Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2015/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 TomStar81 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

2/9th Battalion (Australia)

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/9th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another Second Australian Imperial Force infantry battalion, this one being raised mainly from volunteers from Queensland. Part of the 18th Brigade, the 2/9th was variously assigned to three of the four 2nd AIF divisions throughout the war, but mainly fought as part of the Silent Seventh. They were part of a small number of Australian soldiers who served in the United Kingdom during the war, and then later fought in North Africa, the Middle East and the Pacific. Unlike the 2/3rd, I have no family connection to this battalion, although I have spent some time attached to one of its successor units earlier in my career when combat engineers were needed to re-raise the infantry's assault pioneer capability. Thank you to everyone who takes part in this review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. From now on, I'm doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Middle East and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• tool checks are all good.
• the images are all AWM and taken prior to 1955, so all licences are good IMO.
• the colour patch blue is a quite a bit louder than the actual colour. Can anything be done about that?
  • Good spot, I think I've fixed this now. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• suggest in Queensland for the all-volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF)
• suggest it was initially supplied with a Regular officer
• no mention of the quartering of the brigades, ie the departure of the 2/11th
• suggest a comma after Amidst a sandstorm that limited visibility
• suggest the sentence beginning In July, they returned is too long
• consistency with placing the Salient in double quotation marks, suggest all instances be in quotes
• suggest was withdrawn back
• worth mentioning what states Tenterfield and Kilcoy are in
• suggest a comma after unloading stores from ships as they arrived
• suggest the battalion embarking at Townsville and returned to Port Moresby, where it continued further training in the areas surrounding the port
• suggest the sentence beginning Following the fighting around Shaggy Ridge is too long.
• I'm pretty sure Balikpapan is the spelling, not Balikipapan
• that's me done, great job Rupert! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Actually, one more from me, structure. Do we have an outline organisational structure for the battalion and any information about changes made over time? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these comments, I've added what I could find and made other adjustments. Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• SupportComments - this article looks very good to me, some points / suggestions:
  • Some of the image captions might need full-stops (pls check for yourself I'm unsure of the rules).
  • re battalion structure, Dickens (p.11) refers to its structure on formation in Nov 39:
    • Initially the Battalion was established with a Battalion Headquarters, a Headquarters Wing and four rifle companies, but in early December this organization was expanded into a Battalion Headquarters, a Headquarter Company, a Support Company and four rifle companies (A, B, C & D). Each rifle company consisted of three platoons of 30 men commanded by a Lieutenant... The various specialist platoons in HQ Company were numbered 1 to 6 but were usually referred to by their role i.e. mortar platoon, signals platoon, tank-attack etc.... This contrasts a little to the more generic paragraph you currently have regarding the initial organization of the 6 Div bns during formation, although I think some of that is still relevant so I'd suggest trying to keep the salient points.
  • Some detail of the Bn's time in Australia in 1944 to 1945 should probably be included. Some points from the Bn history which you might consider adding (probably at the end of the paragraph starting "In August 1943"):
    • The battalion regrouped at Strathpine from mid-July 1944 (p. 299), before moving to Kairi on the Atherton Tableland in August 1944 where they conducted platoon, company, battalion and brigade level exercises (pp. 302-303).
    • In November the battalion underwent amphibious training at Trinity Beach near Cairns aboard the British troopship HMS Glenearn and with landing craft manned by Royal Marine personnel (pp.308-309)
    • In late May 1945 the battalion embarked in LSTs with the rest of 18 Bde from Cairns for Morotai (p.319)
  • "It served in the United Kingdom in 1940, forming part of a small Australian garrison sent there to defend against a possible German invasion..." perhaps qualify this by tweaking to "It served in the United Kingdom in 1940, forming part of a small Australian garrison sent there to help defend against a possible German invasion..."
  • Repetitive prose here: "The battalion's final involvement in the war came during the Borneo campaign in mid-1945, when the battalion took part in the landing at Balikpapan..." ("the battalion" twice in the same sentence), consider instead something like: "The battalion's final involvement in the war came during the Borneo campaign in mid-1945, when it took part in the landing at Balikpapan..."
  • "and the following month they were transported to Tobruk by road and sea as German forces surrounded the strategic port in an effort to capture it." This sentence unintentionally might give some readers the incorrect idea that the battalion held Tobruk on its own, as it neglects to mention that it was merely a part of the (mainly) Australian and British garrison. Perhaps tweak it somehow (probably only need to add a few words not a whole sentence etc)
  • Repetitive prose here: "As a result of these losses, the 2/9th Battalion was withdrawn from the fighting and in March 1943, after withdrawing..." (withdrawn and withdrawing in close proximity)
  • "...amidst concerns about a possible Japanese landing..." suggest minor reword to "...due to concerns about a possible Japanese landing..." (you use "amidst" in a previous sentence)
  • This sounds a little contradictory "late on the opening day it was ordered forward to relieve the 2/10th Battalion, taking Klandasan before noon" - specifically "late on the opening day" vs "before noon", was it before noon the next day? Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Hi, mate, thanks for these comments. I've tried to deal with them as best I can. To be honest, I'm not feeling well (got a 39 degree temp at the moment), so I'm probably not thinking straight. Please let me know if you think it needs any more work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Those changes look good to me, so I've added my support now. I added a little bit more re the amphibious training as I thought it was relevant [1]. In particular I found the involvement of British personnel to be an interesting fact which I thought could probably be highlighted. Of cse happy for you to amend if you don't agree. Hope you are feeling better soon. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Happy with that change. Thanks: yeah, I agree, I suspect it isn't something a lot of people would know about. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment Have amended the bit dealing with Buna-Gona as the chronology as it was just wasn't right - eg, it implied arriving at Oro Bay before the fighting had stated. Hope this helps. I have found a few of the sentences excessively long and some of the text a little repetitive.I will go through it again and make some edits as suggestions. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cuprum17 (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• In the Middle East section, 2nd paragraph, you use the term "Blue Line". I think I know what the term should mean (maybe I don't!!!) , but would the average reader know?
• Again, "Red Line"?
  • G'day, excellent point - thanks for this. The average reader probably wouldn't know. I've added an explanatory note to the text for this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• In the Pacific section possible links could include Sanananda and Bogadjim. The links are stubs that don't add much the reader's understanding of the article, but they are there if you want to include them. Your call.
  • Added, thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking a look at the article. Are you happy that the article meets the A-class criteria, or do you think it needs more work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me! Since this is the first ACR I've reviewed I could be missing something, but I will try to participate and pick up the finer points as I gain experience. Have a Happy Christmas, mate...and I hope you are feeling better. Stay out of the heat. Cheers! Cuprum17 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Cheers, we desperately need more reviewers at A-class, so it would be a great help to the project if you decide to do more. If you need any advice, there are a few people I'm sure would be happy to help (myself included). Feeling a lot better, temp has gone down now -- turns out I have tonsillitis, which is a weird thing for a 30 year old to get (IMO). Thankfully it has been a bit cooler here the past couple of days (the wet season is back). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments This article is in very good shape, and I have only the following comments:

• "It served in the United Kingdom in 1940, forming part of a small Australian garrison sent there to help defend against a possible German invasion, before being transferred to North Africa where they took part in the Siege of Tobruk " - "it" and "they" in the same sentence is a bit awkward, and appears at some later points ("it" and similar work best IMO given that this is about the battalion, and not its soldiers)
  • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• "its structure varied as the Australian Army determined whether it would use the British Army structure" - bit unclear: did the army keep reorganising the battalion?
  • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• "Here they manned anti-aircraft defences" - Did the battalion use its machine guns for this, or were the soldiers trained to use heavier AA guns?
  • According to Dickens they seem to have used their integral weapons both for self defence whilst encamped during training activities and to defend nearby posns, for instance "The camp had been erected hastily and there was much to be done... The Vickers guns were positioned for anti-aircraft defence and Bren guns mouonted on tripods in sandbagged pits also served as anti-aircraft weapons in all company areas" (p. 33) also "...the Battalion returned from manoeuvres to find the Wallop aerodrome under attack. 'In our eagerness to help with out Vickers guns mounted for AA we almost shot down a Hurricane..." (p. 40). Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, AC, I've added something on this now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• " At this time, the situation for the Allies was desperate" - I think that's an overstatement. The Allies had won the key victory of the war at Midway in May, and were preparing to go on the offensive in the South Pacific in August by landing at Guadalcanal.
  • Changed to "finely balanced". Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• "this was a significant achievement, representing the first full-scale defeat of the Japanese on land during the war" - is this still considered a "significant achievement"? At Milne Bay two brigades of Australians supported by airpower scored a scrappy victory over a much smaller Japanese force
  • I guess it depends...I've just deleted "significant achievement" and left "first full-scale defeat..." AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• "It came at a cost for the 2/9th, though, with the battalion losing 29 men killed and a further 86 wounded" - do sources also note casualties from malaria? (here or in the Gona-Buna campaign?). My understanding is that lots of the soldiers involved in these early campaigns were affected by the disease due to the Army's poor preparations.
  • Yes Dickens has something on this which I've added now. A very good point. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• The coverage of the Huon Valley campaign is a bit short - can more be said? (or did the 2/9th not see much fighting here?)
  • I've added a bit on their activities after Shaggy Ridge from Dickens, hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 10:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Do sources discuss the effect on the battalion of being stuck in Queensland during 1944-45? (morale, etc) Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Dickens doesn't spell it out exactly although he does mention minor breeches of discipline and dress standards etc in places. He does provide this though: "Brigade training instructions for January [1945] stressed the need to combat the feeling of 'anti-climax' caused by the granting of limited leave and the postponement of the Brigade's movement overseas. The situation was seen as a psychological problem and instructions emphasized the need to keep all ranks fully occupied both mentally and physically and to maintain the high standard of enthusiasm and training already achieved... The Army's propensity to use competitions of various types to both add interest to training and to ameliorate boredom has already been noted but by now the program of 'competitions' was becoming very imaginative." (pp. 314-315). Does any of this help? Anotherclown (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually I have added something on this now, pls amend as req'd of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 10:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for these comments, Nick, and thanks for looking up the Dickens refs, AC. Here is the summary of the changes: [2] Please let me know if you are happy with the changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Nick. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2015 (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) 06:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Jacob L. Devers

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Jacob L. Devers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The second most senior general in Europe in World War II remained poorly known (and his name frequently mispronounced - it's Dev-ers not Deev-ers) for decades. Suddenly, he has two biographies. And now a good Wikipedia article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments: fantastic work, as usual. Just a few nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "1909–1949" --> "1909–49" per WP:DATERANGE;

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Jacob L. Devers portrait.jpg": licence looks fine to me, but I suggest adding author, publisher and date information to the source field on the description page.

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "File:USA-Benicia-75mm Field Gun Model 1897-1.jpg": possibly needs a freedom of panorama tag also, per this: [3];

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• probably same as above for: "File:Canon de 155mm GPF 3.jpg";
• same as above for: "File:- Flickr - Joost J. Bakker IJmuiden (4).jpg";
• "File:M26Belgium.jpg": probably needs a FOP tag for Belgium, but that could be problematic per this: [4];

  What for? There is no building or artwork in the picture. Just a PD tank. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  G'day,"File:M26Belgium.jpg" has a large building in the background (maybe a warehouse?). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  It's the Belgian Army Museum. My understanding is that the law is the same as in France. It is okay if the building is incidental to the photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  Ok, I must be reading the Commons FoP page incorrectly. Should be fine then. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  Per Freedom of Panorama": "Some countries, such as France and Belgium, do not have global permission for making images of an artistic creation, like a piece of architecture or sculpture, in public spaces and allow images of copyrighted works only under "incidental inclusion" clauses. In France the authorisation of the author, but not of the owner, is thus required if the piece is not just used secondarily or as a background on the image but intentionally or as its central and essential motif." Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Leese, Devers and McCreery.jpg": licence looks fine to me, but the image quality might be enhanced by cropping out the large black spot in the corner;
• "File:Eaker, Cannon, Devers and Larkin.jpg": licence looks fine, but as per the first image above, I suggest adding author, publisher and date information to the source field on the description page;

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• same as above for "File:Lieutenant General Jacob L. Devers.jpg"

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• same as above for "File:Trusctt, Patch and Devers.jpg" -- I have fixed the typo in the file name for you over on Commons

  Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "File:315th Air Commando Group C-123 Providers in VNAF markings 1962.jpg": source url is now a deadlink

  Knowing the Air Force, it is probably only temporary. Added a wayback link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• "France and Germany 1944–1945" --> "France and Germany 1944–45" per WP:DATERANGE;

   Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• the service number (0-2599) appears to be uncited

  Sigh. Added a reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
• From now on, I'm doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Between the wars and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first.
• Technically, Between the wars is a violation of WP:HEADING since it's not a noun phrase, although it's a quite common violation. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
• Tidied references, added a few isbn and oclc from Worldcat.Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • "In a major reorganization of War Department in March 1942...", should this be "In a major reorganization of the War Department in March 1942..."?

    Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • "Despite some successes, the maneuvers..." suggest a minor reword here to "Despite some successes, the exercises" as the wording here is a bit repetitive (minor nitpick, suggestion only)
  • "that hampered the tank-infantry-artillery coordination...", consider instead something like "that hampered the coordination of tanks, infantry, and artillery.

    Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • "In particular, post-maneuver reports showed a vulnerability of tanks to antitank fire..." → "In particular, post-maneuver reports showed the vulnerability of tanks to antitank fire."

    Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Is there a typo here "but here was persistent shortage of tank engines..."? Should it be "but there was a persistent shortage of tank engines..."?

    Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Wikilink I Armored Corps

    Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • "Devers was neither the first nor the only general to embrace combined arms as the doctrinal solution...", the solution to what?

    Y added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • some inconsistency in capitalization, consider "armored Divisions", vs "armored divisions" vs "Armored Divisions"

    Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of dates, consider "March 1942" vs "March, 1942"

    Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • abbrev TO&E needs to be expanded, many readers wont know what it refers to.

    Y Really? Gosh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • "Lyman Lemnitzer later recalled that Fifth Army staff feared that Devers would relieve every time the two met..." is there a missing word after "relieve"?

    Y Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • "British Lieutenant-General Frederick E. Morgan", hyphenation of rank here seems inconsistent with that adopted in the rest of the article.

    Used British spelling. Removed the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Some of the works in the references lack an isbn/oclc so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only) Anotherclown (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport - it's a good article, but I'm still slightly short of a support, some thoughts below:
• "was a general in the United States Army who, during World War II, commanded the 6th Army Group in the European Theater. " - would "was a general in the United States Army who commanded the 6th Army Group in the European Theater during World War II." flow more naturally?

  Y possibly. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "when the idea of phasing out horses" - surely it wasn't the idea that met opposition, so much as the "the proposal to phase out"?

  There was no proposal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "heavily armed and armored tanks." - should there be hyphens here as compound adjectives?

  No idea. @Dank: Any ideas? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Not in that phrase; I haven't looked at the context. - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "8 September 1887" but "November 11 armistice" - should really be consistent... (NB: the 11 November armistice wiki article uses the number first)

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "His major task was the construction of new playing fields when there did not appear to be any available land." - "playing fields, despite there not appearing to be any available land"? (otherwise the "when" isn't quite right)

  Y Changed to "where" Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "93 miles of roads" - needs a metric equivalent

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "A Tank Destroyer Centre was created" - is the capitalisation correct here? (the "A" suggests its not a proper name)

  Y Capitalization is correct; spelling was wrong. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "the railroad reached Lyon with a capacity of 3,000 tons per day. Devers pressed Gray for 15,000 tons." - metric equivalents needed

  Y Tried to do this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "he would only be able to supply Patton with 1,000 tons per day" - ditto

  Y Even more tricky. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Devers hired a civilian secretary, Dorothy Benn, a widow whose husband, an Army Air Forces pilot, had been list as missing in action in New Guinea in 1943 and was presumed dead until his body was found in 1957." - the second half lives oddly here, as you don't find out why it is at all relevant until several sections later. Could the bit about being a widow etc. go down to the last paragraph of "Retirement and post-military career"?

  I think it works here, which is chronologically correct.Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Worth noting that when I was reading it, I did a quick "search this page" to find out why we were going into such detail about Benn's missing husband... I'd got no idea as a casual reader what the significance was. The next time she gets mentioned it was to be promoted to being his assistant, and it wasn't until the third mention that it explains they eventually get married. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I figured that would be the case, but the point is that they knew each other for many years. It also provides another example of Devers generosity towards veterans and their families. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• "He hired an African-American couple, Curtis and Beatrix Murphy, as handyman and cook." - are their racial origins relevant to the article? We don't mention any one else's race or ethnic origins in the article that I can see.

  Y Okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• NB: I agree with the comment above that the building in File:M26Belgium.jpg is de minimis. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2015 (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) 06:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Majestic-class battleship

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Something of a departure for me, in that these ships came from the other side of the North Sea. The Majestic design was a major development in capital ship technology in the late 19th century, and the inspired many copies throughout the world. They were the oldest battleships in RN service during WWI, though they were mostly withdrawn from front-line duty by 1916. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is this one comprehensive enough for FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say so - it's comparable to Sturm's current ACR on the Peresvet class and FAs like Fuji-class battleship (and is only marginally shorter than Andrea Doria-class battleship, which has a fairly lengthy section on those ships' reconstruction). Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I don't know what "with ... good steamers" means. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The fire-tube boilers that you reference are actually cylindrical boilers, aka Scotch marine boilers.
  • Thanks for the tip
• Link roll.
  • Already linked
• Is a figure available for the amount of coal stowed after they've converted to mixed firing?
  • Nothing in either Conway's or Burt, unless I missed it
• 9 inches (229 mm) of Harvey armour on the armoured belt This reads a bit oddly to me. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point - switched it to "Harvey steel". Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was objecting to "on" as the belt is made from Harvey armour.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @Sturmvogel 66: I adjusted it per this edit: [5] Does that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "In 1891 Rear Admiral Jackie Fisher, then the Controller..." --> maybe clarify of which Navy?
  • Good idea
• "and a draft of 27 ft (8.2 m)" --> "and a draught of 27 ft (8.2 m)"
  • Fixed - this is why I don't write many articles in BrEng ;)
• "File:HMS Majestic sinking 27 May 1915.jpg": I wonder if there is an online source that can be linked to on the image description page of this image. If not, I don't believe it is a problem, but would be an improvement to add one. I'm not sure about the life of author + 70 licence, though, as the author isn't identified
  • There are several versions of the photo online, but they're all different crops of the images (I've added one that has the same source) - there don't appear to be any exact matches. If I had to guess, the magazine was scanned into google books (I haven't looked) and the uploader copied it from that. Parsecboy (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Update: Other than the comment above (which has been dealt with), the images appear to be appropriately licenced to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Tool checks: There are no dab links, the ext links all work, and there are no duplicate links reported.
• Referencing: the article appears to be well referenced, using a consistent citation style;
• Prose: I couldn't find anything major and I am happy that Dan has added his support in this regard;
• Alt text: I suggest adding alt text to the images, although it is not a requirement. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• They introduced a number - suggest "The Majestic's introduced..."
  • Sounds fine to me.
• The Majestic class, the largest class of - this statement seems like it would be best be a separate paragraph, and perhaps located elsewhere.
  • I think it fits there - would the paragraph seem more cohesive if the first sentence read something like "...all successor pre-dreadnoughts, in the British and foreign navies"?
• although very different from the old-style, heavy, circular gun turrets that preceded them, - not being up on older ship design, I'm not entirely sure what this means. Perhaps expand a bit?
• In the "Right elevation" image, is the dark line on the lower section illustrating the armor? Maybe mention in the caption, maybe not.
  • Good idea
• Majestic and her sisters were armed - I think this could use some minor re-arrangement, it kind of jumps around a bit. I suggest moving the "They were the first new" up, and then separating the remainder into two paras, one about the guns and another about the mounting/turrets. I assume from the description that the magazines did not rotate like later designs? Is so, perhaps that's worth a mention too, as it explains the bit about the reloading from the mags.
  • See how it reads now
• arm eight Lord Clive-class monitor - missing the trailing S I think.
  • It's there, unless I'm looking at the wrong one. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Apologies, I added this after Maury's review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: are you in a position to respond to Maury's comments? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, AR - I've been meaning to get to this for at least a week now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - looks fine to me, one very minor point:
  • You wrote: "it was the Majestics that settled on the 12 inch (305 mm)...", however, you have previously given this conversion in the text above it so did you mean to do so again? Anotherclown (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
    • No, probably just not paying attention ;) Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2015 (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) 06:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Hrabri-class submarine

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Hrabri-class submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Hrabri-class submarine/archive1

The Hrabri-class were the first Yugoslav submarines. One was captured by the Italians in April 1941 and subsequently scrapped, and the other escaped to Crete then Egypt, remaining in a training role for the rest of the war, but served on in the Yugoslav Navy until 1954. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, similar comments to the article on one of the boats below: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• are there ISSNs that could be added for the periodicals in the References list? These can usually be found on [www.worldcat.org]
• accessdates for the websites?
• "The ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta" --> I think this should possibly be attributed in the text as it seems like an opinion. For instance, "According to the British naval attache, the ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta..." or maybe "Jarman recounts that the British naval attache was very impressed by the ships and their crews while visiting Malta" (or something similar). Thoughts?
• "One of her guns was removed at the end of her career" --> do we know why?
  • G'day Rupert, thanks for the review. I've covered all your points except the gun removal (who knows, the source doesn't say), and also Sturm's points on the FAC of the Nebojsha. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries, I've added my support above. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the balance of this article is off. The description section should be the bulk of the article, and should expand on the info given in the individual boat articles. I'd like to see some discussion of the context of these two submarines - why did Yugoslavia buy them? How did they envision using them? I'd assume not coastal defense, given that they're a bit big for coastal boats, and as I recall, Yugoslavia had intentions of exerting its naval power beyond the Adriatic.
• On a related note, I'd trim down the service history section. I'd leave the first paragraph, and then condense the rest down to one or maybe two more paragraphs
• Sturm and I have been using tables for construction details in our class articles lately - see for instance his current article at ACR or the article I'm about to nominate. While "our way" isn't the only way, I do think it's useful to have it laid out that way. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe I've addressed your points, Parsecboy. While I've been unable to find any reference to the intended use of the subs, I have found a British naval attache report from 1933 that states the Yugoslav naval policy was strictly defensive, aimed at protecting its coast. This is consistent with other things I've read, the Yugoslavs couldn't rely on help in the Adriatic from the French or British, and were always concerned about an enemy blockading of the Straits of Otranto (as well as being very wary of the Italians, who considered the Adriatic their domain. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The background for these boats is lacking. Why these ships and why were they completed so much later than the other L-class boats? Why did Yugoslavia want them?

As I've stated above, I have not been able to definitively establish this. The parts were available, and I assume that meant the boats were cheaper, some later L-class boats were completed in the mid-20s, so these weren't that late. No doubt the British defence staff encouraged the Yugoslavs to buy them from the UK, but I don't have a source that confirms that. So far as why they wanted them, coastal defence appears to be the reason, per my explanation to Parsecboy above.

• Description should be a bit more complete although I suspect that sources are a bit lacking. Propeller diameter and gun/torpedo performance data should be added if available. Friedman's book on Naval Weapons of WWI should suffice for the latter as I'm fairly certain that the boats retained their British 4-inch guns as that's not a caliber in service with the A-H Navy, IIRC.

• that may be true, but I can't find a source that says what the propeller diameter was, and don't have a source that confirms my assumption that the guns were QF 4-inch/L40 Mk IV guns or what the maximum elevation was. Without such sources, it is not possible to establish the range. I also don't have a source for which of the many versions of the 21-inch torpedo were supplied to Yugoslavia, although I assume they were Mark IIs.

• Infobox says test depth, text says operational depth, which is correct? And should be linked anyway.

