter still owing to the level of detail in earlier sections -- OTOH if this is all a faithful reflection of the balance in the main sources, there's probably not much to be done about it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• questionsupportive
  • you wrote "Norddeutsche Tiefbauges" is this an incomplete abbreviation for Norddeutsche Tiefbaugesellschaft? HRS v8 p100 state Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That's what's in Gröner, and yes, I found the first time that firm is mentioned and the full name is given. Are these two names for the same company or is this a discrepancy?
      • I don't know. If you look here de:SMS Gefion (1893), de:SMS Victoria Louise and de:SMS Beowulf you will see the company spelled out as Norddeutsche Tiefbaugesellschaft, a Berlin based company, while the Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH is based in Danzig. So I must assume they are two companies. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
        • By the way, I believe you used the full name Norddeutsche Tiefbaugesellschaft on the SMS Beowulf article before as well. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, it was just an abbreviation Gröner used - I guess I wasn't clear above. But I think I know what's going on - Hoch- und Tiefbau GmbH was the company that operated Victoria Louise after she had been converted into a merchant ship (by Norddeutsche) - Wörth was to be similarly converted (presumably converted by Norddeutsche and operated by Hoch- und Tiefbau) but apparently wasn't for some reason. Norddeutsche was probably the company that actually dismantled the ship and HRS left that detail out. Parsecboy (talk) 13:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "Wörth was ordered as battleship B" HRS state Ersatz Hansa MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • HRS say both - "Neubau Panzerschiff 'B' (Ersatz Hansa)"
  • the number of torpedo tubes do not match HRS, who claim 6 (as mentioned in text), infobox states 3 MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Fixed, good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments -- started copyediting as usual, will continue later and post any issues/queries...

• In the meantime, FN11 and 16 produce Harv errors -- install this script to detect them in future.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, your edits look good to me so far. And that's a handy little script, thanks for pointing me to that. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I mustn't have come across Harv errors when looking over your articles before at ACR or FAC, as I usually make a point of mentioning it then... ;-) Cheers, 14:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What, you mean I've been doing something right this whole time? :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Resuming, just a couple more queries/comments on the text:
  • I don't see the point of the Main article: Boxer Rebellion thingie at the top of the Boxer Rebellion section given that article offers no additional info (in fact no info!) on Worth's involvement. Linking Boxer Rebellion in the first paragraph of that section -- which you already do -- seems quite sufficient.
    • That makes sense to me - I cut the main link. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have to admit that the diary-like detail in the Boxer Rebellion section -- all those stops to and from China -- became a bit wearing, though I wouldn't say I'm planning to oppose over it...
    • Part of the reason I wanted to include the information on the stops was to illustrate what a transcontinental deployment looked like in those days. But I'll defer if others agree with your view. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
• Article structure looks fine, as does comprehensiveness (perhaps even a little too much detail in places, per above!) and referencing.
• No duplicate links but I haven't checked for dabs.
• I also haven't performed image or source reviews -- provisionally supporting pending no issues there.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all of the images are pre-1923 publications so they're all PD in the US. Many thanks for your thorough review and copy-editing, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The infobox measurements need to be in metric to match the main body.
  • Done
• Add # boilers and engines/type to the infobox with links
  • Added.
• Move and link ihp to ship power line in infobox
  • Done
• Replace ship type with ship class in the infobox
  • Done
• Did she have Harvey or Krupp armor? 1890 is around the transition time between them.
  • Worth and Brandenburg had compound armor - KFW and Weissenburg got the nickel steel (which is why the Ottomans only bought those two)
    • Great, tell the reader that it had nickel steel armour.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Added (but I think you meant compound armor).
        • Indeed. While checking this I noticed that the explanation on compound armor on the class article is fucked up and needs to be fixed. This article, however, is good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
          • I'll take a look-see. Thanks again Sturm.
• Coal or oil-fired?
  • Added
• I'd suggest switching these two phrases around due to heavy resistance were forced to stop in Tientsin
  • Sounds fine to me.
• Wasn't Waldersee a field marshal?
  • His specific rank was Generalfeldmarschall
• I like the bits about sailing to and from China. I thought a similar amount of detail for the Russian squadron that sailed from the Baltic to be destroyed at Tsushima was appropriate given the enormity of the task, so maybe I'm biased.
• Images are appropriately licensed.
• The two volumes of HRS should have ISBNs, not ASINs.
  • Worldcat is being a royal pain in my ass and I can't find volume 8. In fact only the volumes up to 7 appear - I have no idea why now. And of course the books don't have the ISBNs printed.
    • I checked amazon.de and no joy. Since it was a 10 volume set, I wonder if they used one ISBN for the entire set?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I thought so at first too - but I checked the ISBN for each entry is different. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Shouldn't McClure's Magazine be alphabetized among the Ms?
  • Fixed.
• Gröner and Gardiner need state of publication to match Holborn.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know why I always forget to check this. Thanks for your review Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• "twelve coal-fired transverse cylindrical boilers." - any chance of a comma or two between the adjectives?
  • Good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• "when she struck a rock. The rock tore" - Could just be "This tore..."
  • How about "It" instead? Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• "She then joined the fleet for autumn maneuvers." - just checking, but is the source any more specific? (I'm thinking of the MOS on using terms like autumn; if the source isn't more specific, or if its an official term, that's obviously a different matter) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • They're called "Herbstmanoevern" (so literally "autumn maneuvers") in the text, and it's a useful shorthand for the fleet maneuvers that took place every year from mid-August to mid-September. And while I understand that autumn takes place in different months down in Oz and New Zealand, I don't think anyone is going to have trouble in the context, since it's book-ended by dates in August and November. Parsecboy (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2014 (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) 10:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No. 90 Wing RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

This would have to be the shortest article I've nominated for ACR but, having looked through it again after its earlier GAN and added a little more material, I think it meets the comprehensiveness criterion. The wing did after all exist for only two-and-a-half years and consisted of only two flying units, and the rationale for its formation -- more political than operational -- is explained in some detail, along with an overview of its missions, commanding officers, and reason for disbandment. I don't know if I'll progress it to FAC assuming a successful outcome here but naturally I'd welcome any comment on that possibility as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• "the latter areas": Japan and Korea? Borneo, the Philippines, Japan and Korea?
• "The first aircraft he took off": + in?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Clarified/tweaked. Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Support with minor comment:

• "No. 38 Squadron's Dakotas began arriving at Changi on 19 June 1950..." This felt like quite a long para when read on the screen; personally, I'd break it at "No. 1 Squadron also flew night missions...", but that might just be me! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks Hc -- that was the longest paragraph under Operations but I preferred not to split it in the middle of the discussion of the bombers' role. I've therefore done so after the bit about maintenance, meaning we have an introductory para, then one dedicated to the Lincolns, then the one that concentrates on the Dakotas, then the final one. Hope that does the trick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Nice work as usual Ian. I have the following comments:

• Did No. 90 Wing control the tasking of its units and plan or lead operations, or was it mainly a national or administrative headquarters-type organisation with the squadrons being tasked by RAF Air Headquarters Malaya? (the latter, I think, but the wording around this isn't clear at the moment)
  • Tks for review/support, Nick. Double-checking the main sources, none goes into more detail about the wing's day-to-day planning/tasking than what I've been able to say about RAF Air HQ Malaya directing operations. They also don't quite come out and say the wing was purely for administrative purposes, that just seems to be the implication.
• It might be worth noting that 38 Squadron was initially deployed to perform courier and other transport flights across Asia as an element of the Far East Air Force rather than having a focus on Malaya Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I did mention the squadron's ops in SE Asian countries other than Malaya, but have added courier flights to the list of tasks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2014 (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) 00:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm II

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another refurbished German pre-dreadnought article, this one was the second fleet flagship, and the first specifically built as a flagship. During WWI, she served primarily as the headquarters for the HSF commanders and was scrapped after the end of the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Images - possible to make that map a bit bigger? It's rather hard to read at the moment. File:Koester,_Admiral_Hans_von,_Agence_Rol,_BNF_Gallica.jpg needs a US PD tag. Also, what was the year of death for the creator of File:S.M._Linienschiff_Kaiser_Wilhelm_II.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

How does forcing to 500px look? And the Koester photo was published in 1915 according to the source, so the PD-US-1923 tag seems to be in order. As for Hugo Graf, according to this website he died in 1914. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