• The parameter in the infobox only allows for test depth, so I've removed it, as I don't have a definitive source for test depth. While some online sources claim deeper diving depths for L-class subs than the E-class subs, this is the best I've got. I've changed it to diving depth in the text. What should I link it to?

• Move the link for diesel engines to first use and add link in infobox. Also add links for electric motors to infobox and main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: Are you happy with the changes that PM has made, or do you think there is more that is required? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. I'm willing to support at this level, but I think that the amount of information on the background and use of these ships is not enough to meet FAC requirements. Not every article can hope to satisfy the FAC requirements even if all available info is incorporated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - a couple of minor points though:
  • "...and was used by the Royal Navy as a anti-submarine warfare training vessel..." should be "... and was used by the Royal Navy as an anti-submarine warfare training vessel..."
  • Is the capitalization correct here: "Narodna knjiga" (I mean should "knjiga" start with a capital)? I'm assuming this is a place name but I'm unsure so I thought I'd ask in case it was a typo.
  • Image review - File:Yugoslav submarine Hrabri.jpg - licensing and caption looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Ac, that's how it is rendered in Serbo-Croat, it means National Book ie the publisher was called that. Fixed the an. Cheers for the review! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
      • Ack - thanks for checking. Anotherclown (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2015 (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) 02:06, 19 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō/archive1

When the Pacific War began, the Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō was being converted from an ocean liner to an aircraft carrier. She was completed in time to participate in the Aleutians Campaign in June 1942 and then supported forces during the Guadalcanal Campaign later in the year. Her air group was often stripped from her during 1943 and used in defense of Rabaul and other Japanese bases, while she was used as a ferry. Torpedoed twice the following year, she was still able to participate in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Her repairs were suspended in early 1945 as uneconomical and the Americans agreed after the Japanese surrender so she was scrapped the following year. I've recently overhauled the article after many years away and I believe that it meets the A-class standards. As always I'm looking for infelicities of language, unexplained jargon and any stray examples of BritEng that I may have missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work as usual. A couple of nitpicks/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Image-Japanese aircraft carrier Junyo 2 cropped.jpg": suggest changing the 2010 date on this to 1945, and I don't think the uploader is the copyright holder (even if it has been cropped/retouched)
• "File:Japanese aircraft carrier Junyo.jpg": source is dead and description page probably should be edited to include more details such as the date of the photograph, a description, author etc.
  • Update: Apart from the issues above (which have now been fixed), the images seem to be correctly licenced to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• punctuation: "in 1944, "As a Memorial to.." --> "in 1944, as a "Memorial to..."
• in the References, the Silverstone work doesn't appear to have been specifically cited. As such, I'd suggest moving it to Further reading, or citing it
• the heading "Jun'yō's ship bell" could probably just be "Ship's bell" or even just "Bell" (not a big deal, though, if you don't agree)
• " 4 in two twin mounts" --> "four in two twin mounts"?
• "due to bad weather and an American..." --> "due to bad weather, although an American..."?
• numeral presentation: "she launched 9 Zeros..." --> "she launched nine Zeros"
• as above: "attacked by 8 Curtiss P-40 fighters that shot down 2 Zeros and a pair of D3As while losing 2 of their own" --> "attacked by eight Curtiss P-40 fighters that shot down two Zeros and a pair of D3As while losing two of their own"
• as above: "3 more in storage, for the..." --> "three more in storage, for the..."
• "Mitsubishi Heavy Industries" is overlinked
  • I dropped the whole bell para as it wasn't sourced. Remember that WP:NUMNOTES requires: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures", which trumps the normal rule for spelling out numbers below 10.
    • G'day, yes I'm aware of that policy, and I still feel the instances highlighted above are incorrectly presented. Equally, the article is inconsistent in its approach. For instance, compare in the article "...attack the American ships, including six B5Ns, six D3As, escorted by six Zeros". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I've only tried to be consistent within each paragraph, not article-wide, and every number for aircraft in that para is spelled out, so I'm not seeing what the issue is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see now. Ok, no worries. I think that maybe it would be best to spell them all out, for consistency sake, but it's a minor thing. I'm sure the FAC reviewers will have a better handle on it than I do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I cleaned up the photos' copyright info and adopted most of your other suggestions. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

• From now on, I'm doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. So, here's your peer review: I've copyedited down to Armor, armament and sensors and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first.
• The second paragraph uses the word "repair" a lot. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Good to hear, Dan. That word is a bit too often used; I've substituted a couple of others in its place. Thanks for checking it out.

Support Comments This article is in good shape. I have only the following comments:

• "Her aircraft were disembarked several times and used from land bases in a number of battles" - little bit awkward/repeditive
• "In exchange for a 60% subsidy of her building costs by the Navy Ministry, she was designed to be converted to an aircraft carrier" - can you expand on this a bit? (perhaps also noting that this was part of a program which involved a few other ships, and that she was intended as a second/third tier warship)
• Can anything be said about the transition between building the ship as a liner and finishing her as a carrier?
• "Jun'yō‍ '​s keel was laid down by Mitsubishi on slipway No. 3 at their shipyard in Nagasaki on 20 March 1939 as yard number 900 under the name Kashiwara Maru." - all the numbers make this a bit of a mouthful! Could it be split into two sentences? (and is the slipway number needed?)
• "Most of the surviving Japanese aircraft were forced to land on the undamaged Jun'yō" - the reason for this isn't explained Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've dealt with all of these, I think, see how they read to you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That looks good. I'd suggest further work against my second and third points as the article is prepared for a FAC, but the A-class criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Support looks solid, with very minor comments below:

• "as the fast luxury passenger liner Kashiwara Maru by Nippon Yusen Kaisha (Japan Mail Steamship Company) in late 1938. " - it feels as though there should be a "the" somewhere in the second half of htis, perhaps "as the fast luxury passenger liner Kashiwara Maru by Nippon Yusen Kaisha (the Japan Mail Steamship Company) in late 1938."
• "When Jun'yō first commissioned only the rangefinders were fitted " - a missing "was" after first
• " Mitsubishi on slipway No. 3 at their shipyard" - is the capitalisation of "No." right here? It doesn't seem to be part of a proper name (unless it was "Slipway Number 3").
• "These give her a 10°–12° list to starboard" - "gave". Hchc2009 (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for catching these and giving me an opportunity to fix them.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2015 (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) 04:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Coast Guard Squadron One

Nominator(s): Cuprum17 (talk)

Coast Guard Squadron One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it a stable article that is ready for review and I also believe that I finally have enough experience to help the reviewers in their assessment of the article. The only recent changes involve the repair of dead links caused by the change in format earlier this year for citations drawn from the Naval History and Heritage Command website. I have tested each link and have determined that they are now operative for the new web addresses. Warning!!!: This is my first and only A Class Review, so this is new territory for me. Am I nervous? Yes, I am, but I feel it is time to learn the process so that I will feel comfortable in reviewing other A Class articles. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cuprum, welcome! Here's an image review to start you off - let me know if anything needs further explanation.

• File:VTN_USCGSQ1_Patch.jpg: is there any further information about this image? Any ideas about the date?

No idea on the date or origin of the unit patch. Here is the original Coast Guard Historian's Office image: [6] The Historian's Office doesn't include anything on its origin in their website; however, everything on their website is in the public domain unless otherwise stated. The patch image is not attributed to another person or entity. As for the date, it would have been produced sometime after March 1965 and before August 1970, with a likely date of 1965 when the squadron was commissioned. Done

• File:VTN_Mortar_Color_Firing.jpg: suggest using only the second of the two licensing tags
  •  Done
• File:VTN_Pt_Welcome_1.jpg: any idea of the date?
  • No idea on the date of the photograph of Point Welcome. The origin of the photograph is the Coast Guard Historian's Office website [7]. They do not have any records of the photo's date.
  •  DoneRemoved offending photograph.
• File:Vietnam_gallantry_cross_unit_award-3d.svg and File:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_Ribbon.png: licensing should be the same as for File:Vietnam_Service_Ribbon.svg
  • This is somewhat troublesome. The Vietnam Service Medal ribbon is the work of a U.S. Government employee and has the correct license. The other awards were presented to U.S. service personnel and units by the Republic of Vietnam and are not really creations by a U.S. Government employee. What do you suggest?
    • Wouldn't Vietnamese law apply? The current government is the legal successor of the RoV. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Theoretically. However, immediately after the fall of the RoV, the current government refused to recognize intellectual property rights of any kind - it's unclear what the restoration process was and whether an RoV copyright would be recognized now. I also don't know what the RoV's laws were with regards to government copyright, as it's possible there is no copyright to recognize (if they adopted a model similar to the US of govt works being PD). I've been trying to find more information on this but thus far haven't had any luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: DoneRemoved all images of unit awards from section in question because of public domain concerns. I know that the United States awarded unit ribbons are in the public domain, but leaving them in the article makes the other two citations look empty. To keep the assessment of the article moving forward it is easier to just remove the questionable material.Cuprum17 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria:Replaced images that were produced by the U.S. Government. Did not put images of foreign awards because of questionable license issues. Done
• File:VTN_Comm_SQ1_Color.jpg: did you get this directly from the Coast Guard, from some publication of theirs, or from a third-party source? (Is this from the historian's office, as with File:VTN_82s_Loaded_1.jpg?). Same for File:VTN_SQ1_Subic.jpg. If we can be slightly more specific about sourcing for these, this should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria:File:VTN Comm SQ1 Color.jpg, File:VTN_82s_Loaded_1.jpg, File:VTN_SQ1_Subic.jpg. were taken from the Coast Guard Historian's Office site at this web address. Anything posted to the Historian's website is in the public domain as a work of a Coast Guard employee unless there is attribution to another source listed with it. There was no outside attribution listed. Coast Guard regulations prohibit the use of copyrighted material without permission and attribution, so the Historian's Office won't publish anything not in the public domain. Hope this helps, if not please let me know. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • That helps, yes - could you add that more specific source to the two image description pages? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria:  Done Added source to Commons files for File:VTN_Comm_SQ1_Color.jpg and File:VTN_SQ1_Subic.jpg Cuprum17 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
        • Great, should be good to go then. By the way...pings won't work unless the ping and signature happen in the same edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I've decided to take a bit of a break from reviewing A-class articles for a while, but I'd be happy to help you with this one. I took a quick run through and made a couple of tweaks. I have the following comments/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• this seems inconsistent: (in the lead) "Its formation marked the first time since World War II that Coast Guard personnel were used in a combat environment." v. "Coast Guard had only a very minor role in combat operations during the Korean War" (in the body of the article)

Changed lead to read: "Its formation marked the first time since World War II that Coast Guard personnel were used extensively in a combat environment." Done

• " signed a memorandum of understanding where the Coast Guard would supply..." Perhaps this might be better as: " signed a memorandum of understanding stating that the Coast Guard would supply "

Sounds better... Done

• I think you should link Officer (armed forces) on first mention of "officers" in the Crew training and commissioning section

 Done

• (in the lead): "Coast Guard Squadron One was a combat unit formed by the United States Coast Guard in 1965 under the operational control of the United States Navy during the Vietnam War and assigned duties in Operation Market Time." This sentence is possibly trying to do a bit too much. Perhaps it could be tightened thusly: "Coast Guard Squadron One was a combat unit formed by the United States Coast Guard in 1965 for service during the Vietnam War. Placed under the operational control of the United States Navy, it was assigned duties in Operation Market Time."

I like it! Done

• (in the infobox) the nickname "RONONE" probably needs a citation as it doesn't appear in the body of the article;

 Done

• " Squadron One and its remaining division, Division 13, came to an end" --> " Squadron One and its remaining division, Division 13, ceased to exist"?

used the term "decommissioned" instead, hopefully that works... Done

• "the Office of Senior Coast Guard Officer, Vietnam" --> "the Office of the Senior Coast Guard Officer, Vietnam"?

 Done

• " when military operations became intense during 1967" --> " when military operations intensified during 1967"?

 Done

• "All Squadron personnel distributed gifts of candy and toys as well as clothing, soap and toothpaste during the Christmas holidays at local orphanages that had been donated by Coast Guard families in the United States and brought to Vietnam on the Commandant's airplane" --> "During the Christmas holidays, at local orphanages squadron personnel distributed gifts of candy and toys as well as clothing, soap and toothpaste that had been donated by Coast Guard families in the United States and brought to Vietnam on the Commandant's airplane"?

 Done

• the header "Crew training and commissioning of Squadron One" probably could get away with removing the article title e.g. "Crew training and commissioning"

 Done

• in the References, instead of "New York, New York", I'd suggest "New York City, New York" (minor nitpick though);

 Done

• Anyway, that's it from me. Very interesting article. Thanks for your efforts and good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • All my comments have been addressed, so I've added my support for promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Welcome to A-class. We've done a pretty good job of covering A-class for years, but some of us are on a break at the moment so it might be a few weeks ... I'm sure we'll get this one sooner or later. You're in the right place. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• So far, I have copyedited down to Division 13.
• "Division 12 got underway accompanied by the music of Cast Your Fate to the Wind transmitted over the radio circuit by the crew of Division 11 cutter Point Banks.": I think you're going to get some pushback on some of the sentences that have a nostalgic feel, or have more detail than we usually see at A-class or FAC. These questions aren't really my call, so I'll stop copyediting for now and wait to see what other reviewers think. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done

• I'd still prefer to see comments from another reviewer before I continue. There are some differences in style and content from what I'm used to, and I'd rather not make those calls. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Okay, if you pass Peacemaker's review you'll have your 3 supports, so you won't need one from me. I have no objections to this article's promotion. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • I did a copy edit and made a few other changes - my edits are here [8].
  • "Concern by top MACV advisors as to whether the SVN..." do you mean "RVN" here?
    • corrected. Done
  • "At 00:01 on 12 June 1965..." do we need to be so precise? (minor nitpick / suggestion only) Done
  • There is some inconsistency in the presentation of Vietnamese place names throughout. Specifically in some places you use diacritics and some you don't. WP:DIACRITICS is the relevant policy and states that either style is correct so I think all that is necessary is for consistency either way. Personally as I neither understand their meaning nor am I able to type them with my English language keyboard I do not use them; however, it is entirely up to you which you choose.
    • Not sure what to do here. I will attempt to make all of the place names with the diacritic marks. I am afraid that if I make all the place names without them that someone will come along and change at least some of them back to diacritics. There are editors from Project Vietnam that are sensitive to the issue and make changes, but they haven't caught all the instances where the diacritics are needed. Working on it...
      • That's fine, it is of cse entirely up to you but diacritics are in no way mandatory and if you are concerned about it any editor that was to make such a change without first gaining a consensus to add them to an article that did not use them would likely be editing contrary to the ARBCOM ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk in 2005 which found that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." It further found that that doesn't include simply implementing one's "preferred style", although it is acceptable to make such changes to ensure the internal consistency of an article. As such they couldn't impose such a change on the article without discussion first. Like I said though I'm happy with either style you choose as long as its consistent. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I think it would be much easier to remove all diacritics for the simple fact that some place names in Vietnam don't have diacritical marks in the name of the place and the end result would be a mixture of some with and some without and it would look kind of like it does now. That was the way the article was written in the first place and I let the changes stand because I was unaware of the policy on diacritical marks. With the marks all removed, this should put this problem to rest. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
        • @Anotherclown: In your opinion would the diacriticals need to be removed from the table at "Cutter assignment and disposition information"? Before I actually undertake such an edit I would like an opinion or two on its necessity. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Good question. On the one hand removing them all would of cse result in consistency throughout the entire article; however, the table as it is currently is at least complete and internally consistent. As such I'd see no major issue with you leaving the table as is (but making the article consistent) if that was your preference. To be honest if it was me I would bin the lot to avoid possible future issues, but I'd say there is probably some wiggle room available if necessary. That's really only my two cents worth though (as I'm not sure there really is any policy which covers the issue specifically). I guess I'm really saying its up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Removed diacritical marks from table Done
  • "...Division 12 got underway accompanied by the music of Cast Your Fate to the Wind..." Yes, I agree with Dank's advice above about this, it is probably too nostalgic for Wiki.
    • Removed with some reservations. War is not all names and numbers and killing... Done
      • Completely agree with that! Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of times, for instance "..at the port city of Da Nang at 07:00..." vs "...At 0715 the USS Haverfield arrived on..." (colon vs no colon)
    •  Done I think...
  • "...nine other crewmen were injured along with a SVN liaison officer..." should this be "RVN" here too?
    • corrected. Done
  • "...what would be later be referred to as the "Tet Offensive"..." not sure the quotation marks are req'd around Tet Offensive.
    • Removed. Done
  • "...However, requests for naval gunfire support by land based..." → "land-based"
    • Corrected. Done
  • "...considerable damage to Hobart and injury to several of her crew..." This is a bit of an understatement. Casualties aboard Hobart from this incident included two killed and eight wounded (for a reference see Jeffrey Grey (1998) Up Top: The Royal Australian Navy and Southeast Asian Conflicts 1955-1972, pp. 176-179)
    •  Done@Anotherclown:Changed copy to include deaths and used Grey as a citation reference. The references that I had available did not suggest deaths occurred aboard Hobart and I it was not my intention to minimize the incident. Thank you for providing a reference for this tragic incident and I'm just sorry it was an Aussie editor that had to find this oversight. If I have mis-cited this information, I trust that a correction will be made by those that have the reference available.
      • No problems at all, that change looks fine to me (I just tweak the dashes etc). We are all limited by the sources that we have available to us so I'm sure it was an honest representation of the source used on your part. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Throughout you use the terms "Army", "Navy", "Airforce" and "Coast Guard", I'd suggest changing to "US Army", "US Navy", "US Airforce", and "US Coast Guard" etc for clarity. Whilst it is clear to me to which service you are referring it is probably presuming too much and some of our readers might be confused.
    •  Done
  • Some inconsistency in the presentation of numbers, consider "...for an 18 week pilot training..." vs "...a fifteen week program..." vs "eleven-week". AFAIK the correct presentation would be "11-week" per MOS:NUMERAL.
    • From the MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). In spelling out numbers, components from 21 to 99 are hyphenated; larger ones are not (fifty-six, five hundred). I will adopt the number method rather than spelling out the expression unless it is the beginning of a sentence.
      •  Done
      • Your change looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • These points aside I thought this was an excellent article. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Adding my support now as the majority of my points have been addressed (I'll leave the issue of the table to your judgement). I didn't know much about USCG operations in Vietnam before reading this and found the article very interesting. All the best taking it even further if you choose to. Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• toolbox checks are all ok except alt text for images, which is not a requirement at ACR
• In the Background section
  • county should be country Done
  • suggest linking Junk (ship), United States Army, Airstrike, Mortar (weapon), Anti-tank grenade, Recoilless rifle, United States Navy, Radar picket, Operation Market Time, Berth (sleeping), Mess (in the latter case, at first mention) Done
  • one million rather than 1 million, per MOS:NUMERAL Done
  • 82 mm should be 82 mm to ensure a non-breaking space, this should be implemented for all such measurements DoneThanks for your edit on this, I didn't understand the significance of the non-breaking space at first
  • comma after alarms on the bridge Done
  • LST should be in full Done
  • I don't think the description of the Mk2 dual mount is adequate. It was a unique set-up and few will be familiar with it.
    • @Peacemaker67:There is no article on the mount in Wikipedia or I would have linked it. The two links are the closest I could come to giving more information on the mount. There was no M-number ever used to describe the mount because it was a lash-up solution to a problem. Any detailed description of the mount moves away from the focus of the article which is the squadron and its operations. What do you suggest that I do? I stand corrected, after some research, I did find an article on the internet that discusses the Mk 2 mount so I have included it in a footnote. If the reader is interested, they can follow the link in the footnote. ( A side note: I may try to develop an article on the Mk 2 mount if I can find a second source of information...possibly using Wells in the reference section.) Done
      • I suggest the following , in place of which each cutter was fitted with a combination mount consisting of a 81 mm mortar which could be either drop-fired or trigger fired, above which was mounted a .50 caliber M2 Browning machine gun. The mortar could be fired in both indirect and direct modes, and was equipped with a recoil cylinder. Done
      • I also suggest that you attempt to obtain a free photo of the combination mount for inclusion in the article.
        • Need to find something for this very fine suggestion...may take a day or two, if such a picture exists. Found picture on official CG site and put in article Done
  • Given that Operation Market Time has already been introduced, the final sentence seems redundant.Removed Done
• Crew training and unit commissioning
  • What ranks were the officers that were added to the complement, esp what rank were the commanders of the cutters?clarified officer ranks Done

• Naval Base Subic Bay
  • the handling of this reads a bit weirdly, because the first two divisions deployed there and to Vietnam before the third division even deployed there.
    • @Peacemaker67:This is handled in chronological order. I am not sure how else to do this. The Division 13 activation was an afterthought and a follow-on deployment of additional cutters and crews. The two other divisions were already actively in combat when the need for additional coverage in the southern area of the country was decided upon. Suggestions?
  • Division 11 consisted of nine cutters and a U.S. Navy support ship Was the support ship the LST USS Floyd County? If so, I would state it in this sentence. Done
  • Division 12 consisted of 8 cutters but then in the following sentence the LST USS Snohomish County is listed as the support ship? Did this support ship allocation continue? It isn't clear.
    • Edited paragraph for clarity Done
  • the map in this section needs some work. I suggest getting rid of the "North Vietnam", "Laos", "Cambodia" and "South China Sea" labels, which obscure the important information, which is the locations and labels of the bases. Also, the label for Phu Quoc Island is partially "off the map", and should be moved to the "top" position. The labels also use a lower case d for div, and I think that should be rendered as Div.
    • Left South China Sea label as I don't think it covers anything important. Done
      • Actually, it covers Cat Lo (which again, you could move to the top position), but I really don't see what the South China Sea label adds.
        • This is interesting. The map displays on my computer with nothing covered up. I will remove the South China Sea label because if you can't see the Cat Lo label then I am sure there are others that have the same issue. Done
• Operations
  • U.S Navy, U.S. Coast Guard or RVN is missing a period after U.S Done
  • the areas varied in size, do you mean length? Done
  • "stateside" is too informal, perhaps "used by the CG in the U.S."? Much better... Done
  • at Cat Lo on 22 February 1966 Done
  • suggest in an effort to deny food, water and ammunition to the Viet Cong operating in the Rung Sat Special Zone Done
  • suggest mentioning that Brister was a DER, also Haverfield Done
  • suggest mentioning that the F-100 provided close air support, as the purpose isn't clear from what is there. Done
  • suggest stating that Tortuga was a dock landing ship Done
  • suggest specifying what type of aircraft strafed Point Welcome rather than just providing their numbers, ie B-57 Canberra tactical bomber and F-4 Phantom fighter-bomber Done
  • suggest severely damaged and despite nine 5 to 9 inch (13 to 23 cm) wide holes in the main deck, the hull was undamaged Done
  • was there an inquiry into the Point Welcome incident and what was the outcome?
    • Yes, there was a board of investigation. I will need to research this and put it in some kind of order. Thank you for you input on this. I will need a day or so to check my references and write this up. Done
  • suggest mentioning that Gallup was a gunboat and Walker a destroyer Done
  • suggest dropping swift boat PCF-79, as you've already established that PCFs are swift boats Done
  • suggest At 02:00 on 15 July, the trawler was boxed in and ablaze, and ran aground 200 yards (180 m) from shore. Done
  • worth mentioning and linking to Owasco-class cutter when you mention the Androscoggin, Winona, and Minnetonka Done
  • you could safely delete {xt|a U.S. Navy swift boat, the}}, again we know PCF means a swift boat Done
  • assisted Regional Forces troops Done
  • describing NGS provided by a 81 mm mortar as "heavy" just doesn't sound right, perhaps just drop it
    • I guess it would only be heavy if you were on the receiving end! Having been on the receiving end of Viet Cong 82-mm mortar personally, I can attest that it is at least impressive, if not heavy...anyway, I took the "heavy" out of the article. Done
  • delete U.S. Navy swift boats again, we know what they are. Done
  • wounded Regional Forces troops Done
  • when mentioning Hernandez's BSM, drop Zumwalt's rank, firstname and initial, per MOS:SURNAME, as he's already been mentioned in full on first mention. Done
  • was killed inby ambush fire Done Much better!!!
  • Qui Nhơn needs to drop the diacritic for consistency Done
  • dignitaries from many area naval activities is very wordy. Perhaps naval dignitaries from many areas? Assuming that has the same meaning.
    • Actually, the were probably a dozen "naval activities", or "naval commands" in other words, in the Saigon area. Most were support commands(Seabees, supply, medical, etc. plus Coast Guard and RVN commands.) for ships and aircraft based in the South China Sea as well a riverine operations. "Naval dignitaries from many areas" does not quite describe the gathering. You have to remember that significant part of the "Vietnamization" was pure politics and all commands (or "activities") were told to make a showing for the dog and pony show that it was. I would be inclined to leave this as it stands... Done
• 1970 – Vietnamization and disestablishment
  • The COGARDRON ONE quote should probably end this section, not begin it. Also, COGARDRON ONE hasn't been defined before its use. I suggest it be introduced in the "Crew training and unit commissioning" section. Done
  • Zumwalt should just be Zumwalt, per previous point Done
  • I expect explosive ordnance detachment should be explosive ordnance disposal Done
• Unit and service awards
  • It is not clear what the source is for the statement Squadron One cutters were entitled to display the VSM by virtue of having served in Vietnam for more than thirty days during the eligibility period of 15 November 1961 to 30 April 1975. Done
• See also
  • should not contain any links already included in the text of the article, ie Operation Sealords Done

Great job with this interesting article, I had previously not known of the USCG involvement in Vietnam. That's me done. I have not checked images. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:07, 30 November 2015 (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 Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Peresvet-class battleship

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

• Featured article candidates/Peresvet-class battleship/archive1

The three Russian Peresvet-class battleships were designed to support their armored cruisers in a commerce raiding war if war broke out with the British in the late 19th century. They were optimized for high speed and endurance to this end rather than heavy armor and armament, but the situation was vastly different in the war that they actually fought against the Japanese in 1904–05. The two ships that reached the Far East before war began fought creditably in the two major fleet actions with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were ultimately sunk in harbor. The third ship was part of the Baltic Fleet that was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 and was the first ship sunk during the battle. The other two ship were salvaged and placed into service by the Japanese after the war. One was sold back to the Russians in 1916 and sank after hitting mines in the Mediterranean while the other participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in 1914. She was probably scrapped around 1923. I've recently overhauled the article and believe it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'd like reviewers to look for examples of unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

• " The Peresvet class had five 15-inch (381 mm) torpedo tubes, three above water, one in the bow and one pair of broadside tubes, and two broadside underwater tubes.": I'm not sure I follow.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

• all toolchecks are ok (except alt text which isn't an ACR requirement)
• broadside is overlinked
• 1898–03 in the infobox should be 1898–1903 per WP:DATERANGE
• there are rounding differences between the body and infobox for beam
• the first figures in the displacement range in the body and infobox don't match
• the kW conversions in the body and text don't match
• there is no conversion of the 6-inch guns in the body, but there is in the infobox
  • Converted on first use, which is earlier in the description.
• suggest reversing the conversion on the 37 mm, 47 mm and 75 mm guns in the body and infobox for consistency with the larger guns and torpedo tubes, which are inches first with conversion in mm. Given the armor thicknesses are consistently inches first, it seems incongruous
  • Those guns were bought from France and the Russians retained the metric designations.
• 0.75-inch isn't converted
  • Umm, look earlier in the para
• the 51 mm low range for the deck armor in the infobox isn't clearly established from the body
• Battle of the Yellow Sea should be linked
  • Look in the lede.
• Battle of Tsingtao is linked in the lead but not when mentioned in the body
  • Generally only one link per article, excluding the infobox, except for very long articles.
• the standard note explaining caliber would be a useful addition
  • The link for caliber suffices, IMO.

Comprehensive article, in very good shape, just needs some tweaks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough review; catching all those discrepancies was great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a couple of minor nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Peresvet Brassey's.png": needs a US licence - I'd probably go with PD-US-1923
• "File:Peresviet Port Arthur LOC 3f06353u.jpg": probably needs publication details - these can be found here: [9]
• "gun turrets and their support tubes, which were made from Krupp armor" --> "gun turrets and their support tubes, which were fitted with Krupp armor"?
  • I'm really not seeing any problems with the wording here.
    • To my ear at least, " which were made from Krupp armor" implies that the whole item was made of Krupp armour, as opposed to "which were fitted with Krupp armor" which implies that the armour was attached to the item which was made from something else. I don't know which is correct as I'm strictly a land-based animal, but the first instance doesn't seem quite right to me. I could be wrong, though, of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I thought that I'd replied already, sorry for the delay. The turrets and their support tubes were made from armor plating, although I'm sure some structural members were ordinary steel, unlike belt armor which was generally layered over the ordinary steel of the hull.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
        • No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• "reclassified as 1st-class" --> "reclassified as first-class" (for consistency with "the second-class battleships")
• otherwise I believe this article meets the A-class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Because this is the last of the four articles on these ships, of which all the others are already FA, I didn't even think to check the copyright status of the photos not used in the other articles. So thanks very much for thinking to look at them and I adopted one of your suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support - couple of minor points though:
  • "... These guns had serious development..." consider instead "... These guns had major development..." (minor nitpick, suggestion only)
    • It's a good nitpick.
  • "...The guns were designed to fire once every 40 seconds, but in service they fired at half that rate..." I wonder if an explanation for why this proved to be the case should be provided? (suggestion only)
    • I wish I could tell the reader; I've never been able figure exactly why they had such a slow rate of fire
  • Some minor inconsistency in presentation, consider "2nd Pacific Squadron" vs " Second Pacific Squadron". (action req'd)
    • Done.
  • "The mines had been laid by the submarine SM U-73...", perhaps mention that it was a German submarine for context? (suggestion only)
    • Good idea.
  • Article easily meets the A class criteria regardless of these points. Anotherclown (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for reviewing this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2015 (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) 07:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

76th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

76th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The 76th Infantry Division was a British Second World War formation that stayed at home for the duration of the war. It went through several transformations: initially from a coastal defense unit, to a training formation, and eventually to a phantom division that plagued German fears about an invasion of their northern shores. The article has passed it's GA review, and eventually I would like to further elevate the article's status to FA. All comments welcome. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Support: I believe that this meets the A-class criteria. I've done some copyediting, so please check you are happy with my changes. In addition, I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The division was involved in establishing the ability of the German intelligence services"... was it actively involved in this? If so, in what way? Or was it just the circumstance of its existence?

It is the latter; Hesketh uses the division as an example of one of the many inaccuracies in the German document, which aided in establishing that the Germans were intercepting wireless communications. Does some rewording need to take place?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

G'day, yes, in that case, I think it should be reworded slightly as currently it sounds like it was actively involved, e.g. mounted some sort of operation to find this out. I'm struggling to think right now as I seem to have gotten crook (translation for proper English speakers: "unwell") over the weekend. Perhaps just remove the topic sentence "The division was involved ..." and then adjust the second sentence. Sorry, I'm not being much help here...I'll try to come back when I'm thinking more clearly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• "1st Leicestershire Regiment" --> should this be "1st Battalion, Leicestershire Regiment" for consistency? Same same with 18th Welch?

So use to lingo, I have made the amendmentsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC).

• "The other two formations were the 48th and 77th Infantry Divisions" --> I suggest just working this note into the body of the article, rather than keeping it as a note

I have made a change, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• same as above for: "The 80th Infantry (Reserve) Division."

Integrated.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• "completed their Corps training" --> probably should be lower case "corps" here;

Amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• "other training divisions (the 48th, 77th, and the 80th)" --> the links here could be dropped if you incorporate the two points above about these formations;

Removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Anyway, that's it from me. Good luck with taking the article further and thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries, your changes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dabs, external links check out, citation check tool reveals no issues, no dublicate links. (no action req'd)
  • No alt text provided for images so you might consider adding it (not an ACR req, so a suggestion only)
  • Do File:8th Royal Lincolnshire Regiment Norfolk July 1941.jpg and File:Eastern Command training 1942.jpg need a PD US tag?
    • The copyright stuff is not my forte, but I was under the impression that the PD-UKGov tag pretty much covers it. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "New recruits to the army...", should army be capitalized here?
    • Amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Notably, the formation was used..." delete notably (per WP:PEACOCK)
    • Amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Repetitive language here: "was intended to be used for the imaginary Operation Trolleycar. This operation was intended..." (intended twice in close proximity, perhaps reword one?)
    • Removed the latter.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • In the lead "...the division was disbanded." probably add the year (i.e. 1944) to provide a more complete summary.
    • Done.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This sentence seems a bit awkward to me: "In 1940, in the early stages of the Second World War following the Battle of France, the United Kingdom was under threat of invasion from Nazi Germany" Consider instead something like: "In the early stages of the Second World War following the Battle of France in 1940, the United Kingdom was under threat of invasion from Nazi Germany..."
    • Amended per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Late in the year..." Do you mean late in 1941? Or do you mean that in late 1940 the British government believed an invasion was possible in 1941? I found this sentence confusing.
    • I made a change here, does this work? The battalions were formed into new units during late 1940, because the they believed an invasion would occur during 1941.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "Using the recruits in this manner allowed..." there seems to have been an illogical progression here. I'm assuming the County Divisions were made up of recruits as a result of this phrase, but you don't actually state this prior.
    • I don't follow, as I can see the article following the progression: the size of the army swells with new recruits, new battalions are formed with these men, who are in turn handed over to the County Divisions. Can you clarify or provide a suggestion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I guess I'm wondering at what point in the training of these men / the raising of the units and formations of the division did the men cease being "recruits" and become trained "soldiers"? The implication from the sentence is that they were still recruits when the division was raised, i.e. to my mind "untrained". If that was the case then there is no change required, it just seems counterintuitive to me because I would have assumed that they would have gone through individual recruit training and then collective training at sub-unit, unit and even brigade level prior to the formation of the division (given that you say these units were formed independently to start off with) and hence would have been "trained" soldiers by the time they became part of the division. I accept that this may not have been the case though given the exigencies of the early war period, so perhaps a different process took place. Happy to leave it up to you to decide what to do here (including to keep it as is of cse). Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
        • I see, thank you. I overlooked this earlier. I have amended this now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Repetitive language here: "...the threat of a German invasion of the United Kingdom. However, the British still had to consider the threat of a German invasion..." (specifically use of phrase "threat of German invasion"). This could probably be worded more succinctly.
    • Made some changes.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This sentence could be tightened: "The war-establishment, the on-paper strength, of an infantry division at this time was 17,298 men." Consider instead: "The war-establishment on paper of an infantry division at this time was 17,298 men." or something like that.
  • "...the army overhauled how..." → "...the Army overhauled how..."
    • Amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Slightly repetitive prose here: "Utterson-Kelso took command of the 47th Infantry (Reserve) Division, which took over...", consider instead something like: "Utterson-Kelso assumed command of the 47th Infantry (Reserve) Division, which took over..."
    • Amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • "During 1944, the British army..." → "British Army" (caps for proper noun)
    • Amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there a missing word here: "As a deception unit, the division was assigned to notional Operation Trolleycar...", should it be "As a deception unit, the division was assigned to the notional Operation Trolleycar..."
    • Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Repetitive language here: "...notional Operation Trolleycar.[32] Trolleycar was initially envisioned as a notional amphibious assault..." (notional twice), consider instead: "the notional Operation Trolleycar.[32] Trolleycar was initially envisioned as a fictitious amphibious assault ..." or something similar. Anotherclown (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Amended.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments. However, I will not be able to address the above issues until next Thursday, at the earliest. Till then.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have amended the article per suggestions, and left a comment for the suggestion not yet taken up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I've added my support now as the article meets the criteria IMO. I'll leave it up to you as to what you decide re the "recruits" cmt above. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks very much.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Looks fine to me. I'm a little puzzled though as to why we've prioritised an obscure division like the 76th. (Although the viewing stats tall me the difference between obscure British divisions and famous ones isn't that great.) A pity no one has written up John Edward Utterson-Kelso, who won the DSO twice in the Great War.

• "due the losses suffered during the" I think the word "to" is required in here.

Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dank for your edits, and Hawkeye for your comments (I have fixed the missing word highlighted). As for the why: I spotted an error on the 70th Div article, which resulted in me rewriting it and during that process I found some info on the 80th that turned into me writing up all the reserve divs (save the 45th, I havent got there yet).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Image review I have reviewed all the images in this article, and with my unschooled yet wary eye, I see no issues with their licensing. I would be glad if that doyenne of image licensing, Nikkimaria would check my work. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Close - we just need to include a licensing tag for the design used for File:Flag_of_the_British_Army.svg, as well as the image itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nikki! If you could sort that one, EnigmaMcmxc, this looks ready to be nominated for promotion. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have added the PD-UKGov tag, and removed the other stuff which clearly is not appropriate. Is this sufficient?

If not, yikes it is a toughy! Other than a like million google hits with copies of the flag, I have found nothing to state it officially exists (other than the Queen's Regs, which only describes it) and nothing that backs up the story on the apparent source site of it being created in 1938. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Er, I don't see where you have added that tag? It's not on the image page. And is there an earlier regulations document that describes it? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, my bad! I messed around with the wrong one (it appears there are two or more of the same image on the commons); I will add the PD-UKGov tag tomorrow.

As for earlier regs, The King's Regulations for the Army and the Royal Army Reserve, 1940 would appear to be the earliest one after the flag was unveiled but I have yet to find a copy online. I shall continue the hunt tomorrow.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

After much tinkering, how does it look now?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that works, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2015 (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) 12:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Operation Ironside

Nominator(s): Errant ^(chat!)

Operation Ironside (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Operation Ironside/archive1

Ironside. One of the components of Operation Bodyguard, part of my deception series. A slightly less impactful side show compared to Operation Fortitude, I got this to Good Article back in '13. At the time I felt there just wasn't much to write about Ironside... it was a sideshow for the Allies and it shows in how little impact it had on the Germans (who just carried on what they were doing regardless). However, recent work on related operations teased out more details. With another 600 words (nearly 60% more) and some additional sources/fact checking I think it's A-Class material.

At this stage in the war it was pretty clear that Western France was the Allies primary target, but Bodyguard was hugely effective in confusing Germany as to where exactly the hammer would fall and in what numbers. Ironside suffered sorely from being just a little too out of reach of Allied air cover to be feasible, but despite this German forces hung around just in case. The operation is really just a minor footnote compared to Fortitude. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias

Prose

• "Ironside formed part of Operation Bodyguard a broad strategic.." I'd put a comma after "Operation Bodyguard".
• "Planned by London Controlling Section.." Insert "the" before London Controlling Section.
• What is a "a second-line agent"?
• "..beyond fighter cover.." This should clarify that it is about air cover; "fighter" alone is ambiguous.
• "During the early war German intelligence.." This might be clearer written as "During the early stages of the war, German intelligence.." or similar.
• Is there a suitable wikilink for German intelligence; was it just Abwehr spies, or others too?
• "Ironside was begun on 23 May 1944 with the aim of having the threat established by May 29 and continued until June 28.." Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, stick with one date format; if you use DD MMMM YYYY, you need to also use DD MMMM, not MMMM DD. (The rest of the dates are all DD MMMM, so I guess this was a solitary slip-up.
• In the lead, the agent's codenames are italicised, but in the Operation section they are not; be consistent.
• "..between the 2nd and 20th of June.." should be "..between 2 and 20 June.."
• "..because it was out of the range of fighter cover from the United Kingdom." As in the lead, make it clear that this refers to air cover.

Sources

• The Macintyre book is missing a location, and links the publisher, which is inconsistent with all the other sources used.

Overall, this article looks is very good shape, the comments above are all pretty minor copy-edits. An interesting read. Harrias ^talk 12:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I've addressed all but one of your comments in these edits. Regarding "fighter cover" can you explain what you'd see as the difference between fighter and air cover? The sources are explicit and consistent into referring to it as fighter cover. I'm happy to change it (as I don't see a functional difference) but before I do I wanted to be clear about interpretations. So in short: does "no fighter cover" == "it was not possible for fighters to fly over the invasion fleet" == "no air cover"--Errant ^(chat!) 13:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My only issue is that it isn't necessarily obvious that "fighter" refers to "fighter aircraft". Fighter, as demonstrated by our disambiguation page, can refer to many things. It just needs to be clarified that "fighter cover" refers to fighter aircraft, not for example, a soldier. Harrias ^talk 14:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeh valid point. Changed it to "air cover" in the lead and "fighter air cover", with appropriate wl, in the prose. Does that work better? --Errant ^(chat!) 14:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support good work, a nice article. Harrias ^talk 15:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• Good to see you back, Errant, I've enjoyed your FAC work over the years.
• "a number of": Some FAC reviewers frown on the phrase, and I tend to agree. Verbally, when you know the person you're talking to, it can be useful; in print, it tends to be ambiguous. I deleted all three instances of it, and substituted "several" in one place. Feel free to leave it as is or substitute words like "several" or "a few". - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that's very kind :) And likewise I've always appreciated your reviews and copyediting! Yep, you're right it's a lazy phrasing and reads better without. I replaced "several" with "six" because then it's even less coy. Cheers! --Errant ^(chat!) 22:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• " However, they were all captured or surrendered and subsequently used as an extensive double agent network under the control of the Twenty Committee.": Every spy Germany sent became a double agent?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Valid point, I've rephrased it. Thanks for the support! --Errant ^(chat!) 10:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments: G'day again, Errant, good to see you back at Milhist ACR! Just a few minor suggestions from me. Overall, this looks fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Ironside was begun on..." --> "Ironside began on..."
• "Allied forces would land in the Bordeaux region" --> the link to "Bordeaux" here should be moved to earlier in the article's body where Bordeaux first appears
• "Known to be under enemy control..." --> "Known to be under German control..."?
• The message: "Send £50 quickly. I have need of a dentist". I wonder if it could be explained what was meant by this?
• inconsistent presentation: " ten days" v "12 days"
• "German high command did however expect a series of secondary invasions" --> "The German high command did however expect a series of secondary invasions
• "...in July 1944, in support of Operation Ferdinand" --> the link here should be the same as the one used in the lead
  • Thanks! Done all those bits I think (bit late & tired... but I think I got it all). I couldn't spot any more numerical oddities other than the one you pulled out.. but I might be number blind :) As to Chaudoir's code... wow I can't believe I didn't talk about it in detail. Fixed that now! Thanks for the review & great suggestions. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries, I made a minor tweak, but overall it looks good to me, so I've added my support. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2015 (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) 01:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Calutron

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Calutron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Calutron/archive1

Latest in the Manhattan Project series. If you are looking to build your own atomic bomb at home, then you probably want one of these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Diagram_of_uranium_isotope_separation_in_the_calutron.png: source image is unsourced - any idea where it came from? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

  It was originally downloaded from here. The image link is broken now, but it is archived here. Nowadays, everybody uses the Wikimedia version, as it has been retouched. I have every reason to believe that Westinghouse draftsman Robert Hile Best drew the image as claimed. I have verified that he worked on the project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • "...which was small enough to be carried by a bomber of the day..." I wonder if you need to clarify this as "bomber aircraft"? I'd guess most readers would know what was meant here but maybe the 12 year-olds that apparently read the encyclopedia wouldn't (suggestion only).

    Linked bomber. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "...The principle of electromagnetic separation is simple..." perhaps only to nuclear physicists though, or at least those that understand these things? Maybe either drop this part or reword. One suggestion might be "The principle of electromagnetic separation was considered simple..."

    Changed to "The principle of electromagnetic separation was that" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "...The operator sat in the open end, from whence he..." were all the operators male? From reading the article it sounds like quite a number of the workers on the project were women so the use of "he" might need to be tweaked.

    At this point, yes, but to avoid confusion I have changed it to "The operator sat in the open end, from whence the temperature could be regulated, the position of the electrodes adjusted, and even components replaced through an airlock while it was running." Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "...Eventually, 14,700 short tons (13,300 tonnes; 430,000,000 troy ounces) were used..." → "...Eventually, 14,700 short tons (13,300 tonnes; 430,000,000 troy ounces) of silver were used..." (minor nitpick, suggestion only)

    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • There is some inconsistency in the presentation of building names (hyphens vs endashs), for instance "9204–1" vs "9201-1" (not sure if I mucked this up at some point with a script edit, can't remember - apologies if I did).

    Not sure. Changed to use the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "...This consisted of Alpha product enriched to 13–15%..." and "...enriched to as high as 89%..." probably should be "percent" for consistency with the rest of the article and MOS:PERCENT.

    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • is there a typo or missing word here: "...with a calutron using a magnetic taken from Germany..."? Specifically "a magnetic..."

    Should be "magnet" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Some inconsistency in presentation of units, consider "180 degrees" vs " 180°" (and other examples of degrees vs °)

    Standardised on the degree symbol. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "...for India's first Nuclear test on 18 May 1974..." is the capitalization of "Nuclear" correct here?

    Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Some inconsistency in date format in references, consider: "Simpson, John (October 1991)." vs "Gongpan, Li; Zhizhou, Lin; Xuyang, Xiang; Jingting, Deng (1992-08-01)." (and others) - date in full vs yyyy-mm-dd.

    All should be full date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Anotherclown (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No problems. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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

• For the recurring character in the animated television series Futurama, see Calculon.