• "The visit was particularly cool": I don't know what that means.
  • That Anglo-German relations were not at their best. Parsecboy (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I went with "The visit was strained by the Anglo-German naval arms race." - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Sounds good to me. Thanks Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• "and commissioned into the fleet as flagship on 4 February 1902." - I'd have gone for "and commissioned into the fleet as the flagship on 4 February 1902." (or "as its flagship")
  • Good point - I went with your second suggestion.
• "The ship was powered by three 3-cylinder vertical triple expansion engines that drove three screws." - "three screw propellers." would make it read easier for the casual reader.
  • Sounds good to me.
• "at the Kaiserliche Werft in Wilhelmshaven, under construction number 24" - I wasn't quite sure what the last bit meant. Was the ship number 24 in a list? Or was a construction order no. 24, which included the ship? Or is it a place? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • You know, I've never seen it explained specifically. Parsecboy (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I suspect that it's a yard number. IIRC, Kaiserliche Werft was a pretty new facility when the ship was built.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That's unlikely, given that KWW was founded in 1871, and especially so since SMS Kaiser Barbarossa was #640 at Schichau-Werke and they only began building ships in 1855. Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• A lot of the comments I made on the SMS Wörth article are relevant here on the infobox and description. It would be very helpful if you'd apply them across the board before bringing them here.
  • Yeah, but then you wouldn't have anything to comment on. Besides, I'm lazy :P But for what it's worth, I did copy the changes from the Wörth infobox to the other articles in the class the other day :P
• Link armored frigate, corvette, boiler tube.
  • Added the first two, but there's no good link for boiler tube besides water-tube boiler, which is linked above.
• Landing operation should be linked to amphibious warfare.
  • Good idea.
• That's a lot of information on training exercises, etc. Can that be condensed somewhat?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I figured I'd get questions at FAC about what the maneuvers were actually like since the article talks a lot about them. I take it you mean bits like "The maneuvers began with exercises in the German Bight, followed by a mock attack on the fortifications in the lower Elbe. Gunnery drills took place in Kiel Bay before the fleet steamed to Danzig Bay;" and "The autumn maneuvers consisted of a blockade exercise in the North Sea, a cruise of the entire fleet first to Norwegian waters and then to Kiel in early September, and finally a mock attack on Kiel."? Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Great article, I have nothing to nag about MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing the article MB - and look, it's only taken until 2014 for me to write an article with nothing for you to correct! Parsecboy (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2014 (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, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Operation Mascot

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers an large, and totally unsuccessful, Royal Navy air strike on the German battleship Tirpitz on 17 July 1944. While it's a fairly short article for an A-class nominee, not a great deal has been written about this operation, most likely as it did not produce any significant results.

I developed this article as a follow-on to the Operation Tungsten article and I think that it provides an interesting insight into the nuts and bolts of World War II-era carrier warfare where major raids were conduct almost routinely but were often frustrated by combinations of bad weather, bad luck and bad aircraft (the latter being the single most important factor here). The article passed a GA nomination a couple of weeks ago and has been subsequently expanded. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Not a huge article, but it's nice to see a smaller, but no less interesting, subject here. I'd say this easily A-class material and would probably do well at FAC, but it wouldn't be a proper review without a couple of quibbles:
  • "of 20 Fairey Barracuda dive bombers escorted by 40 fighters were not detected during their flights to Kaafjord and managed to hit the battleship with 15 bombs"—Do we need the "managed"? It strikes me as editorialising.
    • That's a good point: removed. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "The commander of the Home Fleet at the time, Vice Admiral Bruce Fraser"—Isn't "at the time" redundant? I see what you're trying to do with Moore as the "new" commander, but would it be better to remove both and go with "Admiral Sir Henry Moor, who took over from Fraser as commander of the Home Fleet", and perhaps the date he took over?
    • Also a good point, and I've made this change. Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Support w. comments:

• Happy with prose and structure after copyediting but of course let me know if you disagree w. anything. Minor point: In Submarine actions, all links to U-boats except U-968 are duplicates.
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Knowing your talent and reliability re. research I'm taking the content largely as read. One query: 44 Barracudas took off on the raid, 2 spotted Tirpitz, 37 others aimed at her gun flashes, and 3 seem to have attacked other targets -- that leaves 2 unaccounted for or is my arithmetic wrong? I mean, I wouldn't normally expect you to account for every aircraft but since so many are it tends to make those 2 stand out by their absence... ;-)
  • The reference unfortunately has the same problem: Brown 1977 is the only source which gives numbers for the number of Barracudas which attacked each target, but he leaves these two aircraft unaccounted for. I've tried to be a bit vauge, but there's not much I can do (I suspect that the missing two planes are the pair which weren't armed with the expensive and rare 1,600 pound bombs, and as a result they weren't included in whatever Brown's source was as the results of their bombing was of less interest). Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Understood, no prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Image licensing looks fine to me. Re. presentation, I know you tend to leave the default image size alone but I think the first pic of Tirpitz in the fjord could stand being a fair bit larger, say with an upright parameter to make it proportionally larger rather than a fixed size; I use a decent-sized (14-inch) widescreen and the ship is invisible to me. Less of a problem but the Barracuda image might also benefit from being larger, as the plane seems to get a bit lost in the background.
  • I've bumped up the image sizes: does this look better?
    • Better, I can see Tirpitz now...! FYI, I'd use "upright=1.2", which comes out about 260px and I've gathered is better as a proportional increase rather than a fixed size but won't make a fuss... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I just tried that, and it looks a bit better - thanks. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Referencing generally looks good but is uboats.net really considered a reliable site?
  • Yep: it's often referenced in recent books on the Battle of the Atlantic and has been used in various FAs. Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Okay, fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments and tweaks to the article (especially fixing all those awful spelling mistakes...) Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • No prob, good work as usual... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Support with comments:

• Wolf Junge is mentioned in the infobox as the German commander involved in this operation. However the article does not address in what role he commanded the German forces. I assume as commander of Tirpitz?
  • Yes, that's right. None of the sources actually describe him (or any other German for that matter) as having a role during the raid, but he was the CO. Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    • How about making this clear as a footnote or as a relative clause such as Tirpitz, commanded by Kapitän zur See Wolf Junge? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a good idea: done Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• disambiguation links checked no action required

Good to go MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - excellent article Nick. The only suggestion I'd make is to replace the uboat.net citations with page 350 of Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea - the full ref can be found in the Tirpitz article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I would link to my edits, but there weren't any. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 12 February 2014 (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) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Japanese battleship Nagato

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Despite surviving World War II, Nagato had a surprisingly uneventful career. She only participated in a couple of battles during the war, most notably the Battle of Leyte Gulf, and was laid up after that to save fuel. Surrendered at the end of the war, the Americans used her as a target during Operation Crossroads, the tests at Bikini Atoll in 1946. She is now a popular scuba-diving destination there. I believe that I've incorporated all of the ACR and FAC comments from her sister ship Mutsu's ACR and FAC, so she should be in pretty good shape.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Support This article is in excellent condition, and I have only the following comments:

• I'm biased on the topic of the article on the 1945 raid targeting the ship given that I wrote most of it, but IMO it warrants a mention in the lead as it was one of the most dramatic incidents in the ship's history
• Was Nagato one of the ships which chased after the American fleet following the Doolittle Raid?
  • No.
• I'd suggest noting the decision to flood the ship's ballast tanks to convince the Americans that she had been sunk in the July 1945 raid, as well as her preparations to put to sea on 2 August (see Tully 2003) Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • All done. See how it all reads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments - mostly minor stuff:

• Is there a link to Gihon? Presumably it's a notable company and should be redlinked if there isn't already an article.
  • I can't find anything on the web about it. It may be the equivalent of Kampon as an IJN-designed equipment, but built commercially. The history of the Mitsubishi-Nagasaki shipyard that I have says that the company built more than a few Gihon turbines.
    • I wonder if we could get someone to put together a turbine counterpart of List of boiler types, by manufacturer.
• It seems as though most of the ship's captains are redlinked, but a few aren't - why is that?
  • The redlinked ones made flag rank, the others didn't.
    • Makes sense.
• It might be worthwhile to point out when the Japanese surrendered - readers might be confused about why US ships were securing the ship without a fight.
  • Good idea.
• When exactly did she sink? The night she capsized?
  • Clarified.
• "8 cm, their actual caliber was 76.2 mm" - why different units of measure?
  • The IJN preferred to round units to the nearest whole number when they first adopted the metric system around 1920. Later they were more precise after the various naval treaties limited cruiser guns to 155 and 203 mm.
    • I was curious why "7.62 cm" wouldn't make more sense.
• No duplicate links
• Image review:
  • File:Nagato_1939.jpg - needs a source
    • Our copy seems to be the only one on the web after searching through Google image, so who knows?
      • And the uploader hasn't been active since 2008 so its unlikely you'll be able to get in touch with them. I doubt it'll pass an image review at FAC without a source, so it might be wise to replace it.
        • I'd really prefer to use something like [98] since it illustrates the bent funnel, but I have no idea what its US copyright status is. Especially if colorizing it adds "artistic" value.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
          • Replaced a couple of the photos with superior ones.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Looks good to me.
  • File:Japanese Battleship Nagato 1944.jpg - can you add a translation for the source?
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • File:IJN ships leave Brunei Bay.jpg - needs a PD-US tag
    • Doen.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Everything else looks good.
• Great work as usual, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 11 February 2014 (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) 10:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Sōryū