• Since the character's name isn't "Calutron" or likely to be confused with that, I recommend deleting this. It sends the wrong message, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• I deleted the formula for uranium bromide to avoid nested parentheses. I think you're probably fine with no link and no formula, but in case you want readers to be able to find the formula, I've created a redlink ... maybe someone will create a nice stub. - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I made a few tweaks, but otherwise it looks pretty good to me. These are my changes: [10] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2015 (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) 10:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

2/3rd Battalion (Australia)

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/3rd Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

One of 44 infantry battalions raised as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force (if the pioneer and machine gun battalions are counted) during World War II, the 2/3rd was among the first raised and its initial volunteers were members of the famed "'39ers club" (men who volunteered in 1939). Forming part of the 16th Brigade, it was assigned to the 6th Division and in early 1940 deployed to the Middle East, subsequently taking part in the first ground action Australian troops fought during the war around Bardia in early 1941. Later it fought in Greece, Crete and Syria, before returning to Australia and subsequently fighting in the Pacific theatre against the Japanese in New Guinea. Conflict of interest disclaimer: my grandfather served in this unit, fighting all the way through Bardia to Wewak where he was wounded by a Japanese sniper. Thank you to all who stop by to review or edit. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed at GA a few years ago and was impressed by this article then, which has continued to develop since. Some minor points though:
  • All images have alt text, no dabs, no repeat links, external links check out, images all seem to be licenced, captions look ok to me (no action req'd).
  • As you said the section on the Syrian campaign was a bit light on previously, but with your recent additions and the bit that I've now added I think this is probably sufficient [11]
  • In the lead this sentence might be misconstrued by someone that doesn't have an understanding of the topic: "it was one of only two Australian infantry battalions to fight against all the major Axis powers of the war – the Germans, Italians, Japanese and Vichy French – seeing action in North Africa, Greece, Crete, and Syria in 1941–42 before returning to Australia following Japan's entry into the war." Potentially this might sound like they fought all four (including the Japanese) in North Africa, Greece, Crete and Syria, which of cse is not what the sentence means. I wonder if it might work better like this: "it saw action in North Africa, Greece, Crete, and Syria in 1941–42 before returning to Australia following Japan's entry into the war, and was one of only two Australian infantry battalions to fight against all the major Axis powers of the war" New Zealand 2nd Division the Germans, Italians, Japanese and Vichy French." Or something like that anyway (suggestion only).
  • "New Zealand 2nd Division", should this be "2nd New Zealand Division" instead?
  • "Initially, 16th Brigade was held in divisional reserve..." → "Initially, the 16th Brigade was held in divisional reserve..."
  • Minor inconsistency with "2nd AIF" vs "Second AIF"
  • In the refs: "Dennis et al 1995. The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History" should probably state that this is the 1st edition. Anotherclown (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review and edits. I think I've gotten all of these now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
      • No problem, those changes look good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I'm taking a break from A-class, but this article is very FAC-worthy, and I'll be happy to review it there if you want to take it there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Does that work for you, AR? Were you planning to take this to FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, Dan, no plans for FAC with this one at the moment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. "less than a month later they occupied the coastal town of But another 6 miles (9.7 km) east": assuming that's right, many readers will read it as a typo. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Dan, I've checked the source...yes that's right. Thanks for your edits and review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support
• It was established with four rifle companies and a headquarters company consisting of several specialist platoons including signals, transport, pioneers and mortars platoons. Not quite. See Long I:52
  • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Link El Kantara, Julis, Derna
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• the commander of the 19th Brigade ie Horace Robertson
  • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Vichy French, Foreign Legion and French colonial forces attempted to resist the Allied invasion True, but a reader might misunderstand. All the opposition were Vichy French, so it's a bit weird then distinguishing the Foreign Legion and French colonial forces. Also, not all the Foreign Legion fought on the Vichy side; the 13th Demi-Brigade fought alongside the Aussies.
  • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• the transport had been attacked by German aircraft, and as it sunk, they were ordered to abandon ship sank?
  • Yes, indeed...not sure how I missed that. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Even though they would eventually have been starved out, the Japanese put up heavy resistance to the Australians' primary tactic of aggressive patrolling Far from certain that they would have been starved out. The Japanese had considerable stocks of food, and they cultivated gardens. They still posed a threat to the base at Aitape, which was why the Australians were moving them on.
  • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• During this time, contact with the Japanese was limited to small-scale actions and the main causes of Australian casualties were disease and accidents. Again, the Australians were not a garrison; their task was to reduce Adachi's force and free the 6th Division for operations in Indonesia.
  • Adjusted. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Casualties from disease were mainly due to a resistant strain of malaria
  • Mentioned malaria, but I haven't yet found a ref for the resistant strain bit, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Try Walker III:364-367 Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
      • @Hawkeye7: Thanks I've added something about this now: [12] Please let me know if you are happy with that. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Members of the 2/3rd received the following decorations: I think we can do without the "the following decorations:"
  • Agreed. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Consider moving the footnotes into the text. Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Done for all except the one in the infobox. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Hawkeye7: I really appreciate you taking the time to review. I've made the following edits: [13]. Please let me know if you think anything else is required. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• @Nikkimaria: Could I please trouble you for an image review? Thank you for your time. Regards,

Image licensing appears straightforward, all pre-1946 (PD-Australia and PD-1996) and links to sources all work; tweaked a caption and also fixed some formatting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2015 (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) 07:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav submarine Hrabri

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav submarine Hrabri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Yugoslav submarine Hrabri/archive1

Hrabri (Brave) was built using parts from a cancelled WWI British L-class submarine, and saw peacetime service in the Royal Yugoslav Navy from 1928. By the time she was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, she was obsolescent, so she was scrapped. Her sister Nebojša passed ACR in late September, and points raised during her review have already been addressed for this article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I made a couple of c/e tweaks: please check that you are happy with those and adjust if desired. In addition, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• are there ISSNs that could be added for the periodicals in the References list? These can usually be found on [www.worldcat.org]
• accessdates for the websites?
• should the translation of the ship's name (Brave) be included in the body of the article somewhere?
• inconsistent: "Their radius of action was 5,000 miles (8,000 km)..." (in the body of the article) v. "Range: 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 km)" (in the infobox)
• "The ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta" --> I think this should possibly be attributed in the text as it seems like an opinion. For instance, "According to the British naval attache, the ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta..." or maybe "Jarman recounts that the British naval attache was very impressed by the ships and their crews while visiting Malta" (or something similar). Thoughts?
  • G'day Rupert, thanks for the review. I have made the above changes, plus a few from the class article and the FAC for the sister boat. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links, no issues with ref consolidation, image has alt text, no MOS issues I could see.
  • Image is PD and seems to have the appropriate information.
  • Caption looks fine.
  • This seems a little repetitive: "British L-class submarine of World War I, and she was built using parts originally assembled for an L-class submarine that was never completed." (Specifically "L-Class submarine" twice in the same sentence). Consider something like "British L-class submarine of World War I, and she was built using parts originally assembled for a submarine of that class which was never completed." (minor prose nitpick, suggestion only).
  • "...and one machine gun..." do we know what calibre? If so it should be added here and to the infobox (I assume it is not detailed in the sources though hence why you haven't included it, I just wanted to check just in case).
  • "Along with her sister ship..." - is it correct to use "ship" here or should this be "sister submarine"?
  • "Along with her sister submarine Nebojša...", this is a little redundant as you have already mentioned Nebojsa was its sister above (another minor nitpick).
  • Otherwise this looks good to me. The article is a little short but given the nature of the vessel's service its length seems appropriate.

Anotherclown (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Ac! Have addressed the prose issues. No detail available for the MG. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 8 November 2015 (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) 22:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Abu'l-Aswar Shavur ibn Fadl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Continuing in the series of lesser-known but fascinating medieval Muslim rulers, this is an article on the greatest representative of the Kurdish Shaddadid dynasty. In many ways an archetypical example of the perpetually feuding petty princes of Transcaucasia, he was an extremely able man and held in high esteem by friend and foe alike. His life spans a watershed period in the region's history, from the final stages of the Byzantine conquest of Armenia to the emergence of the Seljuks as the region's new masters, events in which he inevitably became embroiled and often played a major role. The article relies on two standard works by Minorsky and Ter-Ghewondyan, who between them draw on all available sources, Muslim or Christian. I feel the article is comprehensive and as complete as it can get, my chief worry, as usual, is whether people who don't know anything about the region and period will be able to follow it. Constantine ✍ 10:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Speaking of people who don't know anything about the region...the map. What are you hoping the reader will get out of it? I'm wondering whether you need to translate it, or provide further explanation in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Hmmm, perhaps I don't see the problem because I speak German, but IMO the map should be readable to any English-speaker as the names are almost identical. It is therefore sufficient to give an idea of the main principalities, the situation of the various major cities, etc. I will probably try to translate it though in the weekend. Do you have any other comments/suggestions other than the map? Constantine ✍ 11:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria have you done an image review on this one? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Now done - the only other recommendation is to explicitly identify the copyright status of 3D works as well as that of the photograph. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day again, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest maybe trying to split the lead into two paragraphs (the content summary is fine, but it is maybe just a little two long for a single paragraph);
  • Hmmm, thematically it could be split at the point he moved to Ganja, but at ten sentences it is IMO not long enough to require it. If anything, I thought that the lede was a bit too telegraphic.
    • No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about the way in which the Origins section starts...I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems a little indistinct in the way it describes the subject's birth date etc. Sorry, this comment isn't much help...I will try to have a think about this a bit more and come back later.
  • OK, I'll wait. I've made a few tweaks here and there, though...
    • G'day, thanks for those changes, I think they go quite a way to fixing the issue; I think it would be even better if you could work in some way of mentioning when the subject was born, or if the date isn't known, stating that. Equally, I think the construction "considered the family..." seems a little unclear to what family you are referring. You mean the Shaddadids, of course, but the current wording still just seems a little indistinct. Sorry, again, I'm not being much help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• per MOS:ALLCAPS: the title of the Peacock source should be "Shaddadids";
• be careful of overlink. The duplicate link checker tool reveals several possible examples: Arran (Caucasus); Ganja, Azerbaijan; Medieval Armenia;
• "in about the same time" --> "at about the same time"?
• " he contacted Abu'l-Aswar to attack the Armenians from the rear..." --> " he contacted Abu'l-Aswar and requested that he attack the Armenians from the rear..."?
• "asked of Abu'l-Aswar to assume control of the city..." --> "asked Abu'l-Aswar to assume control of the city"?

Hi AustralianRupert, thanks for taking the time to review this! I've fixed most of the issues you raised. Apart from these, how does it look re understandability etc.? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I'm sorry, this hasn't been my best review. I think I'm going to have to take a break from reviewing for a while. I've been going through something in real life and recently I haven't felt as motivated as I used to be...overall, I think the article is quite good. Thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your effort. I hope your RL troubles resolve themselves soon and to your satisfaction! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• toolchecks ok, including alt text for all images. However, the link for Ter-Ghewondyan resolves with a 403 error (Forbidden)

Lead

• It isn't immediately obvious in the first two sentences of the lead in which part of the modern world Abu'l-Aswar ruled, and some context is needed. Rough context, anyway. Modern day Azerbaijan? Something like "including most of the territory of modern-day XXXX".
• The first sentence is a bit hard to fathom. He ruled at Arran, with his capital in Ganja? If Arran was a geographical region, wasn't he ruling over Arran?
• I suggest using "Shaddadid dynasty" instead of "Shaddadids", otherwise the casual reader will think the Shaddadids were a people.
• Again, more context needed. Dvin was a city, so perhaps be explicit and say "the autonomous lord of the city of Dvin"? And autonomous of whom?
• comma after warrior, otherwise you have two unpunctuated "and"s
• Perhaps refactor the description of the conflicts. Currently, it could be several conflicts with most of his neighbours all at the same time, or several conflicts, each of which was with one or more of his neighbours. Perhaps be more explicit. The lead isn't overly large, and more detail wouldn't hurt and would make it clearer.
• suggest when the Byzantines later turned on him
• were the offensives only against his capital, or against the lands he ruled more generally?
  • Well, Arran is not that big, and Ganja was the main military, political and economic centre. If Ganja fell, then Arran would fall or at least Shaddadid rule over it would collapse.
• suggest and the rebels invited him...
• suggest He undertook successful campaigns (if it was him), and either were exposed by his/their failure
• suggest and extension of its control over
• suggest linking vassal
• no mention of his title of Emir
  • Well, "emir" in Arabic simply means "lord", "commander", "ruler", esp. for autonomous, hereditary rulers as opposed to appointed governors. In a medieval context, it is not a "title" in the western sense of the word, rather a job description. Any autonomous/dynastic Muslim ruler was "emir". He could claim additional titles, but "emir" is as generic as "ruler" or "lord".
• If, as indicated in the description of the 13thC painting image, he is also referred to as "Aplesphares", then it should be used as an alt name and bolded in the lead, and should also be a redirect.
  • I don't think it really warrants a mention in the lede, I mean, it was a corruption of his actual name; and though Skylitzes is a major source for a few episodes of his life, Abu'l-Aswar's interactions with Byzantium were still rather peripheral. It does make sense to include the Greek name for Armenian rulers who received Byzantine titles and were quite enmeshed in the "Byzantine commonwealth", but that's about it. Good point about the redirect though.

Images

• Per Nikki, I strongly suggest you translate the map, I can't follow it very well, and I know a bit of German.
  • I've begun it, but it is more "reconstruction" of the map since the png has diverged from the existing svg originals, so it will take some time.
• File:The Byzantines are defeated by Aplesphares.jpg needs a PD-US tag of some sort, I believe.
• the coin files need categorisation

Origin

• If Münejjim Bashi is his Ottoman court title, perhaps he should be referred to as Müneccimbaşı Ahmed Dede bin Lutfallah, then an appropriate truncated name after initial introduction, per WP:LASTNAME?
  • In literature, he is simply referred to with his title; he is by far the best known of the holders and virtually the only one to warrant an individual mention AFAIK.
• suggest use of {{Circa}} and {{Reign}}
  • Oooh, nice, I wasn't aware of the reign template. Thanks.

Lord of Dvin

• suggest replacing "the latter's" with "his"
• should it be brother then nephew?
• suggest Sare for Ani with Abirat's supporters
• a broad alliance against Abu'l-Aswar
• suggest kept hostage
• suggest requested Abu'l-Aswar vacate
• the sentence beginning with "Surmari..." is far too long. Suggest breaking it up.
• suggest the attack on Ganja
• In the sentence starting with "Shortly after, in late 1048 or early 1049...", there are references to authors. These should be closely cited and referenced.
  • The authors and their views are mentioned by Minorsky in his analysis. I have referenced the relevant pages separately for easier verification.

Emir of Ganja

• Is Abu'l-Hasan Lashkari a reference to Abu'l-Hasan Lashkari (II) previously mentioned in the Origin section? If so, I suggest consistent use of the full name and the "(II)"
  • Mmmm, the ordinal is in parenthesis because the names of Muslim rulers, at least for the period, prefer to distinguish by patronymics, honorifics, etc, rather than by ordinal. The full name is "Abu'l-Hasan Lashkari", and the ordinal is used by some modern authors to distinguish him, and is included only for completeness' sake. I feel that the identity is clear enough without having to repeat the ordinal.
• if Abu Mansur was at Ganja, how was he deposed at Shamkur?
• suggest after he had already spent eight years
• should it be Emir Ja'far ibn Ali?
• suggest that such action would disperse...
• suggest until they were evicted
• suggest you state where Gelati Monastery is
• suggest deleting ", the new"
• marched on to
• daughter, her treasure
• suggest Münejjim Bashi further states that instead of "According to Münejjim Bashi," for variation
• I'd dispense with the parentheses (October 1065) and just put it in the running narrative
• suggest captured and held by the Georgians
• suggest he was himself deposed

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Peacemaker67 for a very thorough review and for your suggestions. I'll be going through them today. Constantine ✍ 09:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• OK, mostly done, I think. I'll go over the text for tweaks, and will hopefully finish the map by Monday. Constantine ✍ 21:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hi Peacemaker67! At long last, the map is done. Constantine ✍ 14:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Looks great, and is a significant improvement for casual readers. Moving to support. Well done on a comprehensive and well-written article, I learnt a lot! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Minor comment to start: from the lede, "Abu'l-Aswar or Abu'l-Asvar Shavur ibn Fadl ibn Muhammad ibn Shaddad was the eighth ruler of the Shaddadids, ruling at Arran, with Ganja as his capital, from 1049 to 1067." Personally I find this to be rather a mouthful. I'm also curious about "ruling at Arran, with Ganja as his capital", should that not be simply "ruling Arran from his capital in Ganja"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Maury Markowitz and thanks for your input! Good point, I've rephrased the opening of the lead a bit. Constantine ✍ 09:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Question. Is this one headed to FAC, Constantine? - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dank. Yes it is. The article is as complete as it can get on the main subject matter, and if the reviewers here think that no further info should be added for context etc., then from the point of view of comprehensiveness there is nothing more to do. Prose has also been polished thanks to your and Peacemaker67's attentions, so that shouldn't be a problem. The only potential troublespot is the accuracy of the Caucasus map, which IMO is somewhat conjectural regarding the north Caucasian principalities. At a pinch I would replace it with a more generic and simple geographic map. Constantine ✍ 18:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 27 October 2015 (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 Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier/archive1

The Shokaku-class carriers were completed just before the beginning of the Pacific War and have been judged to have been the best aircraft carriers in the world at that time. They participated in almost every carrier battle during the war until their loss in 1944. Both ships missed the Battle of Midway and thus, by default, became the core of the IJN's striking forces for the rest of the war. They sank two of the four American fleet carriers lost during the war, plus a British light carrier. I'd like reviewers to evaluate how appropriate the level of detail is for a ship-class article, see if I missed any jargon and look for any infelicities of prose and this will be headed for FAC after this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Sturm, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• in the lead, "was a pair of aircraft carriers" --> "were a pair of aircraft carriers"?
• in the lead, "With the exception of the Battle of Midway, they participated in almost every major naval..." Is the word "almost" necessary here, given that you have already noted the exception in the start of the sentence?
• in the lead "replace her aircraft lost during the battle..." Is the word "her" necessary here?
• in the lead "Neither attempt succeeded and the Japanese were able to withdraw..." --> "Neither attempt succeeded and the Japanese withdrew..." ?
• "as part of the 1937 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program..." the closeness of the "1937" to "3rd" seems to distract the eye a little, I wonder if you could move 1937. For instance, perhaps "in 1937 as part of the 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program". Would that work?
• "tasked to the less demanding" --> "tasked with the less demanding"?
• "which forced Zuikaku to return to with her sister..." I think this is missing a word here, possibly "Japan"? Can you please confirm?
• "The American landings on Guadalcanal and Tulagi on 7 August..." probably best to include the year here
• " American carriers USS Enterprise and USS Saratoga..." is the second "USS" necessary here? I note earlier in the prose you use this construction: " the carriers USS Yorktown and Lexington"
• you appear to use several different piped links to refer to "Truk"; I suggest just one, on the first mention;
• inconsistent presentation/caps "Operation Mo" v. "Operation KE"
• "sailed for Tawi-Tawi in mid-May in the Philippines" --> "sailed for Tawi-Tawi, in the Philippines, in mid-May"?
• "recover the Division's few..." --> "recover the division's few"?
• per WP:NUMNOTES avoid starting sentences with figures, for instance here: "49 officers and 794 crewmen..."
  • Excellent suggestions; I've implemented all of them. Many thanks for your through review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Great work, reads well and covers the class comprehensively. I have a few mostly grammar quibbles

• suggest linking counterattack in the lead
• this is a very long sentence and has no punctuation Two months later they attempted to support a major offensive by the Imperial Japanese Army to push the United States Marines off Guadalcanal in the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands where they crippled one US carrier and damaged another in exchange for damage to Shōkaku and a light carrier.
• suggest The two Shōkaku-class carriers were ordered as part of the 3rd Naval Armaments Supplement Program of 1937
• suggest The consequent airstrike cost only one dive bomber but sank the destroyer and damaged Neosho badly enough that she had to be scuttled a few days later.
• suggest The airgroups of the two Japanese carriers were decimated in the battle, having just been describing the US carriers, it is a bit unclear at present.
• but their target location was bad comes across as a bit colloquial. Inaccurate?
• suggest large number of airborne American aircraft
• suggest hidden by the overcast conditions
• suggest The First Carrier Division sailed for Tawi-Tawi in the Philippines in mid-May.
• the green pilots is a bit colloquial, inexperienced? could do with a comma after pilots
• Dickson and Gill need an ISBN/ISSN/OCLC
• no alt text (not ACR requirement)
• all other toolchecks came out ok

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reworded things, sometimes along the lines that you suggest, sometimes not. See if they work for you. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple of typos, but I fixed them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support - This looks very good to me. Just a few minor comments:
  • "Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Jung, Dieter & Mickel, Peter (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute", slight inconsistency in presentation of publisher. Consider you use "United States Naval Institute" here vs "Naval Institute Press" in most other entries.
    • The name changed before the publication of the more recent books.
  • "Drawing on their experience with their existing...", consider more simply "Drawing on experience with their existing..." (suggestion only)
  • Some inconsistency in presentation of "air group" vs "airgroups" (1 instance).
  • Is there a missing word here: "The airgroups of the sisters were decimated in the battle, which forced Zuikaku to return to Japan with her Shōkaku..."?
  • "and 2 recon aircraft..." language seems a little informal using the abbrev "recon" here, suggest writing in full. Anotherclown (talk) 08:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Now we just need an image review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

• File:Japanese aircraft carrier shokaku 1941.jpg, I'm a little uncomfortable with this one. Everything appears in order, but all the details are in Japanese; I would strongly recommend finding someone to provide a translation into English, particularly for the Source.
  • Done
• File:Fig of japanese aircraft carrier Shokaku in 1942.gif, great image, well used and captioned. Appropriately licensed.
• File:Japanese.aircraft.carrier.zuikaku.jpg, licensing all appears in order, description and source details could do with tidying, but no objectionable concerns.
• File:Zuikaku November 1941-cropped.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned.
• File:Bridge of IJN CV ZUIKAKU with 21-GO rader.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned.
• File:Carrier shokaku.jpg, the license claims that this is "This file is a work of a sailor or employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as part of that person's official duties." However, from what I can tell from the description, the image was captured from Attu, and therefore presumably the photograph was taken by a Japanese sailor. I'm sure the image is free, but should have a {{PD-1996}} tag, rather than the {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}. Also of concern for this image is the fact that the source link is broken. this link should replace it, I believe.
  • Thanks for providing the link with which I've updated the picture's info. This is where things get annoying as there is no actual license available to use that covers this situation. See this discussion status of war booty aerial reconnaissance photos I had at the village pump almost a year ago. I'll change it to PD-1996 in the meantime.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• File:BattleCoralSea Shokaku g17031.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned, but as with the one before it, the source link needs updating.
• File:Shokaku Coral Sea battle damage 1.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned, though the lack of date of publication of the source is a worry.
• File:Shokaku Santa Cruz fire.jpg, appropriately licensed and captioned, though the lack of date of publication of the source is a worry.
• File:Japanese carrier under attack during Battle of Cape Engaño 1944.jpg, appropriately licensed, your caption says it is Zuikaku, while the image description only says "most probably Zuikaku", do you have confirming evidence?
  • Only by process of elimination as that's clearly not one of the three light carriers sunk that day.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• File:Lowering the flag on Zuikaku.jpg, despite being a featured picture, I'm not sure about the license on this one; {{PD-USGov}} states that "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government..", but the image description says that it was "Donated to the US Navy Historical Center by Kazutoshi Hando." Again, {{PD-1996}} would seem more appropriate, and again the source link needs updating.
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• You don't seem to have alt text for any of the images used. Harrias ^talk 09:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not a FAC requirement, so I don't bother as I try to use informative captions. Thanks for all of your assistance. Feel free to help out here more often with image reviews and the like.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, I though FAC required adherence to the MOS for images, but looking at it, I see I was mistaken. As you say, your captions are very informative anyway. Although, as someone who has used a screen reader, even with good captions, an image without an alt tag is a nightmare, as the reader tries to read the file name. Could I suggest just putting |alt=as caption maybe? Harrias ^talk 18:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• The images are all now appropriately licensed and captioned. Harrias ^talk 18:34, 15 October 2015 (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) 00:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Æthelwulf

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

Æthelwulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Æthelwulf/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have done a lot of work on it and I hope to get it to FA. Mike Christie contributed, especially on coinage, and also reviewed. Dank, Nortonius and Tim Riley also gave very helpful comments at PR, and it has also been reviewed by a historian, Barbara Yorke. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley

I'll gladly review, but, as I've never taken part in an A class review before, I shall need to go and do some homework first. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Later: My credentials as a reviewer of Military History article can be gauged by my having received the Queen's Award for Cowardice (available for inspection in the trophy cabinet of my user page). Be that as it may, having checked the criteria I think the article meets them all. Happy to support, and I look forward to meeting Æthelwulf again at FAC. Tim riley talk 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert

G'day, I can't really comment on content, so have focused primarily on prose. I have the following suggestions:

• in the lead, this sentence seems a bit out of place: "The Vikings did not pose a major threat during his reign." I'd suggest moving this to earlier in the paragraph;

• Done.

• wikilink Royal charter;

• I think this could be misleading. The Royal Charter article only discusses them in later periods, when they do not seem to have quite the same meaning.

• Fair enough, but my concern is that the reader won't really know what is meant here. To be honest, I had trouble understanding what a charter was while reading this article. A link would certainly have helped, but if it isn't appropriate then I understand if you don't want to include it. Nevertheless, I think something needs to be included to aid the reader to understand. So I guess there are a couple of options, either a short footnote could be included in this article at the first mention of the term, or maybe you could add a couple of sentences to the Royal charter article discussing its historical meaning? I won't oppose over it as I think it is a minor point ultimately, but I think it is something to consider, particularly if you are taking this towards FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• I missed this point Rupert. I have now added note d explaining charter when it is first mentioned. Is this clear? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, that works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• "...although Æthelstan attests his father's charters as king, he does not appear..." --> "although Æthelstan attested his father's charters as king, he does not appear..."?

• Done.

• "The Chronicle frequently reports victories won..." --> "The Chronicle frequently reported victories won..."? (also, should there be a date of some such here? e.g. "Around this time, the Chronicle...")

• Amended

• "Æthelwulf's coinage comes from..." --> "Æthelwulf's coinage came from..."

• Done.

• "and the dates of the transitions between each phase are by no means certain..." --> "and it is uncertain when the phases transitioned"?

• Amended.

• in the coinage section, link Obverse and reverse;

• Done.

• "in 1994 Keynes described it as "one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic". --> Is this missing a word after "diplomatic"?

• No this is his wording.
  • I don't know what Keynes meant, but the word "diplomatic" already means something else in English. A bracketed term should be added to clarify what he meant. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • OED at [14] has for meaning 3 of noun: "‘The science of diplomas, or of ancient writings, literary and public documents, letters, decrees, charters, codicils, etc., which has for its object to decipher old writings, to ascertain their authenticity, their date, signatures, etc.’ (Webster, 1828). Also in pl." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Would putting "politics" in brackets next to "diplomatic" work, or is that too narrow an interpretation? The issue here, I think, is that a modern reader won't understand what is being meant. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Added "(study of charters)" Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• is there a link that could be provided to assist the reader to understand the concept of "decimation"?

• I cannot find one.

• "and the earl's son donated..." --> "and the earl's son, William, donated..."

• Done.

• in the Sources section, for the works that are chapters of larger works, you might consider adding the page numbers of the chapters/sections. E.g. Booth in Blackburn

• I do not have access to all the sources now but I will amend when I do.

• No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• in the Sources section, for the publisher locations of works (particularly those published in the US), I think it would be better to provide the states instead of the country. e.g. "Lincoln, US" --> "Lincoln, Nebraska"?

• I am doubtful. I think it is better to stick to the usual Wikipedia format and I think this is giving town and country. Nikkimaria can you advise?
  • There might be 25 Lincolns in the US, so "Lincoln US" wouldn't be very helpful. Besides, city names are always followed by states. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, Dan has explained my point better than I did. The issue is clarity. In regards to consistency, I believe that the use of state locators instead of country for US locations is standard at FAC (same same in fact for Australian places...we say "St Leonards, New South Wales", not "St Leonards, Australia", but would say "Wellington, New Zealand" for instance). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Done for the four books published in the US. OK Now? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, that looks fine to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
          • Late to the party (pings don't work unless you sign!), but I agree: I usually advise against "City, US" for US locations at FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Anyway, that's it from me. Thanks for your efforts with this article and good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Rupert for your helpful review. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• No worries, I'm happy to support for promotion to A-class. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much Rupert. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Quick image review: G'day, I don't think that this has had an image licensing review yet, so I took a quick look: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Æthelwulf - MS Royal 14 B VI.jpg": I'm not sure about the dates and licence on this one. It provides a date of 30 August 2013, but I think you need to try to provide some sort of indicative date for when the actual object was created, rather than when the photo of the object was taken;
• same with "File:Æthelwulf - MS Royal 14 B V.jpg": in addition, I think the PD-Art template needs some sort of clarification (there is a big red warning on the description page)

• I have changed both to PD-Art|PD-old-100 and added the date of the manuscript - also a description in English as the only one was in French. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Æthelwulf penny.jpg": can the uploader be the copyright holder? Not sure about this one. @Nikkimaria: Nikki, what are your thoughts on this one?

• I don't understand on what basis the claim is being made, unless it's the restoration? Image description definitely needs clarification. This is an old coin that was photographed and the photo published in an old book - the coin and the photo are both PD-1923-abroad. File:Coin_of_King_Æthelwulf_of_Wessex.JPG (the source image) combines PD-Art (which is correct for the photo but not the coin) and life+100 (which is correct for the coin but may or may not be correct for the photo, depending on the photographer and his date of death). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have corrected to show the original source. I tried putting in {{PD-1923-abroad}} but the template was not recognised. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, it's actually called {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wikimedia does not seem to like that template Nikki. See [15] Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, that's interesting. Nevertheless, UK uses life+70 for copyright expiration, so assuming no photographer other than the authors is credited, it's PD-old-100 for the coin and PD-1923+PD-old for the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Ethelwulf's Ring - Illustration from Cassell's History of England - Century Edition - published circa 1902.jpg" relies on an "author's life plus 70 years or less", but the image description page doesn't stipulate the author, or when they died

• Worldcat shows no author info for this book. I understand that I can use any illustration published before 1923 but maybe I am using the wrong copyright template? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm...I think {{PD-Art|PD-US-1923-abroad}} would be the way to go, but it seems that Wikicommons doesn't like this tag anymore...??? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• You can use any illustration published before 1923 on Wikipedia, as all such illustrations are now PD in the US. But Commons requires that you account for the copyright in the country of origin as well. In the UK this usually means life+70, but here we have no identified author. I'd recommend using {{PD-UK-unknown}} (the use of which requires you to describe the research you have undertaken to identify the author). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks Nikki and Rupert. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Alfred the Great's will.jpg": same as above.

• Changed to show it is photo of ms of c. 890.

• Thanks very much your help Rupert and Nikki. I am not sure I am using the right copyright templates - and when I checked similar images used in FA articles they each seemed to use a different template and some did not look right. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those changes, they look ok to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Nortonius

Apologies, I've barely even been watching this one because of real-life distractions, and I've no idea of any specifics for this type of review. But, looking through this page, it occurred to me to point out that the "concept of decimation" is a tithe, though I'm not sure that article is very helpful for this context. Maybe, maybe not. And maybe I'm merely stating the obvious! Anyway, with the preceding proviso, I'd happily support this article having participated in the peer review, and would certainly try to be more engaged at FAC. HTH Nortonius (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Nortonius. I am not sure whether a link to tithe would be confusing, as it means a levy of a tenth by a religious organization or government, and in this case the ruler was giving away a tenth. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm doubtful of the usefulness of that article – but the lead of that article refers to "freewill offerings", and cites the New Testament; although obviously I'm not going to vouch for its accuracy! And in the present article you have e.g. According to the Chronicle "King Æthelwulf conveyed by charter the tenth part of his land throughout all his kingdom to the praise of God and to his own eternal salvation". I'd be surprised if the two were unrelated. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Question: does "I'd happily support" mean this is a support? - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nortonius I have added note i on the meaning of "decimation" . Does it look OK? Please also see Dank's query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

About support, I only qualified it in that way because I'm uncertain of procedure: otherwise my support for this article is unhesitating, so yes, Dank, I support it. About the meaning of decimation – my copy of the 1956 revision of the third, 1944 edition of The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, volume II, p. 2314, has separate entries for noun and verb forms of "Tithe". We know what the noun broadly means; the first definition of the verb reads: "1. trans. To grant or pay one tenth of (one's goods, earnings etc.), esp. to the support of the church; to pay tithes on." That's my bolding, to emphasise that the primary meaning there is a "gift", not a levy. Relevant sources that I have in physical form are temporarily inaccessible in my loft – I'm waiting for a friend to return my stepladder! But you might want to look at Constable, G. (1964), Monastic Tithes and their Origins to the Twelfth Century, pp. 23ff, esp. pp. 30–1, where Æthelwulf is mentioned, and Constable says "The earliest known civil enforcement of tithes in England dates from the middle of the tenth century".[16] A look at Levison, W. (1943), England and the Continent in the Eighth Century, might be productive too. From that, if it still stands, I'd be extremely comfortable in identifying the concept of Æthelwulf's decimation as a tithe, and would suspect that historians' use of the word "decimation" instead perhaps derives in some small way from the uncertainty surrounding it. If you were to agree, I would suggest re-wording the footnote to reflect Constable's analysis of the situation in England pre-10th century, such that Æthelwulf's voluntary donation was not "unusual" per se. Also I might be inclined to lose the last sentence of the footnote, as the article goes into the problem of what was decimated. HTH Nortonius (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see anything strange about historians using the word decimation. The original OED, which I cite as my source, gives the first meaning as "The exaction of tithes, or of a tax of one tenth", and says that it is particularly used for Cromwell's levy of a tenth on royalists in 1655. It thus (in its older definition) has a similar meaning to tithe without the strong religious connotations. As to whether tithes were voluntary, Stenton says that they were not enforced until the tenth century. Before that they were a religious duty but could be partly donations to the poor. However, that is going beyond what is relevant to this article, so I have changed to (hopefully) avoid raising the point. I am puzzled that you say that Æthelwulf's donation was not unusual. Donations to the church were common, but one including laymen is so far as I know unique. As to the last sentence, I think it is helpful to signal to readers at the start that it was (probably) not a simple donation of a tenth of all Æthelwulf's property. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine – I don't mean to make a meal of it! I'm just a bit torn by the idea of an exaction, or levy, since Æthelwulf can't very well be said to have levied anything on himself...? I'm not sure why you're puzzled, since as you say tithes could include donations to the poor, and presumably lay people are intended, so I'm taken by the parallel as far as that goes – but there I was thinking of the voluntary nature of the donation not being "unusual", rather than its targets. About the word "decimation", I don't think its use by historians is strange either, since medieval Latin has "decimatio" for "tithe" – I think I'm just curious as to whether this connection has been made or rejected directly in any sources. Really, thanks for tweaking the footnote, and I'm quite happy with it as it is! Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not remember any historians mentioning a connection between decimations and tithes, but I may well have forgotten. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• I copyedited down to King of Wessex. I see you've got your 3 supports, and you've already dealt with my comments above and at the Peer Review. - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your help Dan. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Hchc2009

A huge amount of work has clearly gone into this; my thoughts are mainly around those sections I was having trouble working through (admittedly with a bad head cold!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Worth linking "Viking" on first use.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't think the language in the lead necessarily always focused on Aethelwulf himself. Could: "The Vikings escalated their attacks on both sides of the English Channel from the 840s, although they were not a major threat to Wessex during Æthelwulf's reign. In 843 Æthelwulf was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but he achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851.", for example, be simplified to "In 843 Æthelwulf was defeated by the Vikings in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but he achieved a major victory over them at the Battle of Aclea in 851."?

• I have deleted the first part about the escalation of attacks, but I think that the fact that the Vikings were not a major threat to Wessex in this period is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Similarly, "and on his way back he married Judith, the twelve- or thirteen-year-old daughter of the West Frankish King Charles the Bald." - is the age of Judith critical here?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd have broken the fairly long second paragraph, beginning a new one at "When Æthelwulf returned to England..."

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In the twentieth century Æthelwulf's reputation among historians was low, and he was seen as pious and impractical," - would "pious but impractical" be better here? His reputation presumably wasn't poor because he was seen as pious per se?

• He was seen as impractical at least partly because excessively pious, as explained in the historiography section. Would it be better if I quoted Enright - 'and he was seen as an "impractical religious enthusiast"'? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'd prefer that (or go for "he was seen as excessively pious and impractical"?) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Changed to "excessively pious and impractical". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "the midlands" or "the Midlands"?

• Changed. I do not like having Midlands capitalized and south not but according to OED that is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I found the Background section a little hard to follow in places. I liked the first two sentences, which felt very clear, but I then found it hard to trace how the details related to Aethelwulf. For example, "Offa, King of Mercia from 757 to 796, was the dominant figure of the second half of the eighth century. In 776 he lost control of Kent, but recovered it in about 785. King Cynewulf of Wessex (757–786) was able to maintain his position until he lost territory to Offa following the Battle of Bensington in Oxfordshire in 779..." was interesting detail, but I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be drawing out of it. I'd recommend picking up the story with Aethelwulf's dad, as I was looking out for a statement like "Aethelwulf's father, Egbert, was..." which would position the narrative for me.

• I think a substantial background is helpful, but I have cut less relevant details. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Similarly, I wasn't sure where the background on Archbishop Wulfred was going.

• I prefer to keep this. Its relevance only becomes clear later, but I think that is better than jumping around chronologically explaining the background when it does become relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• The article doesn't pick up on the Coenwulf/Ceolwulf I/Beornwulf/Wulfred dispute when Wulfred does then reappear in the main narrative though - it just says that "Æthelwulf took steps to secure the support of Archbishop Wulfred", without any link to the previous disputes... I couldn't see how the argument between Coenwulf and Wulfred related to/affected this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Later on it says that Wulfred devoted his archiepiscopate to resisting secular control over monasteries but his successor surrendered it. I have not gone into detail about his earlier battles, and I do not think that one sentence is excessive. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not opposing on the basis of it, but I'm not convinced its helping tell Æthelwulf's story - the key information is picked up later on anyway. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have added that the argument was about control of monasteries. I think this helps to bring out that Æthelwulf was able to achieve peacefully what Wulfred - with considerable success - spent his life fighting against. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Egbert was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline for eight generations, " I had to think about what this meant; does it mean that his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was King of Wessex?

• That is correct, although he was the great-great grandson of Ingild, brother of King Ine. Would it be better to say "Egbert's paternal ancestors had not been kings of Wessex for eight generations"? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Probably - would another way to say that "Egbert was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline since King XXXX (dates)"?

• I do not understand why it is clearer to say that he was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline since x than the first King of Wessex of his bloodline for eight generations. Can you clarify? I prefer eight generation as more vivid. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• My reasoning is that firstly, "generation" can mean several things - either a "father-grandfather-greatgrandfather" generation or a span of years (e.g. 25-30 years); as put, it isn't certain which one is meant. Secondly, I had to do the maths to estimate when the previous king had been in power (my guess was 160 odd years before, based 20 years between each generation?), and I still wasn't sure which king that had actually been. Stating the last king had been King XXX in year YYYY would have both made the maths easier, and told me who that last monarch had actually been. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have changed it to avoid referring to generations - and to make the point clearer. Does it look OK now? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Richard Abels argues..." Could we state inline who Abels is, e.g. "The historian Richard Abels..."? (NB: the same applies to later individuals being mentioned)

• I am not sure how to deal with this. When I leave out "historian" some editors complain, and when I put it in other editors complain. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "as "King Æthelwulf's famous butler"" - it is worth noting that a butler in this period was very different from a butler in the 21st century?

• There is a footnote explaining. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "So far as is known, his wife Osburh was the mother of all his children. " - would it be clearer to say "So far as is known, he had six children with his wife Osburh, and no illegitimate children."?

• It seems clear to me, and I think your version would be doubtful. There would almost certainly have been other children who died young. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• " he began to attest when he was around six" - is there a link we can use for "attest"?

• I cannot find one. The nearest is signature, but that would be misleading as the article defines it as an autograph signature.

• Any chance of a footnote? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Footnote added. OK? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In Abels's view, Egbert and Æthelwulf rewarded their friends and purged Mercian supporters." - is there a contrary view?

• Not specifically, but Keynes emphasizes that they cultivated Kentish support and does not mention any purging. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "which was probably followed by loss of control of the London mint and Mercian recovery of Essex and Berkshire," I'd have gone for "which was probably followed by his loss of control of the London mint and the Mercian recovery of Essex and Berkshire,"

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Egbert restored the East Malling estate to Wulfred's successor as Archbishop of Canterbury, Ceolnoth, in return for a promise of "firm and unbroken friendship" for himself and Æthelwulf and their heirs, and the same condition is specified in a Winchester charter of the same year." - this felt like a long sentence to me; is the "and the same condition..." bit of it essential?

• It is the point of mentioning the Winchester charter, as another example of how Egbert secured promises of support for his son's succession. I have deleted "in the same year" as it is superfluous. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• " "Æthelwulf ran a Carolingian-style family firm of plural realms, held together by his own authority as father-king, and by the consent of distinct élites." I think I understood this quote, but it felt like it needed explaining a bit more.

• How about "Æthelwulf did not attempt to unite the territories he ruled into a unified kingdom, and according to Janet Nelson, he "ran a Carolingian-style family firm of plural realms, held together by his own authority as father-king, and by the consent of distinct élites." Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I guess my concern was more that phrases like "plural realms", "father-king" and "distinct elites" carry a lot of specialsit meaning; I wasn't 100% sure, for example, that I knew what "father-king" meant. Did it mean that he exercised authority both as a king and as a father? Or that his role as king also resembled being the father of the realm? Or that his role as father was bound up by his being a king? Similarly, I wasn't certain that my reading of "distinct elites" as right. Did it mean geographically distinct elites? Different sorts of elites? etc. If I wasn't sure (and I'd read a bit on the Carolingian empire!) I'd bet that others might feel the same way. It's a great quote, but it felt like it needed unpacking a bit more. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think in the context plural realms means that he governed Wessex and Kent as separate kingdoms and did not attempt to unite them, and distinct elites similarly means the separate geographical elites of the two kingdoms. Father-king is less clear. I took it to mean that he was a father-figure to his people, ruling by commanding respect rather than arbitrarily imposing his will. I am reluctant to add any explanation as it would be my opinion, and close to POV. 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I take your point, but if we're not sure what the quote means, is it helping the typical reader? Hchc2009 (talk)

• I think one problem was that the quote was misplaced. I have moved it to make clear that it refers to the separate control of Wessex and Kent. Is that better? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Lupus thought that Felix had great influence over the king" - I think the capitalisation of king is wrong here.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "on 26 December 846 he made a large grant of bookland to himself" - I clicked on bookland, but I still didn't really understand what this meant.

• Changed. Is it clearer now? 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The silver penny was the sole denomination in middle and later Anglo-Saxon coinage." - is there a simpler way of stating this? e.g. "The only coin used by Anglo-Saxons of the period was the silver penny." or something like that? I also wondered if the paragraph might be broken into two, after "...with a non-portrait design carrying a cross-and-wedges pattern on the obverse."

  Changed to "The silver penny was the only coin used in middle and later Anglo-Saxon England." I have not split the paragraphs as I do not currently have access to the source to footnote the pages which would be relevant to the separate paragraphs. Maybe Mike Christie can help? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

  The citations point to pages 270, 271, 275, 287-291, and 307-308. Almost everything is in 287-291. The exceptions are 270: the statement that "the penny was virtually the sole denomination in mid and late Anglo-Saxon coinage" (looks like the sense of "virtually" needs to be re-added here); 271: the fact that no coins were issued by Æthelwulf's sons during his reign; 275: the quote from Grierson and Blackburn; and 307-308: the comments on debasement. Everything else is from 287-291. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

  Paragraph split. Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The Middle Temple hoard," - is there a link or a footnote that could explain what this was/is?

• There is no link I can find but I have revised to hopefully make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Ceolnoth, archbishop of Canterbury throughout Æthelwulf's reign," - I don't think the capitalisation is consistent here.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "In the view of Philip Grierson and Mark Blackburn" - I'd suggest a comma after this.

• Done' Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Decimation charters": personally I felt this section was straying from a summary style, and went into a lot of historical debate and detail that didn't seem to fit in a biographical article. Might just be me though! :)

• I did not see how else to deal with a subject which is so controversial, and so important in the context of Æthelwulf's life. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• How does the ODNB or similar deal with it? I'm wondering if there's a comparable, wiki-style biography we could evaluate the weighting against? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The king left Wessex " - I think this should be capitalized

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• "a gold crown weighing four pounds" - should probably have a metric equivalent

• What would you suggest? I would say 2 kg as 1.8 would be false exactness, but others might disagree. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
• I'd probably have gone for 1.8, but either would work for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• 1.8 kilograms added. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The ring is one of two key examples of nielloed ninth-century metalwork, together with a similar ring of his daughter Æthelswith. " - "his" is quite divorced from Aethelwulf by now in the paragraph, so I'd suggest naming him.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• " firmly associating it with the king" - capitalisation. *Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Dudley, if you run into a problem with some copyeditors insisting that "king" (not used attributively) should be lowercase and other insisting it should be uppercase, please let me know. Style guides are divided on this point. I generally leave it alone, as long as the capitalization is consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Dank, I'd argue that MOS:JOBTITLES applies, which gives specific style guidance on the use of king and King. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

You have a good argument that King is required by MOS:JOBTITLES (which also requires for instance "the English king", even when referring to a specific king ... go figure). Influential American style guides (such as Chicago) recommend lowercasing it, but copyeditors will typically allow exceptions to avoid offense, uppercasing for instance "the [current] Queen" (which is why the example given at MOS:JOBTITLES isn't representative of common practice). That's why I'm saying that writers sometimes get caught between dueling copyeditors. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, but when I think about it I agree with hchc. I would not refer to the current queen as "the queen" (even though I am a republican!) so it has to be "the King" for Æthelwulf. What I do find a problem is whether to say "historian" Joe Bloggs. Some editors such as hchc object if I leave it out, others if I put it in. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're being told to do it both ways, I wonder if one footnote that mentions each historian would satisfy everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. What does Hchc think? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd usually vote in favour of in-line attribution of individuals mentioned in articles (e.g. "the historian John Smith", "the 16th-century antiquarian Joe Bloggs" etc.) on the basis that if someone is worth mentioning by name, then its worth explaining to the reader who they are, but if it helps produce a workable compromise, then that's fine by me! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I think what some people do not like is the repetition of the word "historian". I will try to use some variety and see whether anyone complains. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks hchc for your very detailed review. Please see queries on some points above. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• I think I have covered your points Hchc. Any you are not happy with? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Any further comments Hchc? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, I think that's it from me Dudley. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Anotherclown

• No alt text for the images so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR req).

Done.

• No unnecessary dabs, external links check out, no issues with ref consolidation, no duplicate links, image review completed above, captions look ok (no action req'd).
• In the lead: "but in 843 he was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, and he achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851." This construction doesn't quite seem right to my ear although I'm unsure of the rules of grammar so I could be off the mark here (I'am Australian and despite claiming to talk English we generally have no idea about such things). For instance it seems to describe two opposing events (a defeat and a victory), however you link them with an "and" which would seem more appropriate for two equal or similar events. As a suggestion try something like "The Vikings were not a major threat to Wessex during Æthelwulf's reign, however, in 843 he was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but later achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851."

• Changed.

• "...in the south the important southern kingdoms" seems almost tautological.

• "Southern" deleted.

• "...seems to have been ended in 850/1" the date range should be presented as "850–51" per MOS:DATERANGE.

• Done

• In the references ""Decimation". The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1971" does not appear to be in alphabetical order.

• Moved

• "Grierson, Philip; Blackburn, Mark (2006) [1986]. Medieval European Coinage, With A Catalogue of the Coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: 1: The Early Middle Ages (5th–10th Centuries) (corr. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-03177-X." To be consistent with the other entries you should probably present it as "Cambridge, UK".

• Done.

• Location of publication for both Miller refs?

• Done.

• Likewise for a few of the Nelsons.

• Done.

• I did a copy edit and made a few MOS changes, format a reference etc [17].

• Thenks - please see query below.