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Sōryū was the third fleet carrier built for the IJN and participated in the Second Sino-Japanese War and the early stages of the Pacific War before being sunk during the Battle of Midway. I believe that I've incorporated all of the comments from the recent Japanese carrier ACRs and FACs, but I hope that y'all will point out any omissions or needed clarifications.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Copyedited as I went, hopefully not breaking anything; outstanding points:
  • "Sōryū was fitted with four geared steam turbine sets" -- not sure of the significance of "set" means here; can we just say "four geared steam turbines", as that's what's in the infobox...?
    • Sources say sets, so infobox changed to match.
  • Consistency re. numerical presentation? Compare "18 Zeros and nine D3As" with "18 B5Ns, 18 D3As, and 9 Zeros"...
    • I did kinda forget to go back in and fix all of these, didn't I?
• No dup or dab links.
• This is primarily a prose review but structure, detail, and image licensing look fine to me.
• I haven't done a source review as such but the refs look reliable to me -- well done as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching these untrivial details, Ian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [99] (no action req'd).
  • External links checks out [100] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [101] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine to me (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [102] (no action req'd).
  • A couple of duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Hainan Island
    • magazine
  • "6,000 kg (13,000 lb) aircraft" probably req's a hyphen as an adjective.
    • Not when abbreviated.
  • Repetitive language here: "... maximum ceiling of 9,440 meters (30,970 ft) at their maximum elevation of +90 degrees. Their maximum ..." (maximum three times in close proximity. Perhaps reword one/some?
    • Good idea.
  • Some inconsistency throughout the article in the presentation of figures under 10 per MOS:NUMERAL, for example "the 2 surviving Grumman F4F Wildcat fighters" vs "departed four days later for the Dutch East Indies..." (aren't these all meant to be written in words, i.e. two not 2?)
    • Not always, quantities of like things should be consistent which overrules the bullet that you're talking about; within paragraphs aircraft use one or the other, not both numbers and words.
  • repetitive language here: "16 Marine Douglas SBD Dauntless dive bombers of Marine Scout Bomber Squadron (VMSB-241)..." (Marine used twice). Suggest deleting the first instance.
    • Agreed
  • "13 Dauntlesses from Bombing Squadron 2 (VB-2) from the Yorktown...", Yorktown should be wikilinked at first use in the body of the article (not here). Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Good catch. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • Any way we can get English translations for File:Japanese aircraft carrier Soryu 1938.jpg and File:Japanese aircraft carrier Soryu 1937.jpg?
    • Up to the constraints of Google translate, sure.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The license for File:Fantail Soryu.jpg isn't correct, since it wasn't taken by a USN employee. Same with File:Jap planes preparing-Pearl Harbor.jpg.
    • What would you suggest I use given that there's no license for war booty photos as this obviously is? PD-1996? I've already had one Luftwaffe reconnaissance photo of Kronstadt booted from Commons and reloaded onto en.wiki by some Commons asshole because it supposedly lacked an appropriate license in Germany. We're fortunate that the Japanese PD law is more liberal and doesn't cause any problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it should at least be PD-1996 since it would have entered PD then anyway. And yeah, Commons can be a pain in the ass. Parsecboy (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Might be worthwhile to point out in the lead that she was the first fleet carrier built from the keel up as a carrier in Japan.
    • I don't think that the IJN actually classified their carriers in the Western style so I'm a little leery of drawing that distinction given that Hosho was the first carrier (of any type) built from the keel up as a carrier in Japan.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.
  • Why are some aircraft given their Allied codenames but others aren't (i.e., Claude, for the A5M but not Susie for the D1A2)?
  • "Kido Butai" is italicized in the lead but not in the Construction and service section.
  • Check for overlinking - Hainan Island is linked twice in the second para of the Construction and service section.
  • Make clear that the aircraft discussed in the first and second waves were just Soryu's contingent - it might appear to some readers that these were the only aircraft in the waves
  • Link flying boat
    • Butting in, I think I removed that link during my copyedit, reason being that both times it's used we have the make/model of flying boat linked immediately before, which is the key thing. I think adjacent links should be avoided where feasible, and in the first use here we have Qantas linked immediately before Short Empire, immediately before flying boat, which made it a real sea of blue before I removed the last. While we're here, I also wouldn't link a ship type (e.g. aircraft carrier) adjacent to the ship name, or a rank adjacent to a person's name, assuming the person is notable and has a WP article; if the person isn't notable but the name is mentioned, by all means link the rank subject to 'first use' guidelines. End of rant... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
      • That's a fair point - I didn't realize Qantas and Short Empire were separate links - guess I wasn't paying close enough attention ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
        • I do try to avoid three links in a row to avoid the "sea of blue". But I will say that I do try and link ship types and ranks on first use, even if they're adjacent to a link for the ship or person. I think that it's especially important to do for that superflexible word captain as it's an army rank, navy rank and a position on a ship and you need to clarify exactly which one you're using.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
          • Well I'd at least concede the value of linking Captain (or Lieutenant) for the reason you've stated if the service wasn't clear from surrounding text... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Later that day they sank the oil tanker USS Pecos." - the "they" is unclear since it could refer to the D3As or the cruisers in the previous sentence.
  • "After launching the D3As that sank Hermes and the other ships..." - I'm confused - do you mean "recovering" the D3As? If not, what happened to the aircraft after the carriers left?
    • I struggled on how to word this. The ships turned about after launching the aircraft, which meant that they had to fly the extra distance before recovering. Is it clearer now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
      • How does this wording sound? What you had made it sound like they didn't recover their aircraft until they reached Japan ;)
        • Much better; many thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Doolittle raids"?
  • Something of an aside - my understanding was that it wasn't so much the loss of the aircrews (since most of them survived to be ground to dust in the Solomons campaign) that was so crushing for the IJN, it was the loss of the mechanics/technicians/etc. But I forget where I read that. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Might have been Shattered Sword; it's true generally, but Soryu had the highest losses of any carrier at Midway so it's pretty safe to say that a lot of her aviation support types died. Thanks for looking this over, I think that I've addressed everything that you listed above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2014 (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) 21:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Elwyn Roy King

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

In the centenary year of the start of World War I, it seemed to make sense to revisit some old bios from that conflict in light of additional sources. I think this article on the second-highest scoring ace of the Australian Flying Corps is now sufficiently detailed to make A-Class (and perhaps FA, so pls let me know any thoughts on that). Like his great friend and fellow No. 4 Squadron pilot Harry Cobby, King's aerial combat lasted barely nine months, making his achievements all the more remarkable. He also did some newsworthy things as a civil pilot in the early 1920s before settling down with an engineering business and a young family, until again putting on the uniform, this time for the RAAF in World War II. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support
  • Couple of dab links [103]:
    • Goodyear
    • Battle of Amiens
      • Hmm, thought I'd caught the first one at least earlier but guess I didn't hit 'save' -- tks AC.
  • External links checks out [104] (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text [105] (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 req'd info, captions look ok (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [106] (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd).
  • This seems a little awkward: " In an action that the official history of Australia in the war..." perhaps consider more simply: "Australian official history"? (suggestion only)
    • I kind of prefer it as is because it makes things clearer to the average reader but if others agree it should be trimmed, fair enough.
  • Otherwise excellent in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Many tks as always, AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comments Support

Lead

• should "Lighthorseman" be title case? And is there a space between "light" and "horse"? The link goes to "Australian Light Horse".
  • I was in two minds about capitalising it so, yeah, let's make it lower case. I don't think "light horsemen" is correct though.

That's fine, I got you down to lower case, I'm not going to dig my heels in on the spacing! Zawed (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Fighter ace

• Sorry Ian, I agree with AC RE the phrase "In an action that the official history of Australia in the war...". This does seem awkward.
  • Okay, I'm outvoted... ;-)
• "...without any Allied loss." Should that be "...without any Allied losses."?
  • Happy to change it.
• "...during which "he insures success..." That's definitely "insures"? Perhaps add a (sic) here?
  • Crumbs, well spotted -- should be "ensures".

Looks good otherwise. Zawed (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tks for reviewing, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good Ian, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport.

• FWiW, I would have agreed with Zawed and AC wrt the awkward phrasing. Sorry, Ian! ;)
  • Clearly a conspiracy... ;-)
• The lead seems a little on the short side; granted, it's not a huge article, but you could probably flesh the lead out a little. What was his rank, for example?
  • I hear you, but I felt it did touch on all the major aspects or highlights of his life. I agree about rank though, have added his final one at least.
• King was transferred to the Australian Flying Corps—the lead says "he transferred"; the "was" implies he didn't have a choice in the matter, so which was it?
  • Good catch, a non-reliable source I have indicates he volunteered, and the RSs tend to use "transferred" , not "was transferred".
• six-foot, three-inch—do we need a metric conversion here? I don't know if it's standard for heights of people?
  • No, I agree with you, will do the conversion for our European (and younger Australian!) readers... ;-)
• nicknamed "Bo", "Beau", or "Bow"—where did the nickname come from? Is it known?
  • Surprisingly no -- I always like to give the origin of esoteric nicknames if available (see Nicky Barr for a good one).
• King was credited with two victories, a balloon and an LVG—perhaps the subclause might be better with an en- or em-dash than commas, otherwise it could be read as King being credited with the the balloon, the LVG, and the two victories.
  • Fair enough.
• The next day, he downed three Fokker D.VIIs, two without having to fire a shot. Perhaps remove the "having to"?
  • Okay.
• Initially offered general flying duties, he was assigned training commands commencing in the new year. Does that mean he turned down the general flying duties?
  • Not clear, might change to "Initially considered for general flying duties" in any case.
• the pallbearers included Air Vice Marshal Henry Wrigley, Air Commodore Raymond Brownell, Group Captain Allan Walters, and Wing Commander Henry Winneke. Was there a connection between these men and King (eg, did they serve together)?
  • Wrig and Brownell were also WWI vets of the Western front, though the former may have been there in his capacity as Air Member for Personnel anyway. No indication any of the four were great friends with him, I put them in because they're notable enough in WP terms to justify their own articles.
• File:E04146JonesAFC.jpg needs a US copyright tag. No other obvious issues with image copyrights.
  • Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

An excellent piece of work. The above is mostly nit-picking, so I'll gladly support once they're sorted. Hopefully we'll see plenty more WWI-related biographies over the centenary years. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Tks Harry, busy time but should get round to these in the next couple of days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries; take all the time you need. Ping me when you want me to take another look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Done, mate, let me know how it looks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me; happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Tks Harry! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 19 January 2014 (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? 11:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

One of the better-known battles of World War II. Recently shepherded through GA, so here it is at ACR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments This important article is looking very good - great work. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• The first section on the Pacific War seems a bit under-developed. I'd suggest that this set out how bad the war situation was for Japan, as well as the increasing ferocity of the fighting (which I think is what you were getting at with the very interesting material on the US casualties)
  • Y Added a paragraph on the Japanese war economy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
• "The policy of bypassing Japanese forces was abandoned" - this is probably too broad, and isn't fully supported by the source (which is mainly an appreciation from Australian General Blamey - in which he recommends continuing to contain Rabaul). It also states that the goal of destroying all the Japanese forces in the Philippines was to enable the islands to be used to mount the invasion of Japan, and not to free up troops per-se (as I understand it, the goals were actually essentially political as MacArthur and other US policymakers felt a need to complete the liberation of the islands, even when this wasn't militarily necessary. The Borneo campaign seems to have been mainly conceived as a way of keeping the Commonwealth forces in the Pacific busy in the short run, and to provide resources in case the war dragged on for several more years).
  • Y Removed this. I don't think that bypassing ever rose to the status of a policy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

    However, since the plans for the invasion of Japan called for the use of all the US troops then in the Philippines, the remaining Japanese had to be reduced to the point where the Filipino forces could contain them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Presenting the idea of low-altitude firebombing raids as LeMay's isn't entirely accurate: Hap Arnold and his staff had been pushing Hansell do conduct firebombing operations, which he trialled before being sacked. LeMay seems to have emphasised his role to protect Arnold from criticism for this tactic. The overall story seems to have been that there was a gradual realisation in Washington that "precision" bombing wasn't working in Japan, and area bombing was necessary.
  • Y Yes, that's right. It seems that LeMay required more than a little prompting. It's easier in some ways to see why Hansell clung to precision bombing than why Norstad was so willing to embrace it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• It might be worth noting that the firebombing campaign against Japan became increasingly brutal over time. After most of the major cities were destroyed the bombers were sent after the small cities - including what in some cases were actually large towns - and this continued until the end of the war.
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• The Japanese air forces reversed their policy on not intercepting raids in late June, but this had little effect due to the poor condition of the fighter force.
  • Do you have a source for this? It's not mentioned in Craven and Cate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, Coox 1994 (which is probably the best single resource on Japanese air defences in 1944-45, not that that's saying much). I've just added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• It might be worth noting in the Atomic bomb development section that Japan also had a small atomic bomb program, even though this was no-where near ready to produce weapons by the end of the war.
  • Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• The coverage of the 509th Composite Group's organisation in the "Organization and training" section is probably a bit too detailed given that there's a very good article on the unit.
  • Y Cut it back. Let me know if it has been cut back too far. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
• "Marshall asked Groves to nominate specific targets for bombing, subject to approval by himself and Stimson" - was this in April 45?
  • Y. Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• In regards to the leaflets, it might be worth noting that LeMay had adopted a tactic of "warning" cities of being attacked, and then following up on some of these warnings with major raids a few days later: the threats in the leaflets were intended to be seen as very real.
  • Y Done. For some reason the leaflets blew up into a huge issue. I think it is pretty well covered now. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• Can more be said about the relief efforts after the Hiroshima bombing? These were significant (and I think that the nearby major naval base at Kure quickly got involved)
  • Added some material from Coox (1994) Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Similarly, can anything be said about the events on the ground after the Nagasaki bombing? The article currently doesn't provide details on the relief efforts there.
  • Have you been able to find references on the above topics? Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Ping regarding the above comment. Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • No, I didn't find anything on relief efforts in Nagasaki. If you have a recommended reference, I'll use it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• " Robert Bacher was packaging it in Los Alamos when he received word from Groves that the shipment was suspended." - on what date was this decision made?
  • Well the order went out on 14 August, but Groves sent out a warning order beforehand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
• The "Hibakusha" section should note the discrimination faced by these people in postwar Japan and their role in society (when I visited Hiroshima in 2008 they were still giving lectures to tourists and schoolchildren about the need for disarmament).
  • Yeah... it is a bit more complicated. On the one hand the Hibakusha still face discrimination. On the other, there is also some resentment in Japan of their use of their position as a political pulpit and for claiming special privileges. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• • • G'day Nick, are you done here? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • @Peacemaker67: Yes, I am now. I'll try to find something on the aftermath of the Nagasaki bombing, but I do agree that for whatever reason it's received much less coverage than the Hiroshima bombing. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Support My comments are now addressed (I meant to include this as part of the above post, but for some dumb reason didn't: sorry about the delay this caused). Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• at five paragraphs, I think the lead might be too long. Per WP:LEAD, four appears to be the maximum recommended;
• there are a couple of "when?" tags in the article in the Depiction section that probably need to be addressed or removed;
• spelling (I presume US English is intended) "aluminium" or "aluminum"?
• spelling "hypocentre" or "hypocenter"?
• "Americans estimated that..." --> "The Americans estimated that..."?
• spelling "recognised" --> "recognized"?
• "Perhaps one in seven of the Hiroshima victims was of Korean ancestry" --> "Perhaps one in seven of the Hiroshima victims were of Korean ancestry"? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Y All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
    • I made a few extra changes, please check that you are happy with those. [107] I've added my support above as you've addressed all my comments, although I have to say I am a bit out of my depth with this one, so my review probably isn't as comprehensive as it should be. Sorry. Anyway, good luck with taking this further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • I reviewed at GA but a lot of work has since occurred so will go through it again.
  • No dab links [108] (no action req'd).
  • External links check reveals a few dead links [109]:
    • Peace ceremony represents Hiroshima's long struggle: Fukushima town mayor (info) [mainichi.jp]
      • I got this one. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
    • CRISIS: Hiroshima and Nagasaki cast long shadows over radiation science (info) [eenews.net]
      • Wayback machine doesn't have this one archived. Although I think there would probably be a mirror of it somewhere so if you could add that it would probably resolve this issue. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [110] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be free / PD and information looks ok. Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [111] (no action req'd).
  • A couple of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • North Field airbase
    • Aioi Bridge
    • hibakusha
    • Harry S. Truman
  • "Out of some 70,000–80,000 people killed, 20,000 were soldiers." This is a little repetitive as you have already said 70-80,000 people were killed earlier in the para. Consider instead something like: "Out of those killed, 20,000 were soldiers." (suggestion only).
  • "Barely 900 yards from the explosion's hypocenter..." probably should use the conversion template here for the measurement.
  • "The total of 90,000 ft (27,000 m) of film shot by Lieutenant Daniel McGovern's..." should just be "McGovern's" removing rank and first name following formal introduction at first use.
  • "In the spring of 1948, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) was established in accordance with a presidential directive from President Harry S. Truman..." Should just be "Truman" as above.
  • Otherwise looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Another couple of points:
      • Footnote 199 is a bare URL can the full bibliographic details be added?
      • Footnote 200 (dead link as above) needs bibliographic details also. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
      • "Along the way, the ratio of Japanese to American casualties dropped from 5 to 1 in the Philippines to 2 to 1 on Okinawa." Should the figures here be written (i.e "five to one" etc). Per WP:ORDINAL? Anotherclown (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
        • All my points have been addressed so have added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:13, 23 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

SMS Mecklenburg

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another overhauled German battleship article - I'm on a little roll here. This one served with the main German fleet before World War I and saw limited service during the conflict. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the problems affecting Schwaben also trouble her sister.

• was fifth ship - seems to me an article is missing
  • Oops, good catch.
• The ominous "naval boilers" appear again - according to Gröner, Mecklenburg was fitted with Thornycroft boilers
  • Fixed.
• Torpedo tubes again - how could they pose a problem if they were above the waterline?
  • Fixed.
• "Schichau" as builder and "yard number 676" is probably copied from Wettin - should be Vulcan, Stettin and #248. And "D" should be "F".
  • Good catch.
• "Skagen" is the northern tip of Denmark - should probably read Skagerak
  • Fixed.
• "3.3." is the German equivalent of 3 March
  • Yeah, I just got in the German mindset while I was translating that.
• Was Mecklenburg really repaired in Wilhelmshaven, not Kiel, after her grounding? If so, how did she get there?
  • That's what Hildebrand et. al. says - "Die dort festgestellte beträchtliche Einbeulung des Schiffsbodens wurde anschließend bis zum 20. 4. auf der K. W. Wilhelmshaven beseitigt." Mecklenburg did steam from Hatters Rev to Kiel under her own power, so presumably she could have made it to Wilhelmshaven.