• Otherwise this articles looks in pretty good shape to me (although I admit to having no knowledge of the topic). Anotherclown (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Dudley Miles you already have the three supports needed, but it might be good to respond to Ac's comments before I put this up for closing? I'm also going to ask Nikkimaria if she's happy with the image review, as there seemed to be a bit there and the comments aren't conclusive. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nikki could you also take a look at the change to the bibliography at [18]. This is a new introduction by Simon Keynes to a reprint of a book by a deceased historian, Peter Hunter Blair. The only way I could see to deal with it was by a postscript, but AnotherClown does not think that works. However the change to show the author as the editor does not seem right to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - those changes look good to me. Dudley - re the postscript - I've no issue with you reverting my change if you don't like it, I'm not here to impose my will on anyone (not that I could anyway). From my point of view I believe my change was IAW the guidance provided at Template:Cite book, and one issue I saw with the postscript is that the template doesn't seem to allow there to be a space b/n the isbn and the text in that field (i.e. smashing it altogether) - at least on my screen, which obviously looks messy (by this I mean it displayed as such "ISBN 1234556445text of postscript"). By all means pls do whatever you believe works best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes it is a bug in the template. I thought I had put in a non-breaking space to solve the problem but that does not always seem to work. Thanks for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• That solution for the bibliography looks fine to me. There's one issue left with regards to images - see response above. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (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) 03:07, 27 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav submarine Nebojša

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav submarine Nebojša (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Yugoslav submarine Nebojša/archive1

Most of the Yugoslav Navy was captured intact in port during the April 1941 invasion, but Nebojša escaped and joined the Royal Navy, and was returned to the Yugoslavs after the war. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikki! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments: G'day, I made a couple of minor tweaks and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• I see a mixture of British English and American English spellings. For example "draught" (British) and "maneuvers" (US)
• "sister ship of the Hrabri-class Hrabri" (this looks a little clunky). I wonder if you couldn't just say "sister ship Hrabri"
• I wonder if it should be mentioned that the electric motors were for use while submerged? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All done, thanks Rupert. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • All my comments have been dealt with, so I've added my support. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • Really not much to find fault with, looks good to me.
  • "She served with the British 2nd Submarine Flotilla in 1942 and the British 3rd Submarine Flotilla in 1943,[1] and she continued serving in the Mediterranean until the end of the war..." The prose is just a little repetitive (specifically "serve" and "serving"). Consider perhaps something like: "She served with the British 2nd Submarine Flotilla in 1942 and the British 3rd Submarine Flotilla in 1943,[1] and continued working in the Mediterranean until the end of the war..." (minor nitpick, suggestion only) Anotherclown (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Suggestion adopted. Thanks for the review, Ac! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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

• "Her surfaced displacement was 975 long tons (991 t) (1,164 long tons (1,183 t) submerged),": MOS recommends against nested round brackets/parentheses, and against ")(" (I think). Stick an "or" after the first ")".
• I've replaced "subsequently" (but not subsequent) by "later" and "then". If something else was meant, please fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Dan. Have addressed the nesting. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:04, 15 September 2015 (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) 03:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Runaway Scrape

Nominator(s): Maile66 (talk)

Runaway Scrape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Runaway Scrape/archive1

I am opening a new A-class assessment for this article, having requested an incomplete closure for the first one in December 2014. The reasons for doing so are on the article's talk page, but it was about balance between the civilians and the Texas army involvement. I thought it was best to give the other editor time to edit in the verified information they referred to. However, 7 months have now passed, and nothing has materialized. The military and civilian population moved together during the Runaway Scrape, up until Sam Houston ordered them escorted east as he marched towards the San Jacinto battlefield. I believe what's in this article is all we know about the civilian involvement. It's time to re-open this assessment. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Prior nomination here.

Image review

• File:SteamboatYellowstone.jpg: are we sure that Catlin was a government employee at this point? His article suggests he was not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. Research agrees with you. I have removed the image from the article. The Smithsonian sells a copy in their giftshop. The original was a donation to the museum, but it does not say anything about free use. I have tagged it at Commons with a link to the Smithsonian. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this last time and have reviewed the changes made since then. I have one suggestion/comment: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• in the References, there is some inconsistency about how you present locations of publication. For instance, some have state locations, and some don't. Some spell out the states, and some use abbreviations. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

AustralianRupert Thank you for the support. I've corrected the location issues in the References. Also, thank you for reviewing the changes. Reading this article after having been away from it for months, I realized it needed some editing in regards to flow and in paring down of unnecessary minutia that added nothing to the content. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Support. With only one minor nitpick.

• Standardize hyphens in the isbns

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Standardized. Thank you. — Maile (talk)

• Comments Support - I have no knowledge of the subject but in the absence of other reviewers I have read over it in the interest of trying to move this one forward. Some points I could see are as fols:
  • No issues with the usual technical checks - images all have alt text, no dabs, external links check out, no duplicate links (although the tools are on the fritz again so I might of missed one or two).
  • Image review completed above and captions look ok to me.
  • Perhaps wikilink Gonzales, Texas (once in the lead and again at first use in the body of the article).
  • Likewise for a number of other place names in the lead: San Felipe de Austin, Washington-on-the-Brazos, Groce's Landing, Harrisburg, New Washington, and Galveston Island for instance.

Note: Groce's Landing has no WP article under that name or any other. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• • "two hundred seventy five Mexicans..." should probably just be 275 per MOS:NUMERAL.
  • "Lt. Col. William B. Travis arrived with reinforcements...", inconsistent abbrev of rank here (elsewhere you mostly write them in full).
  • Likewise here: "His men combined with Lt. William Smith's and volunteered..."
  • Wording here seems off (over generalization) "and changed everything..." - perhaps consider something more exact like "considerably altered the military situation" or something like that (I'm assuming that is what was meant).
  • "including three Texas Rangers companies" perhaps consider instead "including three companies of Texas Rangers".
  • "Sesma's battalion of approximately seven hundred twenty-five men..." should be "725" per MOS:NUMERAL (as above).
  • Likewise "The Texian army was a force of eight hundred ten volunteers", should "810".
  • I'm fairly sure Texian army and Mexican army are proper nouns and should be capitalized. You should probably also wikilink these at first appearance.
    • "Texian Army" is capitalized as a Wikipedia article, but maybe shouldn't be. That article started out as a redirect in 2008, and nobody has ever uncapped "army", but I think the article needs updating in general. In reality that term covers various incarnations of the Texas armies. The one Houston led was the Provisional Army of Texas, which does not yet have its own article. The Mexican army led by Santa Anna was the Mexican Army of Operations, which also does not have its own article. When the article says Texian army or Mexican army, it's not really using the title of those armies, so I wonder if capitalization is needed. How Karanacs wrote the Texas Revolution article was with the lower case "army" for both, pretty much for the reason I have given here. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries at all, the way you explain it makes sense to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "Lt. Col. James Neill was put in charge" → "Lieutenant Colonel"
  • Is there a suitable link for Lynchburg? If so it should be linked here "this time through Lynchburg."
  • "the Texian army crossed Buffalo Bayou at Lynchburg April 19 with nine hundred thirty men, leaving behind two hundred fifty-five", should be "930" and "255" per MOS:NUMERAL.
  • Notes and ref formatting looks fine, no missing bibliographic details that I could see.
  • With just three categories it seems a little undercategorised, so you might like to consider if it should be added to any other relevant categorisies (minor nitpick - I don't have any suggestions for additional ones just an observation).
  • Overall, this article looks fairly good to me as someone who doesn't know the topic, although I think there are probably a few MOS issues that still need to be resolved. Of cse happy to discuss any you points disagree with or need clarified. Anotherclown (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Anotherclown, I took care of everything except, as noted above, the capitalization of the armies. Thank you for your time on this. I'd like to know what MOS issues you see. I started out improving this article because it made no sense. I've been working on this almost a year, so maybe it's time to start thinking about FAC. Suggestions? — Maile (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Gday. Those changes look fine to me so I've moved to spt. What I meant by MOS issues were the ones I listed above (which you have addressed) that was all. All the best taking this one forward. Anotherclown (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time on this. — Maile (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

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

• "ad interim": Up to you, but I recommend replacing throughout, probably by "provisional", which is the usual term for this kind of government.

I see you made the change in one place, but I changed it back. The "provisional government" existed from November 15, 1835, until March 1, 1836.1. When the declaration of independence was signed on March 2, the ad interim government replaced it until October of the same year.2 Those are two different governments, with two totally different structures. I understand your reasoning, but the state of Texas calls it the "ad interim" government in all their records. 1, — Maile (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we're stuck with it, then. Sometimes you italicize ad interim and sometimes you hyphenate; I don't have a preference, but inconsistency annoys FAC reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I removed the italics on it. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

This may have nothing to do with how you see that term, but I did some editing on two sentences where the ad interim government was elected. — Maile (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• Back tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Dank did you mean to come back to this, or was this the end of your comments? — Maile (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it there for now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Back. "It was Sam Houston's responsibility, as the appointed commander-in-chief of the Provisional Army of Texas (before such an army actually existed), to recruit and train a military force to defend the population against the encroaching military might under Santa Anna.": I'm being lazy, but walk me through this ... at the time that he was appointed commander-in-chief, was there a military force marching on Texas? - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Confusing, isn't it? I'll try to do a bullet-point explanation, most of which is actually in Footnotes 3 & 4

• When this started, Texas was part of Mexico. The first skirmish with the Mexican army started in Gonzales in September 1835. There was the Mexican army, and in Texas there were local all-volunteer mostly-unpaid militias that answered to themselves, chose their own leaders and decided which skirmishes they wanted to be involved in. By 1835, the volunteers were under Stephen Austin, and then Edward Burleson. After Cos surrendered at the Siege of Bexar in December, the volunteer army disbanded on December 20.
• The provisional government of 1835 decided in December that it would be a good idea to have a paid army, and they selected Houston to be in charge. No such army yet existed - Houston was expected to do the recruitment and training. At that time, none of the volunteer militias came under Houston. Texas was still part of Mexico.
• When the Battle of the Alamo started on February 23, 1836, the Alamo was under Sam Houston's authority as commander-in-chief of the paid army, which included Neill, Bowie, Travis and Crockett - but not the volunteers inside. Texas declared independence from Mexico on March 2, and on March 4 put all the land forces - volunteers and paid - under Houston.

• "Texian": If the thinking is that almost everyone coming across this article will have already read about Texians somewhere (on or off Wikipedia), then I guess that's fine, though it would probably be better to link it. If not, then a quick definition would help.

Y Done

• "Texian revolution": Readers will probably wonder if this is synonymous with Texas Revolution, or if the different name is meant to focus on some aspect of the revolution. Is it?

Y Revised the first two sentences to clarify this. Thank you for noticing this.

• Okay, feel free to revert my copyediting of course. Since you've already got your three supports, I'll stop there, until this gets to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are fine with me. Hope I've answered your questions above. Thank you for your attention to this. — Maile (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2015 (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) 01:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)/archive1

The 70th Infantry Division was a short lived British Second World War division. Having formed from the 6th Infantry Division, which fought in Syria and Crete, the division relieved the Australians in Tobruk and eventually broke out as part of Operation Crusader. With the Japanese entry into the war, the division was shipped to India were it was eventually disbanded and its troops handed over to the Chindits (a pretty controversial move). The article has just passed it's GA review, and I am seeking to further elevate it's status en route to eventually making it a FAC. All comments welcome. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this at peer review, and have made a few edits (please check you are happy with these). I only have one suggestion: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• "File:British WWII 6th Infantry Division.png": the licence for this probably should be PD-Shape, not PD-UKGov

Sorry for the lateness of my response. I have amended the license per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

• "On 1st September 1939" Per MOS:DATE, this should be "On 1 September 1939". Also, shouldn't it be 3 September, the date on which Britain declared war? (And don't think I didn't take Playfair off the shelf to check the reference.)

Changed the format per your comment. I have expanded the opening lines of the section a tad to explain the German invasion initiated the war, and the UK entered on the 3rd.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why don't we have ranks for O'Connor, Auchinleck, Rommel, Blamey and Wilson?

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The issue came to a head on 18 July, when Thomas Blamey (commander of the 2AIF, and deputy commander Middle East Command) wrote a letter to Claude Auchinleck—the new commander of all forces in North Africa and the Middle East" The second link seems superfluous, and may confuse the reader into thinking that this was not the Middle East Command.

Link removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• The quote from Blamey in the box doesn't contribute much.

Removed the quote box.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• "The war diary of the German 90th Light Division described the days actions" should be "day's actions"

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• "supported by a ad hoc formation" should be "supported by an ad hoc formation"

Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Consider red-linking George Symes, who could have an article (Hmmm he is linked down below)

Added a link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• You mention that he became Wingate's second in command. You should mention that he was senior to Wingate.

Mentioned it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• "the newly arrived 81st (West Africa) Division could be used in place" should be "in its place"

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Wingate (now a major-general)" You don't need to link major-general here. Other duplicate links: Royal Navy and Fourteenth Army

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate links removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was a little disturbed that George William Symes had no article, so I created one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I have made the changes you have both suggested.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • Images lack alt text so you might consider added it (suggestion only - not an ACR req though of cse).
  • In the lead "...The Royal Navy transported the division to Tobruk..." when?
  • "...to relieve the mainly Australian garrison besieged within the port...", in its brevity this lacks context. I think some indication of the length of the siege is necessary here. For instance: "...to relieve the mainly Australian garrison that had held the besieged port for nearly 8 months..." or something like that.
  • Repetitive prose here: "...reformed in Egypt.[2] Lacking artillery or other supporting arms, the reforming..." (reformed / reforming)
  • Is there a typo or missing words here: "...The Germans were able to penetrate into Heraklion resulting in the streets" before Anglo-Greek ..." (I couldn't understand the streets part)
  • "The supporting Matilda tanks..." - perhaps wikilink to Matilda II here?
  • "The next day, George Symes was given command of the division...", rank for Symes?
  • Is there a missing word here? "This operation saw the 77th Indian Infantry Brigade operate behind the Japanese lines, supplied via air drops, ambushed Japanese troops and destroyed rail lines..." → "This operation saw the 77th Indian Infantry Brigade operate behind the Japanese lines, supplied via air drops, it ambushed Japanese troops and destroyed rail lines." or something like that.
  • "Philip John Gardner won the Victoria Cross during the fighting." Rank for Gardner?
  • "During the action, James Jackman, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, was killed and posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross..." Jackman's rank?
  • In the refs you have Woodburn (2004) and Woodburn (2004a) - I'd suggest this would be more consistent as Woodburn (2004a) and Woodburn (2004b)
  • Are there figures available for the number of casualties sustained by the division during the campaigns it participated in (either broken down by campaign or in total)? If so they probably should be added for completeness. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comments. Due to personal issues, I will not be able to address these until early next week.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have amended the article as suggested, save for the alt text (I will get around to that). The only other issue is casualties: I have looked everywhere and have yet to find a source that provides the losses 70th Division suffered during it's role in the siege or the Crusader fighting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. If the information isn't available then its a non issue. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 21:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

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

• I worked some on this at the PR, and you've got your 3 supports, so I'll just leave some comments.
• See WP:INTEXT. Quoted statements need at least a clue in the text as to where they came from. (One fix is to paraphrase, of course).
• "The headquarters was then assigned all troops—with the exception of the 7th Armoured Division—based there.": The headquarters was then assigned all troops based there, with the exception of the 7th Armoured Division.
• "This raid evolved due to early successes, in two months the Western Desert Force had": semicolon instead of comma
• "Due to the logistical problems in maintaining substantial forces on the Libya–Egypt border, Mersa Matruh, 200 miles (320 km) west of Alexandria and 120 miles (190 km) from the border, was the forward British base ...": garden path. You could try "... Mersa Matruh was the forward British base ..." - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dank for your work on the article and your comments. I have implemented the changes you have suggested. In regards to your final comment, I have placed the distances in parenthesis. Does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't help the garden path problem. When all the reader sees is "Due to the logistical problems in maintaining substantial forces on the Libya–Egypt border, Mersa Matruh,", Mersa Matruh is most likely part of the prepositional phrase, i.e., one of the places where they kept forces. You have to get through 15 more words before you get the clue ("was") that Mersa Matruh is actually the subject of the sentence. The clue should come sooner than that, to help readers parse as they go. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I had another crack at this, what do you think?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ThanksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: could you do an image review on this one, please? It appears otherwise ok for promotion. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Tobruk2Sollum1941_en.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Kirrages, the editor who uploaded the file, is not very active at the moment. I have left him a message on his talkpage and for the moment replaced the image with another map - from the commons - that has source information. I assume this should suffice?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nikkimaria what do you reckon? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:20, 24 September 2015 (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) 19:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Gottlob Berger

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Gottlob Berger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Gottlob Berger/archive1

Berger was the head of Waffen-SS recruiting for almost all of WWII, and is considered by some scholars to be the "Father of the Waffen-SS". A WWI veteran and early member of the Nazi Party, he became one of Himmler's most trusted operators, and was responsible for the huge number of "Germanic", ethnic German and "foreign" soldiers recruited into the Waffen-SS from 1940 on. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: to be honest I find it sometimes a little depressing to read about these characters, but there is no denying IMO the quality of the work that has gone into the article: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • there are no dabs, ext links all work, and there are no duplicate links
  • the article appears to be well researched and referenced using reliable sources, employing a consistent referencing style
  • overall, the article is well written, but I have a couple of suggestions:
    • "rounding up of "political undesirables" and Jews" --> "rounding up of Jews and "political undesirables"..." (it is probably smoother if you put the shorter element of the list first)
    • "Between 1933–35" --> "Between 1933 and 1935" or "During the period 1933–35..."
    • "they began to be combined in new formations..." --> "they were combined in new formations"
  • the article is well structured, but I have one suggestion:
    • there are perhaps too many headings. It might be possible to merge a couple of sections (e.g. "Sentence" and "Review of sentence" could be merged and I wonder if the year range headers are truly necessary)
  • the article appears to be comprehensive in its coverage, however I have a couple of suggestions/questions:
    • do we know if he fought in any notable battles during World War I, or what regiment he served (or if there is limited information, which front he fought on)?
    • do we know what he died of?
  • "15th Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS (lettische Nr. 1), the 19th Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS (lettische Nr. 2), and the 20th Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS (estnische Nr. 1). " --> should these names be presented in italics as they are foreign words?
  • "File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J27050, Panzergrenadiere der SS-Panzer-Division "Hitlerjugend".jpg": it would be more MOS compliant if this file could face into the article
  • same as above potentially for "File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J16133, Lettland, Appell der SS-Legion.jpg"
    • Thanks for the review, Rupert. I know what you mean, generally I prefer straight soldiers than these machine people, and the sentence reductions after the war really stick in my craw. Berger's role in the recruiting of Waffen-SS in the Balkans put him squarely in my sights as I started to look at completing my work on the Balkan Waffen-SS divisions. I'll get right onto these comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • All done I believe, Rupert. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Looks good, cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • I reviewed this article for GA and have read over it again following its continued development and couldn't see any issues with the additions and other changes since my last review. I believe this meets the A class criteria now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, Ac! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Just want to be clear that I'm not avoiding this because I didn't like it ... Every time I run through the A-class articles, I'm only tackling one per customer, and I just finished your August Meyszner. I'm slammed for time right now. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan, I know you have been concentrating elsewhere. This one is also longer than Meyszner, so don't sweat it. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Images review

Checks out - no issues

• Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S73321, Gottlob Berger.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1944, photographer unknown; alt=Gottlob Berger wearing Waffen-SS dress uniform

Alt caption non specific:

• Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1974-160-13A, Theodor Eicke.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1942, photographer unknown; alt=a black and white photograph of a male in dress uniform
• Uw plaats is nog vrij in de Waffen ss.png - Public domain tag; source Webposters; alt=a colour poster depicting soldiers
• Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1971-033-01, Alfred Jodl.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1940, photographer unknown; alt=a black and white portrait of a male in dress uniform
• Bundesarchiv Bild 101III-Bueschel-069-31, Russland, Kradfahrer der Waffen-SS.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1942, photographer Büschel; alt=a black and white photograph of a military motorcycle crew with several horses in the background
• Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J27050, Panzergrenadiere der SS-Panzer-Division "Hitlerjugend".jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1944, photographer unknown; alt=a black and white photograph of a line of soldiers on parade
• Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J16133, Lettland, Appell der SS-Legion.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1943, photographer unknown; alt=a black and white photograph of soldiers in greatcoats marching in a column
• Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1973-116-11, Waffen-SS, 13. Gebirgs-Div. "Handschar".jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1943, photographer unknown; alt=a black and white photograph of men wearing camouflage jackets and a fez
• Wilhelmstr Prozess Nürnberg WEB.JPG - Public domain tag, 1947, source courtesy of Robert Kempner United States Holocaust Museum; alt=a black and white photograph of a court room with several rows of men sitting on a tiered stand
• Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S73495, Oskar Dirlewanger.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1944, photographer Ahrens, Anton; alt=a black and white photograph of a male in uniform

Have improved the alt text for these images. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Caption and alt caption non specific, does not mention this is Heinrich Himmler - image says 1942, caption says 1940

• Bundesarchiv Bild 101III-Moebius-146-06, Russland, Heinrich Himmler bei Frontbesuch.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1942, photographer Möbius; alt=a black and white photograph of a bespectacled man in uniform walking along a line of combat soldiers

Now mentions this is Himmler. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Does caption match image summary? Alt caption too generic and could be any country or any military

• Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-169-0915-24, Jugoslawien, Rastplatz deutscher LKW und Panzer H39.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1941, photographer Heber; alt=a black and white photograph of armoured vehicles and tents in a square formation in open country

Yes, the caption does match. A Rastplatz is a laager or defensive formation of armoured vehicles, I have just described it in the context of the image. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alt caption is too generic; this is dated 1944, but the summary under Depicted people says this is 1946

• Bundesarchiv Bild 183-N0301-503, General Wlassow mit Soldaten der ROA.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Germany, source German Federal Archives 1944, photographer unknown; alt=a black and white photograph of a bespectacled man in uniform addressing some soldiers

Alt caption fixed, 1946 in the description refers to the date of Vlasov's execution in Moscow after the war. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Alt caption too non specific; image on Commons need Summary information

• Colditz Castle1.jpg - Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic, Metadata and source are 2006 uploader; no Summary information; alt=a whitewashed building with a red tiled roof

Fixed.

Details above. WP:ALT on most of them, plus other issues. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comprehensive review. Alt text isn't actually required at ACR, so I'm going to concentrate on the image description issues and captions. Will ping you when I'm done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

All the above fixed. Thanks again. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support on images - I re-checked each image alt caption. Thank you for taking care of the Alt text, anyway, even though it's technically not required at ACR. Always nice to go the extra step for the visually impaired. — Maile (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose etc.
• I agree with Rupert that these are depressing characters, but there is no doubt about the quality of the articles, nor about the need for articles about these men in general. This is another fine example of good writing, research, and all-around thorough work. I'd like to see some of the sections condensed, but this would be an objection I might bring up at the next level of review, if it comes to that. auntieruth (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2015 (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) 07:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

August Meyszner

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

August Meyszner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/August Meyszner/archive1

Meyszner was the Higher SS and Police Leader in the German-occupied territory of Serbia from 1942 to 1944, and oversaw the gassing of around 8,000 Jewsish women and children, as well as thousands killed in reprisal for attacks on German and collaborationist troops. Recently passed a GAN review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I did some light tweaking (please check you are happy with my changes). I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • in the References, some instances of New York say "New York, New York" while others simply say "New York" - I'd probably suggest the secondary approach is best here;
  • forced labour is probably overlinked;
  • the navigation box for war criminals at the bottom of the article would probably be best displayed in a collapsed state
  • "File:Heimwehr PfrimerPutsch.jpg": I'm not certain about the licence used here. I don't think the uploader is the copyright holder, but I could be wrong. It might be worth checking this prior to FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Rupert. Have made all loc fields consistent (city and state or country), rm overlink, collapsed navbox, and uploaded a new version of the image onto Wikipedia rather than Commons (and requested deletion of Commons version, as it is PD-Austria but not US URAA). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • "and submitted his résumé to the Allgemeine SS..." should "Allgemeine SS" be in italics here? (or do you only do that at first instance?... I can't remember the requirement pls check this).
  • " prior to his seizure of power in 1933..." Should this be "Hitler's seizure of power" or something along those lines (rather than "his seizure")?
• Hitler didn't seize anything, he was manoeuvred into office by Papen and the camarilla around Hindenburg. Keith-264 (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this is a thorough, well-written article completed with obvious attention to detail and it was difficult to find much to fault it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Peacemaker67: - just checking that you saw my cmts here. Have you had a chance to have a look? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Both above points addressed. Thanks for your review, Ac! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Looks good, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment. This one's long enough that I think it's likely possible FAC reviewers would ask for some significant pruning. I'll be happy to copyedit the shorter version. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Although ... is this headed to FAC? And, changed "likely" to "possible" ... it would depend on who you get for reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well Dan, let me put it like this. I've lost a bit of interest in FAC since 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) was failed for being too "listy". There is way too much gatekeeping going on there IMHO, and I don't rate it as highly as I used to. I have a ship article there now, but I'd rather have a comprehensive biographical article passed at Milhist A-Class and leave it there than cut down a comprehensive article so I could get it past FAC. Nothing against you at all, you've always been a major positive at FAC, but there is still too much personality and personal preference involved for my taste. My view on length is roughly the same as WP:SIZERULE, and I cannot for the life of me accept that an article with a readable prose size of 34K even gets close to stretching that guideline. Do we want comprehensive FAs or not? Bio articles are often larger than average. Nuff said. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

No offense taken. Okay, I've just finished a big pile of copyediting, I'll come back to A-class as soon as I can. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I see Rupert just listed this at WT:MIL two days ago ... hopefully that will produce another review, and I'll copyedit right after that. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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

• "Feldmarschallleutnant": I was taught that German has always reduced a triple consonant to a double consonant (or a workaround is found, such as a hyphen), so I don't think that spelling works. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Feldmarschall-Leutnante, which gives a prior Austrian spelling of Feldmarschalleutnant (2 els).