Since I am not a native speaker, I leave the style issues alone. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ÄDA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, it looks pretty good to me, I only have a few comments:

• in the lead: "Laid down in 1899", but the body and the infobox say "15 May 1900"
  • Fixed.
• in the lead: "at the AG Vulcan shipyard in Stettin", but in the body "at the AG Vulcan in Danzig"
  • Stettin is right.
• Gardiner et al appears in the References, but doesn't appear to be cited
  • Oh, that citation fell out in the rewrite.
• "File:North and Baltic Seas, 1911.png": I think this needs a US licence as well as the one that is currently in use. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, good catch. Thanks for your review. Parsecboy (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Link ihp in the infobox
• Clarify that triple-expansion engines are steam engines in the infobox and main body. And be sure to hyphenate triple expansion.
  • Missing the hyphenation.
    • Added.
• Add # of boilers and engines to the infobox.
• Mecklenburg was 126.8 m (416 ft) long overall and had a beam of 22.8 m (75 ft) and a draft of 7.95 m (26.1 ft) forward. Awkward with the triple "and"
• Link magazine
• "Armament system" is awkward. Howzabout weapons or some such? And the first sentence of that para should be clarified with "main" armament.
  • Forgot "main".
    • Fixed.
• Capitalize "king"
• The info on the torpedo accident is a bit ambiguous. Was it some kind of torpedo warhead or air flask explosion? Please elucidate if at all possible.
  • Hildebrand et. al. aren't clear, unfortunately.
    • Pity.
• Hyphenate worn out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Everything should be fixed. Thanks for the review, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Still a few niggles to be addressed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Should all be taken care of now. Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
        • Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab link [112] (no action req'd).
  • External links checks out [113] (no action req'd).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [114] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have req'd info, captions look ok (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).
  • This is a little repetitive: "Mecklenburg was launched on 9 November 1901, the last ship of her class to be launched. Her launching..." (launched twice in the same sentence and again in the next). Perhaps reword?
    • See how it reads now.
  • Ehrhard Schmidt should probably be wikilinked.
    • Added.
  • Otherwise looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Looks good - added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2014 (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) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Bijeljina massacre

Nominator(s): ◅ PRODUCER (TALK)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed GA class review, it has been expanded since then, and I believe it meets the necessary A-Class criteria. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I only took a quick look, but might come back a bit later after hopefully someone with more topic knowledge has taken a look:

• there seems to be a mixture of US and British English, for instance "honor" (US) and "Defence" (British). This should be made consistent;
  • Changed to US English. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• "In 2010, Serbia’s prosecutors office": a couple of options --> "prosecutor's" or "prosecutors'" depending on if there is more than one etc. (in the lead you have "Serbian War Crime Prosecutor's Office", so I would probably change to that as it seems to be a proper noun;
  • Done. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• "Gallivan, Rory (30 January 2009). "Witness Says Bosniaks Killed Before War Began". Institute for War & Peace Reporting": this is currently in the References, but doesn't appear to have been used as a citation
  • Removed. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• in the News articles section, "New York Times" for the Kifner source probably should be in italics for consistency of style. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Edited for consistency. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 12:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• G'day, I made an attempt to copy edit the first section of the article. Can you please take a look at my changes and check that I haven't changed your meaning too much? If you are happy with them, please let me know and I will have a go at the rest of the article tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Please carry on. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 11:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've finished my copy editing (thanks for your patience). Please check my changes and adjust as you see fit. (I think I got most issues, but prior to taking this to FAC – if that is your plan – I recommend getting someone at the Guild of Copy Editors to take a look in case I missed anything). The only other suggestion I have is for the titles of the non-English sources to be translated. For example, the Musli and Pazarac newspaper articles. This can be done by using the "|trans title=" parameter in the cite news/web templates, I think. I have added my support on prose (although I can't really comment on content). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
      • I've reviewed it and it looks good. I added the translated titles as suggested. Thanks for your help. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "In September 1991, Bijeljina had been claimed by the Bosnian Serbs to be a part of a "Serbian Autonomous Region" later, in March 1992": Something's missing.
  • Modified sentence and moved comma. Not sure if that's what you meant.
• "which was motivated by the creation of a Greater Serbia.": Be careful with "which"; what does it refer to here?
  • Changed to "both of which were".
• "and "killings, rapes, house searches, and looting"": Per MOS, quotes need to be attributed in the text.
  • Reworded
• "followed afterwards": followed
  • Done
• "in anticipation of a Bosnian government delegation who was set to arrive and tasked with investigating ": in anticipation of the arrival of a Bosnian government delegation tasked with investigating
  • Done
• "in the hundreds or at a thousand": in the hundreds or even a thousand
  • Done
• "A number of sources put the figure of civilians killed in the hundreds or at a thousand while the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) determined that it was at least 48.": "Some say 1000, some say 48" doesn't work; some clue is needed how the figures could be so far apart. One thing that would work, if accurate: "A number of sources put the figure of civilians killed in the hundreds or even a thousand, but the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was only able to verify 48 deaths." Readers will understand that you might come up with completely different numbers depending on what kind of evidence you relied on.
  • Done
• "To date local courts have not prosecuted anyone while the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office has arrested an individual of the SDG": See WP:DATED. "As of October 2013, local courts had not prosecuted anyone for the deaths, but a member of the SDG was under arrest at the Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office"
  • Done
• "Republika Srpska": Why in Serbian?
  • Sources and English Wiki use "Republika Srpska".
• "The first of April is celebrated as the "liberation day of Bijeljina" and a street ...": Not everyone celebrates that day, so: "[Whoever] celebrate 1 April as the "liberation day of Bijeljina", and a street there ..." [assuming it's in Bijeljina]
  • Clarified it's celebrated by local Serbs.
• I got to the end of the lead. There's more to fix here than I'm going to have time for, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  • G'day, Dan, not sure if you are free, but if you are, would you mind checking some of my changes just to make sure I haven't missed anything? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure. I looked at just your edits. That all looks good, except that "of whom 59% were Bosnian Serbs, 31% were Bosniaks, and the rest belonged to other ethnicities" is nonparallel because it expands to: of whom 59% were Bosnian Serbs, of whom 31% were Bosniaks, and of whom the rest belonged to other ethnicities. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Dan. I had another go, but I'm not sure if that is an improvement. Sorry, my brain doesn't appear to be working today: [116] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
        • Sure, that's good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • One dab link [117]:
    • Mine
  • External links check reveals a couple of dead links [118]:
    • Sjećanje na početak aprila 1992. godine: Bijeljina slavi zločine (info) [avaz.ba]
    • Bijeljina's Strange Silence Over War Crimes (info) [www.bim.ba]
      • Added mirror for second dead link. Could not find a reliable one for the first.
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [119] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images either PD or have an appropriate FUR, captions look ok (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [120] (no action req'd).
  • One duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Slobodan Milošević
      • Removed
  • "Over the course of 1990 a group of Serb JNA officers and experts from the JNA's Psychological Operations Department had developed the RAM Plan[8] with the intent of organizing expatriate Serbs, consolidating control of the SDS...", abbrev "SDS" needs to be introduced here.
    • Fixed
  • Where you have multiple citations they should be arranged chronologically - for instance "Some sources put the figure in the hundreds or at a thousand.[33][28][22][34]" - this should be "Some sources put the figure in the hundreds or at a thousand.[22][28][33][34]"
    • Fixed
  • Missing word here: "On the same day, Bosnian Defense Minister Ejup Ganić and Croat members of the coalition government urged Izetbegović to mobilize the TORBiH due to the inability of JNA to stop the violence." Should be "On the same day, Bosnian Defense Minister Ejup Ganić and Croat members of the coalition government urged Izetbegović to mobilize the TORBiH due to the inability of the JNA to stop the violence."
    • Fixed
  • "Mirko Blagojević, who is claimed to have led a group called Mirko's Chetniks..." Mirko's Chetniks have already been introduced earlier in the prose so the phrase "a group called" seems redundant. Consider instead: "Mirko Blagojević, who is claimed to have led Mirko's Chetniks..." Anotherclown (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments. Support.

• Bijeljina had been claimed by the Bosnian Serbs—can we use active instead of passive voice?
  • Changed.
• Is there a concise definition of Bosniak that could be added in parentheses?
  • Added.
• on 31 March it was provoked into an armed conflict—again with the passive voice
• were motivated by the creation of a Greater Serbia—perhaps it's just me, but that seems an odd sentence structure; when one is striving for something (or aiming to create something, as in this case), I wouldn't normally say one is motivated by it. Motivation is more to do with emotion than political ambition. Perhaps Dan might want to add his five cents?
  • Thanks for catching this, I misunderstood. - Dank (push to talk) 00:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Changed.
• Bijeljina was overtaken by the SDG—passive voice
  • Changed.
• with little resistance and murders, rapes, house searches, and pillaging followed reads a little odd. Perhaps replace the "and" with a semicolon or at least give it a comma.
  • Replaced.
• On 3 April, the bodies of those massacred were removed in anticipation of the arrival of a Bosnian government delegation...—do we need the "of those massacred"? And you're using the passive voice again—removed by whom?
  • Changed.
• less than 2,700 people of the 30,000-strong—is "fewer" more appropriate than "less" here?
  • Changed.
• Tensions in Bijeljina had been high prior to its takeover by Serb paramilitary groups and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA). What takeover is that? This is the background section, so the takeover has not been previously introduced, and you shouldn't assume prior knowledge on the part of the reader.
  • Removed.
• reportedly spent a month in Bijeljina—reported by whim? Do we have a reason to doubt this?
  • Removed.
• ... to "keep the peace". Would it be preferable to add "ostensibly" an remove the scare quotes?
  • Added.
• Can we have a parenthetical note to define "Panthers", especially as it's a red link? Without hovering over the link, it sounds like a sports team!
  • Clarified.
• On 3 April, the dead were collected and removed from Bijeljina... Same problem as the similar sentence in the lead
  • Changed.
• They were sent by Izetbegović—more passive voice, though this use of it might be more acceptbale
• ...during which a Serb journalist who had bypassed the checkpoints confronted the group and warned Arkan: "You'll never be forgiven for what you have done to the Muslims in Bijeljina. History will judge you". What does this quote add to the article?
  • Removed, figured it was notable since the ICTY included it in its judgement.
• Is Vojkan Đurković notable?
  • Unlinked
• How confident are you in your sourcing for the bulleted list in the "War crimes prosecution" section? You need rock-solid sources to effectively label several (probably) living people as war criminals. The sources as they are look a little shaky to me.
  • All of them are mentioned by the International Crisis Group's report which "names individuals in eighteen Republika Srpska municipalities and the Brcko District who are alleged to have committed indictable acts or supervised those who did so, and are therefore potentially indictable for war crimes under the criteria established by the ICTY."

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Pinging PRODUCER. There's no rush—just checking you've seen this. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi HJ Mitchell thanks for the review. Please see my changes here [121] and tell me what you think. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem, please excuse my tardiness in replying—I've had some health issues. I'm happy with the changes you've made. I don't know enough to rebut your argument on the sourcing, but if you progress to FAC, be aware that somebody might bring it up. I'm certainly happy this is A-class material, and if you're heading to FAC, I shouldn't think you'll have too many problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:08, 13 January 2014 (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) 19:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Bn–Bz)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it complements the list of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm), which is also currently under review, for all the recipients starting with the letter "B". It follows the proven layout of all the previous lists of this topic. I believe to have included all the recent feedback on this topic. Cheers and thanks for the review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• To your usual high standard, MB. A couple of things.
• You might like to link Oberwachtmeister to Wachtmeister, given there is no page for the former.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Per my comment on (Ba-Bm), I note you are using "troop" in the notes etc, I suggest "unit" is sufficiently generic and a far better translation into English, or you could say "XYZ was nominated for the Knight's Cross" and thereby avoid using troop or unit.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Listings where there is no citation for the rank or date of award, Bork, Botsch, Bremermann, Bretz, Bröckerhoff, Bühler, Büttner, Burchard, Burgemeister. Most would be Fellgiebel I imagine.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That's all I have. Well done. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• a pleasure as always. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Support: G'day, I believe that this meets the A-class criteria. I made a minor adjustment and have a couple of minor comments:

• I wasn't sure about the meaning of this: "The existing file card is not contemporary!" (Note 51)

• reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• which English language variation are you using? I saw "Labour" (British) and "favor" (US). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The only thing that I caught was re-dated the award on the 6 May 1945 Delete the second "the"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2014 (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) 05:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Æthelstan

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Æthelstan was the first king of England and a successful military leader who won a major victory against a joint Viking and Scottish invasion. I hope to take this article to FA, but this is my first A-Class nomination, so I hope I have done it correctly. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport

• "king of England " but "King of the English " - the capitalisation needs to be consistent.

Done.

• "and on the continent." - I'd usually expect to see Continent capitalised here.

Done.

• "However, after his death in 939" - while not every grammar guide criticises the use of "However..." like this, enough do that I'd advice against starting sentences with it.

Revised.

• "he increased control over the production of charters" - "charters" needs a wikilink or some sort of explanation.

Wikilinked.

• "More legal texts survive from his reign than from any other tenth-century king" - any king, or just any English king?

Specified English king.

• "they show his concern for social order and especially for the threat posed to it by widespread robberies." - the second half of this sentence didn't read very smoothly to me.

Revised. OK now?

• " the many kingdoms of the early Anglo-Saxon period had been consolidated into four major ones, Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia" - would "consolidated into four: Wessex, Mercia..." be sharper? (and avoid the question of any minor kingdoms)

Done.

• " Alfred the Great," - I'd argue this needs linking on first reference in the main text

I am not clear about this. Do you think that any word linked in the lead needs linking again on first use in following sections?

• In the Background section, it's very easy to lose track of how Æthelstan relates the characters being described (e.g. it's easy to miss that Edward is his dad); I'd advise incorporating a more direct reference to Æthelstan into the text to make it easier to see how he fits in.

Done.

• It wasn't 100% clear to me how the background para starting "The Anglo-Saxons were the first people in northern Europe..." fitted into the flow.

I am not sure of the best way to deal with this. The para was originally the first in the law section. The GAN reviewer thought it was rather out on a limb, but did not think it should be deleted, and we agreed it should be moved to the background. As you say it does not fit there either, so maybe it would be best to move it back to the law section, amending to "later codes" to "later codes including Æthelstan's" to connect it with the following paras. What do you think?

Also worth checking for wikilinkage of words like Carolingian, ealdormen etc.

Done.

• Primary sources. I'd have gone for putting this towards the end, rather than at the beginning; the reader is now three sections into the main part of the article, and we haven't got to the birth of Æthelstan yet.

Done.

• "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in this period " - which period? (the last date to be mentioned in 2011; the 9th century as a whole? Æthelstan's life?).

Specified in Æthelstan's time.

• "chronicle" - worth linking

Done.

• "William of Malmesbury" - needs a link on first use

Done.

• "However, Sarah Foot is inclined to accept Michael Wood's argument that William's chronicle draws on a lost life of Æthelstan, while cautioning that we have no means of discovering how far William "improved" on the original." - I found this sentence a little complex, and would advise breaking it in two.

Done.

• " and in Dumville's view the lack of information is more apparent than real" - does this clash with the statement that "Source materials for the life of Æthelstan are very limited"?

Clarified.

• "A scribe known as "Æthelstan A", " - known to modern historians perhaps, but probably not to his contemporaries.

Specified known to historians.

• "bishop Ælfwine of Lichfield," - Capitalisation of bishop

Done.

• "no charters survive" - NB: many readers won't know what a charter is.

Wikilinked - although I do wonder how many readers interested in Æthelstan will not know what a charter is!

• "Historians are also paying increasing attention to less conventional sources, such as poetry in his praise and manuscripts associated with his name" - Worth dating this (is this present tense late 20th century? 21st century? etc.). I'd have gone for "such as the poetry in his praise"

Revised.

• "There is very little information about Æthelstan's mother, Ecgwynn," - worth noting that I don't think you've said in the main text who his father was yet.

Put parents and birth at beginning of early life.

• "An acrostic poem praising prince "Adalstan", and prophesying a great future for him, has been interpreted by Lapidge as a eulogy to Æthelstan, punning on the old English meaning of his name, "noble stone".[31] Lapidge and Wood see the poem as a commemoration of the ceremony by one of Alfred's leading scholars, John the Old Saxon" - I couldn't quite work out what this was trying to tell the reader.

Revised. Is it better now?

• "Edward married his second wife Ælfflæd" - worth explaining earlier then that Ecgwynn was Edward's first wife (assuming she was legitimate etc.)

Revised.

• " his deposition of Ælfwynn in Mercia in 918" - is deposition the right word here? (isn't it a legal term?)

Oxford online dictionary has my meaning as 1, legal term as 2.

• "David Dumville" - not linked on first usage, but is on second and third

Corrected.

• "he probably had a religious devotion to chastity as a way of life" - "a way of life" didn't feel quite right here ("followed a life of chastity out of religious devotion"?)

Changed it to a quote of Foot.

• " Bishop of Winchester" - worth linking? (and note different capitalisation later)

Done.

• "Welsh kings" - are these the same, or different, to the Welsh princes in the lead?

Changed all princes to kings.

• "marriage between Æthelstan's great-grandfather Æthelwulf to Judith," - I think you can have a marriage "between" X "and" Y, but not "between" and "to".

Done.

• Tense of "Alex Woolf described it" - sometimes these are in the present tense, other times in the past tense. Unless a historian is clearly dead, I'd advise being consistent in how you use the tense for these phrases (Woolf was published this year, by the looks of it, so I'd advise "Alex Woolf describes it")

Gone through changing all references to modern historians to present tense.

• "mint" - worth wikilinking.

Linked "minting" as this is the first use of the word.

Hchc2009 (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• "Later Anglo-Saxon England had the most advanced currency in Europe, with a good quality silver coinage, which was uniform and abundant, but this dates to King Edgar's reform of the monetary system in the 970s.[89] In Æthelstan's time it was far less developed, and minting was still organised regionally long after Æthelstan unified the country." - I'd reverse this - i.e. start with the description of Æthelstan's coinage, and then compare it to the later coinage. That way you'd be positioning the reader on the subject of the article initially. Done this way round, I started off assuming that the sentence was about Æthelstan's advanced, uniform and abundant coinage etc.

I could not see how to put Æthelstan first without breaking the flow, so I have made clear at the start that the first sentence refers to the later coinage. Is it OK now?

• I've cleaned up the image of the coins. Give me a shout if you want me to try and get rid of the lines altogether.

Thanks. It looks fine to me now.

• Worth a link somewhere in the money section to History of the English penny (c. 600 – 1066)?

Done.