• I agree, Dan. Errant L. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Now that I've been through the whole thing, I believe my first assessment was wrong, you won't have any problems with length at FAC.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: would you mind having a look at the licensing of the images used in this article? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Images

• File:August_Meyszner.jpg: according to the current licensing tag, copyright would have expired in Germany in 2008, so this wouldn't qualify for PD-1996 - is there another reason this would be PD in the US?

• I'm glad we have you available to check this stuff. I looked at this for some time, and couldn't see the issue, but you are right of course. Delete from Commons and upload to WP with a bio article infobox NFR? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Assuming there is no other PD rationale, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• OK, but I think there is a case for PD-GermanGov, because, despite the wording of the template, section 5 (2) of the German Copyright Act states that "official works" include (my translation) "other official works, which have been published in the official interest for general knowledge" as long as the source is credited. The work from which this photograph is derived is an official listing of the members of the fourth Reichstag, so I believe it meets that criteria, and the image description already credits the original publication. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, that could work. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• File:Der_Panther_Pfrimer_Putsch.jpg: same issue, but would this qualify for the wartime copyrights exception?

• I think this might be an example of where a natural person was not the copyright holder, and under Austrian law only ancillary rights (Leistungsschutzrechte, vested in the later outlawed Austrian-Styrian Heimwehr) existed. If this was the case, then under Austrian law the work was only protected for 50 years from the publication of the work. Given a publication date of 1931, this would have been PD in 1981 and therefore PD-1996. I'm using the guidance provided here. What do you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sounds good - let's swap out the current tag for that pair. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• File:Emanuel_Schäfer.jpg: I would read the "acts" exception to copyright as referring to textual (legal) acts - can you verify this? If that's correct, we'll need a different tag

• I think this is actually mis-described. It is highly likely this was taken by a German photographer, as it was taken in Belgrade. In which case, the publication requirement of PD-GermanGov is the obstacle, I've deleted it from the article. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• File:Draza_Mihailovic,1943.jpg: the current tag requires that the image be published, not just created, before 1973 - did that happen? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria I've replaced that one with a different pic of Mihailovic, but can I get you to sense-check the licensing? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Good so far, but you'll need to add a US tag too. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done. The fifty year rule in Australia brings it into 1992 and therefore PD before URAA. I've searched US newspapers I have access to, and can't find an earlier publication or one within 30 days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Great, all looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2015 (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) 05:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath/archive1

An Arab nobleman of Iraq who raised one of the largest rebellions against the Umayyad Caliphate. His life is a perfect example of the complex tribal and factional rivalries and conflicts underlying the early Muslim state. The article passed a GA review without trouble, and I feel it is ready for an A-class review. Constantine ✍ 16:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Califate_750.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Constantine ✍ 14:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• How about a "See also", "External links" or "Further reading" section? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• For "See also", the relevant links are already in the article: the similar revolts are already mentioned, and anyone somehow related to him or his revolt likewise. For "External links", I know of none that would be useful. There is the article in Britannica for instance, but it does not contain anything new. The subject simply isn't that well-known outside the narrow scope of early Muslim history. For "Further reading", Veccia Vaglieri's article in EI2 is the most comprehensive narrative on the revolt I know of outside primary sources, and I have already included most of the works that have something additional to say. The primary sources themselves, viz. al-Tabari, are also mentioned in the article for anyone who wishes to check them up. If I should chance upon a study or journal article not yet included here, my first choice will be to add it to the main text, and only if for whatever reason it is not, will I make a "Further reading" section. Constantine ✍ 20:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, that checks out that then. Minor note though: "commonly simply known as" does not flow well. I suggest tweaking to "commonly known as simply". Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I've removed the "simply" altogether. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I don't know anything about the topic, sorry, and I can't really comment on content, so I read through mainly for narrative flow. Overall it looks quite good, but I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• in the lead, "The revolt gained widespread support among the discontented with the Umayyad regime" --> perhaps "The revolt gained widespread support among those who were discontented with the Umayyad regime"?
• in the lead, "which now became directly controlled" --> perhaps "which then became directly controlled"?
• " Nevertheless, it is clear that al-Hajjaj quickly became unpopular among the Iraqis in general through a series of measures that "[seem] almost to have goaded the Iraqis into rebellion" (Hugh N. Kennedy)" --> perhaps " Nevertheless, according to Hugh N. Kennedy, al-Hajjaj quickly became unpopular among the Iraqis in general through a series of measures that "[seem] almost to have goaded the Iraqis into rebellion".
  • It is not Kennedy's opinion that al-Hajjaj was unpopular; he was widely regarded as a tyrant and is among the main "villains" of the anti-Umayyad narratives. Kennedy simply provides the quote. I've rephrased it however.
    • Your solution works for me. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• probably same as the above for the other quotes (e.g. Hawtig and Vaglieri).
  • Mostly the same as before, but please check the changes I've made.

Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the suggestions and the copyedits you already made! I've made some alterations based on your suggestions, please have a look. As for the content, I am aware the subject is rather obscure, and am chiefly interested in whether it is accessible to our readers, who like you probably have never heard of him. Are the terms, people, issues, context, etc. explained adequately, or should I elaborate further? Constantine ✍ 14:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it is okay as is. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • In the lead you wrote: "On the way, the mutiny developed from a mutiny against al-Hajjaj to a full-fledged anti-Umayyad rebellion..." This is a little repetitive (use of "mutiny"), perhaps consider something more simple like: "On the way, a mutiny against al-Hajjaj developed into a full-fledged anti-Umayyad rebellion."
  • "...which henceforth became directly controlled by the Umayyad regime's staunchly loyal Syrian troops....", consider instead: "...which henceforth came directly under the control of the Umayyad regime's staunchly loyal Syrian troops."
  • This is a bit euphemistic: "Uthman himself fell in the field". Do you mean he was killed in the battle?
  • "On 24 or 25 January, Ibn al-Ash'ath overwhelmed al-Hajjaj's advance guard at Tustar..." What year?
  • Are the dates here correct? In one paragraph you write: "Ibn al-Ash'ath entered Basra on 13 January 702..." then in the one below "al-Hajjaj marched on Kufa in April 701...". If they are correct the chronology of the paragraphs might need to be altered as it seems somewhat counter-intuitive.
    • Yeah, I noticed that I had a few errors here, I can't really understand how I made them. Nevertheless, fixed. Thanks for pointing them out. Constantine ✍ 09:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "taking him with him to Zanbulistan...", should this be "Zabulistan"?
  • These points aside (without any knowledge of the subject) this looks like a complete, well-written, and well-researched article and appears to be of a very high standard. Anotherclown (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review, and for your suggestions and pointing out these errors. I am glad you were able to read it without problem despite the lack of any knowledge. Any further suggestions in this regard? Perhaps something that should be better explained, or a bit more background given? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Gday, I've added my support now. The only other suggestion I have is to place each entry in the "Battles/wars" and "Relations" fields in the infobox on a separate line (I think it is more common to do this and easier for a reader to review quickly). Anotherclown (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2015 (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 Kirill Lokshin (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Prokhorovka

Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk)

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

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Prokhorovka/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Battle of Prokhorovka/archive2

I am nominating this article for A-Class review as a step before WP:FAC. It passed GA review in 2013 and has been buffed up even more ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. I have a couple of minor comments (unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic to do full review at this stage, sorry): AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• the Harv referencing script is identifying quite a few "harv" errors. I've fixed one for you, but can you please take a look at the rest? (If you install the script, you will see the errors identified in red in the References section);

I've looked into installing the script, but it's proving not to be a one-minute job. In the meantime, I removed a reference that was never used in-text. Did that fix it? EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that helped. I've done the others now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• there are a couple of paragraphs/sentences marked with a "citation needed" tag, which should be rectified;

One of the cn tags is because of an editor that argues the preceding two sources, together with the other three supporting sources, are flawed; although it's been a few days now and sources are yet to be provided. The other has always been in the article, hiding away under other citations. I'm still looking through the five sources I have access to, but so far have found nothing. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. All the citation needed tags have been fixed (citations found or unsourced content removed). EyeTruth (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• in addition, this appears to be unreferenced: "with another 212 tanks and self-propelled guns under repair, and 7,607 casualties". Could a citation be added for this?

It's just a simple summation of the cited numbers, and therefore technically an original research. I'll delete it if necessary. EyeTruth (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• watch out for English variation. For instance, currently it appears to use a mix of US and British spellings, for instance "defense" and "kilometers" (US), but also "defence", "kilometres", and "armour" (British). Either is fine, IMO, but it should be consistent;

I will start changing them to British spellings. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I will try to come back later and do a more thorough review once I've had a look through some of my books at home. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
• are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Achtung-Panzer and Lost Victories works in the Further reading section?

I couldn't find any ISBN for the original versions of the books. Maybe it's because they were written before ISBN was introduced. EyeTruth (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added what I could find from worldcat.org. If ISBNs aren't available, there will generally be an OCLC. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• please include a translation of the title of the Russian works in the Further reading and External link section. This can be done using the "trans_title=" parameter of the cite book and cite web templates. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Done for all the external links. EyeTruth (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just the one in the Further reading left. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that one. I'll correct it asap. I've just been preoccupied with checking every passage in the article to make sure it goes along with what their cited sources say. And in the case where I can't find access to a source, I compare the text against the other sources I have. I've checked over 80% of the article already. EyeTruth (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. EyeTruth (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• ok, I've run through the article and copy edited it a bit. It could still potentially use another set of eyes prior to FAC, though. That said, I found the second half of the second paragraph in the lead a little awkward/abrupt: (the bit starting from "The German offensive was conducted by three armies"). I wonder if you could have a play with it to see if it can be smoothed out a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I could mention the third army? It was excluded because they have no connection to the battle, and were deployed hundreds of kilometres away. Well, their early failure (i.e. stalling on the third day) put a lot of pressure on the German forces that took part in this battle, since they became the only hope for Citadel to succeed. But that is not mentioned in this article, but is already in the Battle of Kursk article. What do you think if it reads like this: "The German offensive was conducted by three armies: In the southern side...." EyeTruth (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

G'day, yes I think the issue is that it talks about three armies then only really seems to mention one (the 4th). My suggestion to resolve this is to just remove the "The German offensive was conducted by three armies" sentence altogether. I think also the wording "In the southern side" is a bit inelegant. "On the southern side..." might be smoother, but I think you need to also define that a bit more. For instance, in/on the southern side of what? Anyway, good work on your changes so far. I will probably not be very active for the next five days or so (I might log in occasionally), but work will limit my time, so I will leave the article sit for a bit. I see that there are some issues being hashed out on the talk page, too. Ideally these should be resolved, and the article stable, prior to FAC. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. I have incorporated these suggestions. And yes, the article will be stable, hopefully, by the time it's done taking these A-Class critiques. EyeTruth (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi AustralianRupert, I've incorporated all of your suggestions; and content-wise the article is set, unless there will be new suggestions on here. Also the discussion on the article's talkpage has stabilized. Do you have new suggestions for the article? EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• G'day, good work, I only have a couple more suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, some have locations of publishing, and some don't. Of those that have them, some include state locations and some don't (e.g compare "Lawrence: University of Kansas Press" with "Mechanicsburg, PA").

 Addressed. City and country listed for all the locations, in addition to other corrections for locations. EyeTruth (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• some of your citations are a little hard to read because of the notes beside them, I suggest removing the notes from the citation and putting them in the dedicated Notes section. E.g. this is a little confusing: "Zetterling & Frankson 2000, pp. 48, 105–106, 793 tanks and 57 self-propelled guns." (the eye has trouble initially working out that it is 793 tanks, not p. 793) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 Addressed. Added "reports" at the beginning of those notes, instead of converting them all to harvntxt. EyeTruth (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the map size slightly

 Addressed. Not needed anymore, as explained below. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Kursk_south.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map?

 Addressed. It had no source, but itself. And on a closer look, the info it presents is wrong. The map has been removed from the article. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:Rotmistrov.jpg: the given licensing tag requires publication of the image before 1951 and death of the creator - can you provide evidence of both of those?

The permission says it's currently in the public domain of the U.S. and Ukraine. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The permission says "it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine, because it was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date". If you can't demonstrate that the two "because" conditions are true, then the tag is not valid here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The image is probably an official state-portrait of Pavel Rotmistrov (identical in style and form to other known state-portraits of Soviet commanders), and it was most likely taken before 1945 as he doesn't have his Order of Kutuzov medal (awarded in 1943) in that portrait. Like all the other state-portraits of Soviet commanders, the official creator would be the Soviet state. EyeTruth (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• File:ProkhorovkaMonument.jpg: Russia does not have freedom of panorama for works of sculpture. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

 Addressed. The image has been removed. But the permission notes that "Russia jurisprudence states that no infringement is constituted when the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject." The image is very related to the subject of that section in the article that it was in. Don't you think that exempts it from constituting as infringement in this case? EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No, that's not an accurate interpretation of that note. "the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" is intended to account for cases where the 3D work is in the background or is otherwise incidental to the main subject of the image. For example, if I took a picture of my sister on the street, my sister would be the main subject and the buildings in the background would be accessory - that image would not be infringement. But where the work is the main subject of the image, it's infringing, whether it's relevant to the article or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspected so. I get it now. Thanks for the clarification. EyeTruth (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, do you have more suggestions? Also about Rotmistrov's image, I can't prove that the particular person that snapped the photograph died before 1951. I highly doubt the individual is known, which satisfies the licence criterion. But the picture was most likely taken before 1945. Personally, what do you think, does the picture fall short of the minimum criteria? BTW, are there any other things regarding images (or any other aspect of the article) that you think requires some scrutiny? EyeTruth (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not so much when it was taken but rather when it was published that is important here, and without information about that we can't say that the current licensing tag applies. It's possible another one might, but offhand I don't know of one as many others also rely on publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know when it was published, but what if it was never published in the traditional sense, just like many photos from archives. I did a little digging and here is what I found. In 2007, the uploader also uploaded another image along side this one, both from this site (now broken), with their dates of release. In 2010, that other image, along with some other image, were both put up for deletion by another editor on the grounds that there are no proofs that the authors died more than 70 years ago. But the request was turned down because they were released before the date prescribed by the licence tag. All the discussion happened for only one of the images, and was not repeated for the other, but both were kept and not deleted. We're scrutinizing the image here entirely because we automatically distrusted the information the uploader provided for the image, but after this little digging I'm dropping my automatic distrust as there are no reasons to doubt the uploader. My guess is that the now broken link most likely had the information on the release dates that the uploader included in the file's description. But you have much more experience with image stuff, and since I hope to take this article for other higher assessments, I'll like to know what you personally suggest? Remove it or keep it? EyeTruth (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Check out this table - if it was never published and authorship is unknown, then copyright persists until 120 years after creation. The situation with that other image is bit different in that it uses Russian rather than Ukrainian copyright law, although the deletion debate was...substandard. But if we can't recover the source, and we don't know anything more about authorship or publication, you'll probably need to either remove the image or try for a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'll have to start a discussion on the file's talkpage at Commons before adding a fair-use tag, right? I'm not very conversant with WP's fair-use claim, but I'll give it a shot, and if it fails I will just remove the image and probably request a deletion too. EyeTruth (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to try for fair use you'll need to upload locally instead - Commons doesn't permit fair-use claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. File:Rotmistrov portrait WWII.jpg. Image in the article has also been updated. I also added a brief explanation in the file's talkpage, so now I'll wait and see. First time trying this, fingers crossed. EyeTruth (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Are there any other things regarding images, or any other aspect of the article, that you think requires some more work? EyeTruth (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is a very fine article which lots of effort and work were put into. Looks good enough to me. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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

• I've replaced "subsequently" (but not subsequent) by "later" throughout, because that seems to be the most common meaning in history articles on Wikipedia. If something else was meant, please fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• This appears to be written in BritEng. There are some -ize endings that may or may not be okay (in proper nouns). I first thought the article was in AmEng ... I don't remember why, there may be AmEng spellings somewhere.

 Done. "ize" changed to "ise" where appropriate. EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• "The VIII Fliegerkorps was to make their": Go with singular (was) or plural (their), not both. Since this is BritEng, plural is more common.

 Addressed. Changed to singular. All other units in the article are singular. EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• "Soviet", etc.: Per WP:HEADING, section and subsection headings are noun phrases, not adjectives.

 Done. Changed to descriptive noun phrases. EyeTruth (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Your changes look good. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits. EyeTruth (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• According to the check linker, scribd.com is dead. That needs to be addressed before the article can pass. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. The dead link has been removed, and it didn't need to be there in the first place. EyeTruth (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2015 (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) 01:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901)/archive1

Another ship with a WWI-related centenary approaching, this being the ship's sinking in October 1915, the greatest naval disaster of the war for German forces in the Baltic. This passed GAN all the way back in early 2011, but I have since expanded it significantly, and I'd like to have it main-page ready for the centenary. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Good work, Parsecboy, I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria. I made a couple of tweaks (please check you are happy with these) and have the following observations:
  • this seems inconsistent: "maximum speed of 20.4 kn (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph)" (in the body) v "20.4 knots (38 km/h)" (in the infobox) - 37.8 km/h as opposed to 38 kh/h.
    • Good catch, fixed.
  • "File:SMS Prinz Adalbert linedrawing.png": the description page lacks author information. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The illustration has a last name on it - no clue who Winchell is, but I've added that to the description page. Probably the best we can do without tracking down a copy of the edition of Proceedings (the one in Google Books is not viewable, unfortunately). Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Cheers, good solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• in lead: suggest Baltic during the war.
  • Sounds fine to me
• in body, speed is converted into kph and mph, but only into kph in infobox
  • Fixed
• in body, the armor thickness is in m and ft, not mm and in
  • Whoops!
• errant space after Heinrich (second mention)
  • Good catch.
• what was the relationship between Prince Adalbert who the ship was named after, and the young man? It begs the question given the ship name.
  • They'd have been...1st cousins, thrice removed, I think?
• suggest the work was eventually completed
  • Sounds fine.
• I'm not sure about the use of Kzs when other ranks are not abbreviated
  • A good point
• suggest adding the word "another" for the sweep of 22 January 1915
  • Works for me
• suggest dropping "however" in Libau paragraph
  • Ok
• suggest replacing for the duration of the war with "during the war"
  • Sounds good.
• pics don't have alt text (not an ACR requirement)
• no dablinks
• no external links
• no overlinking
• Earwig indicates a close match for part of the final para of this article which appears to have been cut and pasted as the description of youtube (2011) and diveo (2014) wreck dive videos (which are worth a watch if you are into that kind of thing).

Looking very good. Comprehensive coverage and wide use of reliable sources. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Thanks - I might have to check those out. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • What is a "KzS"? I couldn't see the abbreviation explained anywhere but might have missed it.
    • Kapitän zur See. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Removed, per PM's comment above. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise I couldn't see any glaring issues after a complete read through. Anotherclown (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Parsecboy: Can you do something about the absence of alt text in the images? Its something I like to see more filled in that not before passing an ACR. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:25, 5 September 2015 (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) 01:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The image of the Australian light horseman is probably one of the most iconic representations of Australia's involvement in the First World War. This article is about one of about fifteen or so regiments raised as part of the Australian Imperial Force during the war. It saw service at Gallipoli, where it was used mainly to provide reinforcements, and then later fought during the Sinai and Palestine campaign. Disbanded after the conclusion of hostilities, it was re-raised as a part-time unit in the Citizens Forces. It remained a horsed regiment throughout the inter-war years but during World War II was converted into a motor regiment and then later an armoured car unit, being used in a garrison role only. It is currently perpetuated by the 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers. The article underwent a GA nomination several years back and has been tweaked a bit since then. Thank you to all who take the time to review and offer comments. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:12thALHRbadge.jpg: should fill in those "n.a." parameters. Also, what is the original date for this badge design?
  • Not sure, unfortunately, but it would have been between 1927 (when the motto was adopted) and 1943 (when the regiment was disbanded). I've added this to the documentation page and added some more info to the missing fields. Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• File:12th_Light_Horse_Regiment_UCP.PNG: would suggest using {{PD-ineligible}} for this given its simplicity. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Good point, went with "PD-Shape" (a derivative of PD-ineligible) which seems to render a slightly more specific ineligibility clause. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Nikki. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images all have alt text except for the badge so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The citation check tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Image review completed above (no action req'd that I can see).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The lead is a little short, maybe expand to two?
    • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Although other units, such as part of the 4th and all of the 13th Light Horse Regiment, were sent to Europe to fight on the Western Front,[9] the 12th were to remain in the Middle East...", perhaps clarify that that bulk of the Light Horse remained in the Middle East? They way I read this it almost sounds like the 12th was the odd one out in not going to Europe, which of cse it wasn't.
    • Clarified. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "...while some men from the regiment were also detached to join Dunsterforce...", where?
    • Persia, I believe. Added this. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there some words missing here: "Over 700 Ottoman soldiers captured and, more significantly for the Australians, over 400,000 litres of water secured."? It seems a bit rigid.
    • Tweaked. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "In March, the 4th Light Horse Brigade, commanded by William Grant..." rank for Grant here (if available in the sources)?
    • Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "...further advance towards the railway junction at Deraa...", wikilink Deraa
    • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • There is possibly an inconsistency here: "..." the Germans manning the station killed them..." (them suggesting multiple killed), followed by "In the battle, the regiment lost one man killed and 10 wounded..." Is there an issue here, or were these men from a different unit. If it is an inconsistency in the sources perhaps reword to "the Germans manning the station shot them..." or something similar.
    • There were several killed from both the 11th and 12th LHRs. I've tried to make this clearer. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Add isbn for Hogan (ADB entry) and oclc for Stanley (also mention that it was part of the proceedings of the 2001 Chief of Army's History Conference etc). See WorldCat.org entry for the details. Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review, I think I've got all of these. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Those changes have addressed all my points, I made a few tweaks at the end to the lead [19]. Pls review and change any you don't agree with. In particular I though it was redundant to say "12 LHR was a LHR" so changed it to "12 LHR was a mounted infantry regiment". Do you think that is workable? Anotherclown (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
          • G'day, yes that seems fine. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support

• First of all, and I know you hear this every Anzac day, but light horse were not mounted infantry. Mounted infantry were infantry that rode to the battle on horseback, dismounted and fought as infantry. From the Australian Light Horse article, which gets it right:

Light horse were like mounted infantry in that they usually fought dismounted, using their horses as transport to the battlefield and as a means of swift disengagement when retreating or retiring... However, unlike mounted infantry, the light horse also performed certain cavalry roles, such as scouting and screening, while mounted.

Contrary to your article, the light horse were trained for some cavalry actions, but they were just not intended to fight as cavalry on the battlefield

Mounted infantry were organised as infantry, in platoons and companies, but light horse were organised along cavalry lines, in troops, squadrons and regiments. Note how much smaller light horse regiments were than infantry battalions

G'day, I've had a go at addressing this. Would you mind taking a look and seeing it needs further adjustment? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think the lead should mention the the 12th Light Horse was raised in New South Wales.