• I noticed it was "crowned-bust" but "Circumscription Cross"; if that's the usual form in the literature, that's fine, but I wondered if the capitalisation should be the same in both cases. Later, btw, it is "Crowned Bust".

Searching Google Scholar, there does not seem to be any rule on capitalisation, but the terms are generally shown without hyphenation, so I have settled on lower case and not hyphenated.

• "socially and politically" - might just be me, but I've have expected "both socially and politically"

Done.

• "Ecclesiastical scholarship had fallen to a low state in the second half of the ninth century, and Æthelstan built on his grandfather's efforts to revive it by what John Blair called "a determined reconstruction, visible to us especially through the circulation and production of books, of the shattered ecclesiastical culture"." - a long sentence; I'd break into two, and start off the sentence with a focus on Æthelstan.

Done.

• "Breton" - worth linking (e.g. to the Duchy of Brittany article)

I am not sure there is a good article to link to as the Brittany articles seem confused about chronology. Nominoe describes him as first Duke of Brittany from 846, but Duchy of Brittany says it started in 939, which would put it after Æthelstan's time.

• a board game called "Gospel Dice" - I loved the sound of this! :)
• "Norse-influenced praise of the king " - worth checking the capitalisation of king here; if it's referring to Æthelstan personally, the MOS states that it should be capitalised.

Done.

• "Historians frequently comment on Æthelstan's grandiose and pompous titles." - I wondered about this a bit. I think that it wouldn't be POV for us to note that historians have considered his titles to be grandiose and pompous; I felt that the sentence, as written, implied that they were grandiose and pompous, which didn't feel neutral. For comparison, "grand and extravagant" might mean roughly the same thing, but wouldn't carry the same negative connotations.

Done.

• "In Sarah Foot's view, "Any man whose parents managed to provide him with eight or even nine sisters deserves our sympathy."" Much though I liked the quote, I didn't feel that it felt informative about the subject of the article.

Well it could be argued that it emphasises that the need to provide for his sisters was a factor in Æthelstan's European activism.

• "duke of the Franks" - capitalisation of duke

Done.

• "In early medieval Europe, it was common for kings to act as foster-fathers for the sons of other kings, and Æthelstan was known for the support he gave to dispossessed young royals." - as written, it is unclear if the young royals mentioned in the second half are the same as the foster-sons in the first - i.e. were foster-sons always royals who had been dispossessed?

Made two sentences to make clear they are separate points.

• "Æthelstan's court was perhaps the most cosmopolitan of the Anglo-Saxon period,[126] and the close contacts between the English and European courts ended soon after his death, but descent from the English royal house long remained a source of prestige for continental ruling families." A bit convoluted. I wondered if it needed an "although" after the first clause, to make the contrast clearer?

Made two sentences. Is it OK now?

• "who will bear comparison with Alfred" - I know that these are the quotes from the historians, but this gets repeated twice in the same paragraph because two different authors use the phrase, which read a bit oddly.

Revised so that bear comparison with Alfred is only stated once.

• "the first king of England" (and king of English etc.) - capitalisation

Done.

• "Sharon Turner's History of the Anglo-Saxons," - the title of the book should be italicised I think

Done.

• "According to Michael Wood: "Among all the great rulers of British history, Æthelstan today is the forgotten man",[152] while according to Ann Williams: If Athelstan has not had the reputation which accrued to his grandfather, the fault lies in the surviving sources; Athelstan had no biographer, and the Chronicle for his reign is scanty. In his own day he was "the roof-tree of the honour of the western world"." - I'd recommend running this as a single para, without the block quote; it would avoid a slightly "bitty" first clause to the paragraph, which is effectively just two quotes anyway.

Done.

• Great see an Anglo-Saxon king under review, and best of luck with the FA process! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Do you have a view on whether the last para of the background section on law should be moved back to being the first para of the law section? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the introductory paragraph on law. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment from Piotrus: please run the duplicate ilinks tools, I am picking up quite a few. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I have installed the 'Highlight duplicate links' tool and removed the duplicates. I assume that is what you meant? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I support now. Good job! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (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) 08:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (Ba–Bm)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this list is very much like all the other A-Class Knight's Cross recipients lists. Unique to this list is the fact that this list had to be split because of size. When reviewing please pay close attention to this aspect. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• to your usual high standard, MB. A couple, following on from my last lot of nitpicking...
• there are several (excluding the ones Scherzer has queried) that have only the alternative source note for rank, and also date of award. A couple have several variances all noted against one column, but not against the others against which they vary.

• Thanks, I believe to have found them all and corrected them. Omissions are not intentional but are due to carelessness or lack of oversight on my part. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• is the Berger "Further reading" suggestion appropriate given it appears to be self-published?

• I think yes, others may feel differently. Berger provides his sources which includes all the contemporary literature on this subject (Busch & Röll as an example for the U-Boat commanders) MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• fn 92' presented (by)?

• Thanks fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• fn 81 "at least it not prevailed" isn't clear (or grammatically correct). Same, was not listed (in)...

• Thanks, should be fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• you use the term "the troop" in the fn's. In English this means a platoon or similar sized element. Do you mean his unit?

• This is probably attributed to my deficiencies in mastering the English language. I am using the term "troop" as generic and unqualified military unit or entity. The German semantically equivalent word I am looking for is "die Truppe" which literally translates to "the troop". In German it could mean a platoon, regiment or division (or any other organizational unit) depending on the context in which it used. So when I write "the troop had nominated XYZ for the Knight's Cross" I am saying that his respective governing military unit has nominated XYZ without having to be precise. I hope you can understand what I am trying to say and maybe you have a better word or expression to use? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I believe unit or formation (for regiment and larger) is the appropriate term. Was the nomination by his unit or by the commander of that unit? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• According to Scherzer, nominations for the Knight's Cross could be made at company level or higher. I have started documenting the approval process in the KC article. It is far from complete because the process broke down at the end of the war and multiple scenarios were possible. Lot's of work left before I feel comfortable with the article. The sources do not mention who or what entity triggered the nomination process. That is the main reason why I am looking for a vague and generic term. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the commander of whatever sub-unit, unit of formation must have endorsed any nominations? IMO "unit" is a far better generic translation than "troop". But, it is perhaps better to say "XYZ was nominated for the Knight's Cross" and thereby avoid using troop or unit? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic and has now been succeeded by Scherzer's work" is nonparallel, because it expands to: "For many years Fellgiebel's book was considered the main reference work on this topic and for many years Fellgiebel's book has now been succeeded by Scherzer's work." ("for many years ... has now" doesn't work). "... topic, and it ..." or " ... topic, but it ..." would work.

• done, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• "(Air force)": Either it's a proper noun (Air Force) or it isn't (air force).

• done, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I believe that this meets the A-class criteria. I wasn't able to check the image licencing, though, because my internet connection is not reliable at the moment. I made the following edits: [122] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - up to your usual standards, MB. All of the images check out - most are Bundesarchiv photos or derivatives thereof, the other two photos are fine. Parsecboy (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments: Whilst I am at it:

• Is chief the appropriate title for the commander of a company? If not a Native American, I would consider him a senior NCO. Meanwhile, a "leader" is usually the temporary commander of an unit.

• the translations used are Chef—chief, Führer—leader and Kommandant—commander MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, if the native speakers here are happy with it, it's fine with me. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• A lot of German terminology is used - wouldn't it help to either translate these terms or link them?

• I was advised before to use a footnote to address the translations, see Note 2 MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hadn't seen that article yet, but makes sense to me. What I actually referred to were terms like "Nahaufklärungsgruppe". I only have a vague idea what that might have been. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Commander-in-Chief" of a field army? "Commanding General" of a corps? Sounds like general officer commanding would be a good place to look at.

• Translations used Oberbefehlshaber—Commander-in-Chief and Kommandierender General—commanding general MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• company troop leader". A "Trupp" is the smallest unit in the German military, equivalent of a fireteam

• does this also apply to WW2 units and formations? MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

The glossary gives "Company headquarters section leader" as translation. As a troop is a company-size unit in the US cavalry, it might give a wrong impression as to the size of the unit (usually 2-8). Here is a useful page on the TO&E of a rifle company. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• I added "(similar to fireteam)", please check if this addresses your comment adequately. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• • BTW: die Truppe usually refers to the enlisted men in a given unit or formation - set apart from the officer corps. Thus the nomination seems to have initiated from the subordinates. The question is how it was presented to superior levels.

ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• If I may, translation of terms from the German can be more problematic than usual. Having worked in a combined environment with the Heer, Bundesheer, British Army and others in a NATO setting, I may be able to help a little. "Troop" in Commonwealth armies always relates to a platoon-sized sub-unit, not company-strength. We are better off referring to "unit" if we want a really generic term for any sized element of soldiers. In Commonwealth armies, "units" are usually battalion strength, anything above that is a "formation", and anything below that is a "sub-unit". I appreciate there are dissimilarities with US arrangements, but I have found NATO approaches to terms are usually best to make terminology as "universal" as possible. Food for thought. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Currently I translated Kompanietruppmelder—Company troop (similar to fireteam) messenger and Kompanietruppführer—Company troop (similar to fireteam) leader. I am open for suggestions on how to improve the semantic correctness. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I would translate Kompanietruppmelder as "company headquarters runner/messenger/courier", that is the function they performed, hand delivering messages from the company commander and staff to subordinate platoons etc and up to battalion level in the absence of radio comms. Kompanietruppführer relates to the person responsible for commanding the company headquarters troops (ie not the commander of the whole unit), in a Commonwealth context that person would usually be the company sergeant major. I would translate that as troop leader of the company headquarters. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

done, put the translation in brackets and left the original German wording. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2014 (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) 08:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

SMS Schwaben

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

So I know, I said I was done with German battleships at ACR, but then a certain user sent me a copy of Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe, which means I can probably expand the rest of these to A/FA level. So you've got to put up with more articles coming through the line ;) This is one of the group of early pre-dreadnoughts that didn't see much action during WWI, but unlike the rest of them, she did not serve with the main fleet before the war, but was used as a gunnery training ship. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a question regarding the translation of Halbflottille. I have seen it being translated as Demi-Flotilla and Half-Flotilla. Is one of the two more appropriate? MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I've seen both as well - I went with Half-Flotilla because that sounds more natural to my ear. But I don't know that one is objectively preferable to the other. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks, have you seen File:SMS Schwaben.jpg? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but unfortunately, for us to use it on en.wiki, it needs to be clearly PD in the US, which basically means we need a pre-1923 date of publication. Which for these old photos can be very difficult to track down. Parsecboy (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• "She was ordered under the contract name "D", as a new unit for the fleet" HRS v7 p 139 states "G" please check
  • Ah, yes, that's right. I read the wrong letter in Gröner.
• HRS also give slightly different dimensions and armament configurations, can you check please
  • It looks like the only measurements that are different are the beam and the draft - Gröner gives the beam including the 15cm guns that point out, and the 7.95m figure is the forward draft, the 8.04m figure is for draft at the stern. I usually just give the forward draft in the individual ship articles. As for the armament, Gröner mentions "twelve machine guns" but states that they were only temporarily fitted rather than a permanent part of the ship's armament, which was why I didn't include them in the technical description.
• "In 1916, Schwaben was partially disarmed; her battery of 15 cm guns was reduced to six weapons, and only four 8.8 cm guns were left aboard." HRS p 142 states that also the 24cm guns were removed. What happened to the 12 3.7 cms guns?
  • I guess it wasn't clear how I wrote it - I meant for it to say that only the six 15cm guns and four 8.8cm guns remained. It should be clear now. As for the 3.7cm guns, Gröner says they were just temporary, but doesn't say when they were removed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Support Thanks for the answers MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments This article is on excellent shape, and I have only the following minor comments:

• Do we know why the ship was decommissioned in 1911? (and were all the ships of this class placed in reserve at the time as the article implies?)
  • Yes, they were all taken out of service around this time. This is the first article of the class that I've rewritten with Hildebrand et. al., so I can't give you specifics just yet, but they were all taken out of service around this time. And as for why, Dreadnought generally but by 1911 the first eight German dreadnoughts were in service in the I Squadron, which pushed the ten Deutschland and Braunschweig class ships into the II Squadron. The older Wittelsbach and Kaiser Friedrich III classes were no longer front-line ships so there was no need to keep them on active service.
    • Can you add something on that? Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • See how it reads now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• "The ship was briefly retained by the Reichsmarine after the end of the war. On 1 August 1919, Schwaben was reactivated for service with the Reichsmarine" - this is a bit repetitive
  • Shortened.
• "She was converted into a depot ship for F-type minesweepers.[21] She was assigned to the 6th Baltic Minesweeping Half-Flotilla" - likewise as both sentences start with "she" (also, could these sentences be combined?)
  • Merged.
• "as the minesweeping work was completed by 19 June 1920" - do we know what mine sweeping work this was? (eg, where it took place?) Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Apart from "the Baltic", I can't tell you. It's not in Hildebrand et. al., and I can't find anything else that even discusses the post-war minesweeping operations with any detail, let alone the 6th Half-flotilla. Do you think that it would be worth pointing out that Versailles mandated that Germany sweep mines in the North and Baltic Seas after the war? Thanks for your review, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
    • That would be worth adding to explain why the navy went to the trouble of reactivating this ship for such a menial duty. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Sounds good to me - see how it looks now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments: G'day, this article looks very good, I just have a few suggestions:
  • the size of the complement is mentioned in the infobox, but doesn't appear to be in the body of the article;
    • Good catch, added.
  • "length of the ship's hull and holed in it several..." --> "length of the ship's hull and holed it in several..."
    • Oops!
  • "She instead remained at Sonderburg and Alsen during the exercises..." --> do we know why?
    • Hildebrand et. al. don't say why, unfortunately.
      • No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "While steaming in the Flensburg Firth on 10–12 December, she had to assist the training ship Württemberg" --> do we know what the issue was that meant the Wurttemberg needed assistance?
    • Hildebrand et. al. aren't clear - they mention fog, but it's not clear whether Württemberg was simply lost, grounded, or something else.
      • No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
  • "Schwaben and her sisters were not included in the German fleet that assaulted the Gulf of Riga in August 1915, due to the scarcity of escorts. The increasingly active British submarines forced the Germans to employ more destroyers to protect the capital ships." --> I think these two sentences might work better if their order was swapped
    • Yes, that makes more sense.
  • "sent his four surviving battlecruisers in dock for repairs..." --> "sent his four surviving battlecruisers to dock for repairs"?
    • Fixed.
  • in the References, inconsistent - compare "Annapolis" with "Annapolis, MD"
    • Should all be fixed.
  • in the References, most places of publishing are not linked, but one is (Amherst)
    • Removed the link.
  • in the References, is there a place of publishing for the work by Scheer?
    • Added.
  • if possible, for consistency please add OCLCs, ISSNs or ISBNs for Raeder, Scheer and the two journals - www.worldcat.org usually has this information. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
    • All added. Thanks for your thorough review, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries, all my points have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Comments: Generally a good account of the ship's history. A few minor glitches caught my eye:
• Schwaben is linked to the article Swabia but the English name is never mentioned.
  • Fixed.
• The builder is correctly called Imperial Dockyard throughout the article except for the first mention in the lede were it is called Navy Dockyard.
  • Fixed.
• Six naval boilers are mentioned in the Description section. I think water-tube boiler is the word you were looking for.
  • Yup.
• The infobox conversions are not in line with the WPSHIPS guidelines regarding knots and nautical miles.
  • I don't believe that they are - the usage guide advises that outputs should be not specified.
• The crew is given for the standard Wittelsbach-class ship; when serving as flagship her crew would include an additional 9 officers and 44 enlisted.
  • I only put the standard crew in ship articles - these of course change over the course of any given ship's career, and those figures are better suited to the class article, unless it was for a reconstruction of a specific ship (such as Schleswig-Holstein's career as a cadet training ship).
• According to the German edition of Gröner I (1982), the torpedo tubes were below the waterline - is that a misprint?
  • Hmm, I'm not sure why I wrote that - they're definitely submerged tubes. Good catch.

Apart from that it's good to go - and Happy New Year to all BTW ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, ÄDA. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 2 January 2014 (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) 06:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Natchez revolt

Nominator(s): User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because following the recent failed FAC the article has now been significantly expanded and improved, and a milhist A-class review will be a good way of making sure everything is in order before a further FAC attempt. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [123] (no action req'd).
  • External links check out [124] (no action req'd).
  • One of the maps lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [125] (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be free / PD and information looks ok. Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [126] (no action req'd).
  • A couple of duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Fort St. Pierre
    • Grand Village of the Natchez
    • Tattooed Arm
  • Is this a typo? "...another factor that complicated the relation between the Natchez..." should this be something like: "...another factor that complicated relations' between the Natchez..."
  • I read through it and couldn't find any major issues - looks like a high quality article to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I've taken care of the repeatlinks and the the plural relations.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And I've added alt text for that map. Thanks for your input, and thank you, Dank, for your support. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure Jsayre, happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Support with comments:

• Good to see an article on this period. It is well referenced to a decent range of high quality sources.
• In terms of copyediting:
• "They first responded by ordering a massacre on the Chaouacha people," - I'd recommend "of the Chaouacha people"
• "but retaliatory expeditions on Natchez refugees " - "against Natchez refugees"?
• "who were allied with the British and had received guns from the British" - any way of avoiding the repetition of the "British" bit here?
• "paramount chief" - worth wikilinking
• "There are reports of colonists abusing Natchez" - "are reports", or "were reports"?
• " In truth, each village was autonomous" - earlier the description was "semi-autonomous"
• "pelts, oil, poultry, and grain" - "pelts, oil, poultry and grain" (last comma's not needed here)
• " with corn, poultry, and deerskins" - ditto with the last comma
• "Chépart ran to call his soldiers to garrison" - I wasn't sure what this meant. Did it mean "to call his soldiers back to the garrison", or "to call his soldiers to arms"?
• "having stocked up several cannons and the firearms " - "having stockpiled several cannons"?
• "There has been historical controversy about whether the Natchez plotted with other major tribes of the region to plan a simultaneous attack on the French" - Could simply be "There has been historical controversy about whether the Natchez planned a simultaneous attack on the French with the other major tribes of the region." (avoids "plotting" and "planning"). Hchc2009 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Except for the commas, which I have left alone for consistency per MOS:SERIAL, I believe I have addressed your comments. Jsayre64 (talk) 18:25, 23 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.