• Added. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Galloping Jack Royston could be red linked, as he was a general, but it's up to you

• Red linked. Agreed, definitely could have an article written on him. Might have a go at it myself sometime if someone doesn't beat me to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Update: I have created a stub article for Royston now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Link Henry Gullett

• Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• The 12th Light Horse was reformed because it was intended to become the mounted regiment of the newly-formed 5th Division; but the TO was changed so each division had only one squadron.

• G'day, thanks for this, I haven't been able to find a ref for this yet. Do you have one at hand? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing in Gullet while Bou 2010 Light Horse: Au History of Australia's Mounted Arm pp. 150-151 skirts around the issue and provides some context to the period but doesn't mention this specifically. There is something in here [20] on p. 67 which is pretty close though. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Added something, but it is kind of like citing your boss' work back at them...I feel *inadequate* and worry that I might have misunderstood. Hawkeye, would you mind taking a look? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• They were later put down, according to Hollis, because of "cost constraints and quarantine restrictions" and concerns they might be mistreated if left behind. No, that is not correct. The horses were sold to the British Indian Army; many went on to other wars in India. Only horses in too poor a condition to be sold were put down.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• I added something from Perry on this and tried to merge the two views. Could you please take a look and let me know what you think? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate your comments, Hawkeye. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess the emphasis on MI in the lead was really due to my edit [21], as describing the 12th Light Horse Regiment "as a light horse regiment" seemed a little redundant to me that's all. Certainly they did fill a number of roles somewhere b/n mounted infantry and cavalry (which I wouldn't think would be a correct description either) so I wonder how we describe them to the reader in two words if mounted infantry is not correct (I'd note Kuring at least calls them exactly that and I'd imagine so do quite a few other sources). Anyway happy to self-revert if I've buggered it up. Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I just went with a generic "...was a regiment of the Australian Army". It might be a bit dry, but maybe less confusing. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I wonder about describing them as a "mounted unit", its seem to be a bit more descriptive of what they were rather than just saying a "regiment was a regiment". Anotherclown (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked to mounted unit. @Hawkeye7:, does this work for you? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

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

• "a number of": If this is headed to FAC, you might get feedback there that this expression is ambiguous.
  • Changed to specify the numbers that arrived (54 men and about 350 horses). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• "Citizens Forces was": sounds a little off.
  • Changed to "the Citizens Force was..." AustralianRupert (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, Dan, thank you for your edits and advice. Have a great weekend. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    • You too. Thanks to you and AC for keeping the home fires burning at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 5 September 2015 (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) 12:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

House of Plantagenet

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

House of Plantagenet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive1
• Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive2
• Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive3

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has undergone significant rework since failing at FAC back 2013. The key challenge was then about separating the history of the period from the storyof the family. @Sabrebd: did some great work stripping out the history into the more generic articles of the period and I have beefed up the family content. It is certainly better than what it was as a GA but is it good enough to be promoted? Two subsequent peer review haven't provided anything significant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Image review: All the images appear to be freely licenced without any real problems but nowhere in the previous nominations or review do I see anyone asking about the alt text for images. Most images do not have alt text so you should fix that. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks ww2censor. I have added alt text for all the images now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort but alt text is supposed to describe the image to people who have poor or no sight so the name of a person may often mean nothing to them. Think about it in their terms if you were having a text reading application read the file information. You need to describe in simple word what the picture shows. There is an instructive page WP:ALT which I hope helps you. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Second attempt at the alt txt - I think it is better but didn't really find WP:ALT helpful. I think a text reader would now explain these clearly but I'm not blind so what would I know. I am now off to Calabria for a couple of weeks so there may be a delay in my future responses in that period. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: I had a larger review typed out, but the browser gobbled it up, sorry, so just a couple of comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)—don't you just hate it when that happens? :-)Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• watch for overlink. If you install this script, it will highlight the terms that are potentially overlinked: User:Ucucha/duplinks;

• Thanks for the tool, very useful and now done for all visible text. Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography there is probably no requirement to include page numbers for books unless citing a specific chapter

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, for the foreign language titles, please include a translation. This can be included in the cite book template using the "trans_title=" parameter

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• this sentence probably needs a citation: "Two further failed invasions supported by Margaret using Perkin Warbeck pretending to be Edward IV's son Richard of Shrewsbury, and Warbeck's later escape, implicated Warwick, who was executed in 1499."

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• for the works that are too old for an ISBN, there is probably an OCLC number available, e.g. "The History of France, from the final partition of the Empire of Charlemagne to the Peace of Cambray". You can search for OCLC numbers at worldcat.org

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• in the Bibliography, "Pollack and Maitland" - first names? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to comment on the content, but I'm happy with the changes that have been made since my review, so I've added my support. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments

• There is a contradiction in the first paragraph. You say the Plantagenets ruled England from 1154, and then that they were preceded by the Angevins. But the Angevins ruled from 1154, so saying that the Plantagenets ruled from then denies that a separate Angevin dynasty existed. This is a view taken by some historians, as you explain below. As you have a section on Angevin kings, you appear to take both views, which seems confusing. The New Oxford History of England and ODNB both regard Henry II and his sons as Angevins, not Plantegenets, and there is a Wikipedia article on the Angevins, so it would make more sense to me to start the article with Henry III. (Apologies if I am raising a question which has been discussed previously.)

• No need to apologise Dudley, as you might guess this has caused immense debate and no real consensus. In the end we agreed that both views were valid—that the Angevins were distinct and also they were also part of this dynasty. Afterall Henry III was the son of John and Grandson of Henry II but there is a distinct change of political paradigms following the loss of Anjou. I have tried to reword para 1 to take your point into account and also make this clearer. Do you think it worked? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Y

• You describe Angevin Empire as a moniker. Moniker means nickname, which does not sound right. Why not just name? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Agree, amended to your suggestion—I think this slipped in during a copy edit. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• "Through Henry's fourth son, John, a line of fourteen English kings was produced." I would delete as superfluous and not strictly accurate. Richard I did not derive his claim from John.

• Agreed, done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "This was not necessarily due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets." This seems an indecisive comment. Perhaps "only partly due".

• Agreed, done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• Some of the second and third paragraphs of the lead, especially on the major buildings and the economy are not supported by citations in the main text so far as I can see.

• "Towards the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, England was in a pitiful state. The English economy was in ruins". It was a bad time for the upper classes, not for the common people. A demographic history I read (many years ago, so it may be dated) argued that the fifteenth century was a good time for the peasants, when the Black Death and subsequent plagues created labour shortages which allowed them to demand higher wages and get rid of feudal restrictions.

• This is true. However, while the peasants had done well, overall the economy was in a crisis known as the Great Slump (15th century). C.S.L. Davies describes this as a deep commercial crisis caused in part by the loss of France, piracy and poor relations with the Hanseatic League. Higher wages and lower prices hit the landlords and employers hard e.g. the income of the duchy of Lancaster fell by a third between 1400 and 1470. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• Your text gives the impression that everyone was doing badly, and your comments are not referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Extra paragraph added to Lancastrian section to describe the state of the economy and also to differentiate between the peasantry and the economy as a whole This is supported by three separate references. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• Plantagenet. According to ODNB on Henry II the term did not come into common usage among historians until the late 17C, which is worth mentioning.

• Agreed, done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "The birth reduced the risk that the king's realm would pass to his son-in-law's family" Why should the crown have passed to Geoffrey's family if he did not children by Matilda?

• There was no precedent for a female monarch. If the couple assumed power Geoffrey would be King. If Matilda then predeceased him without heirs he would remain king and the risk would be he remarried and fathered a dynasty. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• The article sometimes uses US spelling - rigor and quarreled.

• I've fixed these two. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "But Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda about the succession." How quarreled? Did he not want Matilda to succeed?

• He didn't want to hand over any power while he was still alive. Amended. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• Henry's children - why mention Eleanour's marriage and not those of other children?

• You have not dealt with this. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Removed for consistency. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "Becket was an inept politician, whose defiance alienated the king and his counsellors." Is this the general judgment of historians? It is hard to believe that an inept politician could have become Henry's right hand man.

• Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "Henry II gathered his children to plan a partible inheritance: his eldest son, William, would inherit England" Presumably eldest son Henry?

• Correct, fixed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "'s Great Seal of 1189]]On the day " Typo.

• Look ok now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "On the day of Richard's coronation, there was a massive slaughter of Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust" This is wrong. There was a riot at the coronation, but no slaughter. There were massacres in 1190.

• This matches the source - Richard of Devizes said the Jews in London, who were destroyed that day. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• Devizes is a long way from London and Richard may have received exaggerated reports. Gillingham in ODNB on Richard describes it as a riot, Carpenter in The Struggle for Mastery as one of a number of slaughters of Jews at that time. They both agree that the culmination of the attacks was the massacre at York the following year. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• As the sentence doesn't add anything I have removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "Richard was captured by Leopold while returning." Leopold had left the Crusade because Richard had humiliated him.

• Rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "On his accession, Edward I sought to organise his realm, enforcing his claims to primacy in the British Isles. At the time, Wales consisted of several princedoms, often in conflict with each other. Under the Treaty of Woodstock, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ruled North Wales as a subordinate of the English king, but he exploited the English civil wars to strengthen his position as Prince of Wales, maintaining that he was "entirely separate from" England." The chronology seems confused here. Llywelyn must have exploited civil wars before Edward became kin.

Tidied. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "When Gaveston returned again to England, he was abducted and executed after a mock trial.[83] This brutal act drove Thomas and his adherents from power." "This brutal act" is POV.

• Removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "He is generally believed to have been murdered at Berkeley Castle by having a red-hot poker thrust into his bowels" This is dubious and based on Weir. It is not mentioned by ODNB, which says he was probably murdered but may have died of natural causes.

• Not really dubious - he is widely believed to have died like this, although I have caveated this now to reflect the lack of evidence. Changed the cite to Schama, could equally have used Lee or Winston Churchill is the history of the english speaking peoples. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• I do not know who you mean by Lee and Schama and Churchill are not medieval specialists. Phillips in ODNB does not mention it, as I said above, and Prestwich in Plantagenet England p. 219 says "very possibly". It is "widely believed" by popular and non-specialist historians. Experts are more cautious. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Lee was quatercentary Professor of history at Wadham College, Oxford Uni. I have changed generally to popularly. The point of the sentence is that if any "fact" about E2 is generally known it is this, not whether it is based on historical fact. It was always clear as written that there was no evidence. The sources are perfectly adequate to support popular belief. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• Carpenter in The Struggle for Mastery, p. 525, describes Edward II as "the most hopeless king to sit on the English throne", which might be worth quoting. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Though removed from power, Isabella was treated well, living in luxury for the next 27 years.[" A bit odd? What else could Edward do with his mother?

• Yep, I'll remove .Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• " destructive chevauchées" A bit euphemistic for attempting to weaken the enemy by a scorched earth policy.

• Maybe, but not inaccurrate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "Henry asserted that his mother had had legitimate rights through descent from Edmund Crouchback, whom he claimed to have been the elder son of Henry III of England, set aside due to deformity" - according to Weir - not mentioned in ODNB on Henry.

• Quite widely sourcable - I have added another (Schama) to support. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• Widely sourceable to popular and non-specialist historians. It is not mentioned by Harriss in Shaping the Nation or in ODNB on Henry. No doubt such a claim was made, with or without Henry's approval, but experts do not consider it significant enough to be worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• You comment is not completely accurate, in fact Ian Mortimer (historian) describes it as so well known that it isn't worth repeating the detail. There are at least three contemporary chronicles that detail this. However, I have amended and sourced a reference. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "Many saw it as a punishment from God when Henry was later struck down with leprosy and epilepsy.[" ODNB says that this was disproved in the 19C when his body was examined and no sign of leprosy found.

• Rephrased. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "Humphrey's wife was accused of using witchcraft with the aim of putting him on the throne" Again wrong and based on Weir. According to ODNB on her she was accused of treasonable necromancy for employing fortune tellers who predicted that Henry would suffer a dangerous illness, but not of trying to put her husband on the throne.

• Rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• Your revised wording is: "Humphrey's wife was accused of the reasonable act of using witchcraft to predict the kings death which would have put him on the throne, and Humphrey was later arrested and died in prison." This has a typo and is still not right. She was not accused of using witchcraft to predict the king's death but employing fortune tellers who predicted a dangerous illness. It is also still cited to Weir, even though it presumably is not what she said. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Rephrased and recited to ODNB. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• This is an interesting article but I do not think it is ready for A Class. There is too much reliance on Weir, who does not seem a reliable source. I also think it has too much general history covered in other articles, but this is obviously a difficult matter of judgment. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Weir is a thorough researcher if not an historian and is largely used for births, death, marriages only all of which are a matter of record rather historical interpretation. I've replaced the cites on the two pieces of history you challenged. What would help and be appreciated is if you could give some more detail on the general history you think can be excised. @SabreBD: did an incredible job of removing history from this and into England in the Late Middle Ages - details can be found at Talk:House of Plantagenet/Archive 2#Split Article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Dudley Miles:—I'll aim to get to a response on these next week. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am still doubtful about the heavy reliance on non-specialist writers such as Weir, with 27 citations. This is not my period and I have not read Weir, but judging by your citations she seems to adopt the most sensational interpretation, which is not always accepted by medievalists. What does Hchc think? 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have removed all references to Weir's book on the Wars of the Roses and the book from the Bibliography. I have left those related to her Genealogy on the same basis as back on the 5th August — it largely used for births, death, marriages only all of which are a matter of record rather historical interpretation. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Y

Support, but a few further quibbles on re-reading.

• In the bibliography Jones, Dan is out of alphabetical order.

• Now fixed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Y

• "Henry perceived many similarities between himself and England's patron saint, Edward the Confessor, due to his struggle with the nobility." I am not sure how important the struggles with the nobility were as a reason for Henry's devotion. According to ODNB it was because both were orphans and men of peace, which sounds more likely.
  • Dudley, my reading is that something like "including his struggle" rather than "due to" was meant ... I'll make that change, but feel free to change it around, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• "but the cost of materialising the claim was prohibitive" Materialising the claim does not sound right to me. Making the claim good? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm copyediting this morning, I'll make that change if it's acceptable. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

• I'm not sure what position the reviewers are taking so far, but I enjoyed the article, and I copyedited down to Angevins. Please ping me when we get another support and I'll finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• Okay I see the support this morning, I'll start back up. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• I just changed all instances of "subsequently" (but not subsequent) to "later", because that seems to be the most common meaning at A-class and FAC. The problem is that "subsequently" is highly ambiguous ... so if something else was meant, please replace the word "later" by what was meant. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• I won't fix all of them because there are too many to fix: use a pronoun, or a more general noun, in cases where it's not necessary to repeat a noun. (For instance, there are paragraphs where "Henry" is repeated four or five times more than is necessary; "he" or "the king" would work.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• You will probably get some static at FAC over the formatting of lists of heirs. I'll leave it alone.
• "Many Lancastrians asserted that his mother had had legitimate rights through her descent from Edmund Crouchback, whom it was claimed was the elder son of Henry III of England, set aside due to deformity.": This information is repeated from where Crouchback is first mentioned.
• "preferment": oxforddictionaries.com doesn't list the meaning in the given context.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Dank:—much appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Norfolkbigfish: You've got two dab links that need fixed and a lot of images are lacking alt text. Please address these issues forthwith, if you would. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:22, 5 September 2015 (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) 02:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Hermann Fegelein

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Hermann Fegelein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating the article on behalf of Diannaa (talk · contribs) and Kierzek (talk · contribs). I believe the article worthy of a Military History A-class rating. I have contributed a little to the article myself, but I don’t think I should be credited much for the progress made so for. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SS-Gruppenführer_Collar_Rank.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There's literally hundreds of Nazi military rank insignia on the Commons, and none of them have any copyright information about the original designs. They are probably PD-shape. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there anything else which needs to be addressed at this point in time? Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

From Nikki... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added a PD-shape template to the file. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• the pic of Fegelein with Gesele doesn't have alt text (not an ACR requirement)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• no dablinks (NFA)
• the link to abendblatt.de is dead

• Fixed. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• all redirects are logical (NFA)
• reflinks all good (NFA)
• isn't part of his notability related to his command of SS-Florian Geyer? I expected to see that in the lead.

• I have expanded the lead to 4 paragraphs. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• for consistency, it might be best to have all references and further reading formatted the same (ie with refbegin/end templates or not

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• issn needed for Der Spiegel

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• locations needed for publication of two references, Vinogradov & Der Spiegel

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• trans-title fields needed for Eberle & Uhl 2001, Fest 2006 and Jaeger

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• while not necessarily precluded by WP:ELMAYBE, I see no reason that lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de would be considered a "knowledgeable source", especially as it provides no info on where the material on the page comes from

• Removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• the dates of rank section isn't quite right, as I understand the ranks of SS-Brigadefuhrer and above were still ranks of the Allgemeine-SS, the Waffen-SS ranks follow (ie Generalmajor of the Waffen-SS). The Waffen-SS general ranks being an amalgam of both.
  • Well, one could hold different ranks in both; and it also depends on the rank table in comparison being used. We had a discussion on this on the talk page and used the German comparison table. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • The table is a bit weird, though. From a military perspective, the only ones that matter (IMO) are the Waffen-SS ones. Many Wehrmacht officers had Allgemeine rank far below their service rank, someone could be an SS-Mann and a commissioned officer at the same time, but their Allgemeine rank had nothing to do with their military skills or responsibilities. I would suggest integrating the Allgemeine ranks into the narrative of the relevant section(s), and leaving just his Waffen-SS ranks in the Dates of rank section. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• the article isn't consistent about Fegelein's fate. The Death section essentially states Mohnke closed the CM (obviously without a judgement) then didn't see him again. He was handed over to the RSD and shot. But elsewhere it says he was found guilty by the CM. My understanding is that the consensus is he was too drunk to be tried, so Mohnke handed him over and the RSD shot him on Hitler's orders. If the facts are blurred, they need to be teased out to a greater extent, including the various versions
  • Again discussed on the talk page at length. The version in the article is the one accepted by the majority of RS sources and it was agreed to put the alternative in as a footnote. The book in the footnote must used with caution as it was a Soviet book put together for Stalin and only edited by Eberle & Uhl. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I did read the discussion in the archive. I don't think that discussion really leads us to where we currently are regarding the article, as the current article text ends up being contradictory. ie the Death section says there was no CM, Mohnke curtailed it when he realised F's condition, but nevertheless F got shot. Either he was CM or he was not. If the academic consensus is that he was CM'd (I'm not at all sure it is), then he was killed judicially, if not, then he wasn't. My reading of various sources on this (wider than the sources used in the article at present) is that the jury will always be out on the circumstances of his death. The fact that the RK arbiters decided something post-facto is neither here nor there. While it should be mentioned, it shouldn't state it as fact, it should just state that they determined it to be such. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• It should be mentioned that Hogl was sent to find Fegelein, and that he was himself the deputy of the RSD and the main bodyguard unit commander
  • He was the bodyguard commander for the RSD unit for close security for Hitler but not the FBK commander. It is mentioned that Hogl "caught him" but I will tweak it. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • He was the CO of the 1st Battalion of the RSD was he not? Directly responsible for Hitler's protection? As well as the 2IC of the RSD?
      • Yes, but one cannot say "he was the main body guard commander"; that is what I was replying to. Johann Rattenhuber would be the main RSD commander with Hogl, his deputy, head of the RSD unit for Hitler's close security; but he was not over the SS-Begleitkommando commander who was in charge of Hitler personal security unit; when acting together, Rattenhuber was in charge. That was my point. Anyway, the tweak you wanted is done. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
        • OK, I think we're at 6s and 7s. I just wanted to follow up the whole "abandoned his post" thing. Fegelein had two jobs, one was Himmler's liaison to Hitler, the other was with SS-FHA. His instinct for self-preservation and understanding of what people in the Bunker were thinking (as reflected in the sources) isn't reflected in the article. That doesn't mean he wasn't a deserter, it just means that his situation isn't being presented in a balanced way.
      • done - added detail as to his "instinct for self-preservation" and not wanting to commit suicide in the bunker, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
        • • You are right, and that is why the note added states "... Based on this stated chain of events, author Veit Scherzer concluded that Fegelein, according to the German law, was deprived of all honours and honorary signs and must therefore be considered a de facto but not de jure recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross ". Does this not exactly reflect what you are suggesting? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
            • I don't think we can have the article (whether in notes or in the body) contradicting itself without proper explanation in the body. It just can't be presented as a contradiction in the text, then "clarified" in a note. He either was CM'd or wasn't. Do we know? If not, then someone (whomever from the RK mob or later scholars) have made assumptions about his RK. As I see it, the article is contradictory at the moment. It essentially says he was shot out of hand, but also says that he was CM'd and lost his honours. It can't be both.
              • The issue had been discussed before see here. I had advocated adding the "alternative end" to the article based on current histories assessment of whether Fegelein is or is not a de jure recipient of the Knight's Cross. A footnote to the article was the concession made back then. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
                • Misterbee, he said above to have read that discussion; what concerned me then as now is giving undue weight to the cited text from "The Hitler Book" edited by Eberle & Uhl and the "conclusion" reached by Veit Scherzer; but with that said, have a crack at it or maybe @Diannaa: can. I cannot at the moment (work calls). Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • I understood what was said, I am not that dumb. I tried to express (in a very euphemistic way), that back then I wanted to have the info part of the article, equally balanced among the two scenarios. But, back then, I felt that the main editors of the article were absolutely convinced that Mohnke was "innocent" and not involved in Fegelein's death sentence/execution and felt that Eberle & Uhl got it all wrong. Placing the info provided by Eberle & Uhl and Scherzer's conclusion in a footnote, was the best can do at the time without upsetting (or causing an edit war over the issue) the main editors (so I felt at the time). Having said that, I absolutely agree with Peacemaker, it is a better solution to place the alternative end in the main body of the article. Back then, this seemed an unachievable objective. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
                    • It needs to be made clearer that accounts of his death differ, and if one version is preferred by historians, say why. I think putting one version in a footnote might be a little POV. Or is one version too fringe to appear in the article at all? I stayed out of the debate at the time, because I don't have access to all the sources, and I still don't know what to think. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
                      • Misterbee, I was not implying anything, just thought you may have missed his reply above, lord knows I have missed things before. We are here to work together; I thought the footnote was the best way to handle it then; I expressed my concerns then and above and then added have a go of it; so I believe we are on the same page as to an addition now. Diannaa, as to your comment, the version most historians state is the one in the main part of the article now, but an addition with an alternative end can be made. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine, who is in the lead on this? Does your last comment imply that the content of the footnote should be integrated into the main body of the article? I want to be sure to what we agreed here. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Unfortunately, I am off to work. Kierzek (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Made the change, please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

done by Diannaa. Thanks, D. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with the way it is worded in the Death section (although there is probably some unnecessary repetition of the bit up to the point of the CM being ordered), but the Awards etc section still states that F was sentenced to death. It is not at all clear that he was, despite Scherzer's conclusion, so I think something more reflective of the two versions needs to be reflected here as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• some people are referred to by their SS-rank, others not. Mohnke was an SS-Brigadefuhrer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS
  • I tweaked this point recently. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
• bit surprised not to see the recent book Fegelein's Horsemen and Genocidal Warfare (Palgrave MacMillan) used as a reference
  • I don't have the book. I added it to the further reading section MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't have it either. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I will get it in on inter-library loan. This could take anywhere from 2 weeks to a month. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
• no reference to sources that state he was interrogated by Muller before being killed
• done. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• one last point, in the infobox he is Otto, but {{infobox military person}} says full name. Is there a reason for the difference between article title, first line of lead and infobox? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Done, changed for consistency with article title. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that Dianna has included material from Fegelein's Horsemen, all my major comments have been addressed, I am moving to support. If this is going to FAC, there are two things I'd recommend, looking at my comment on the ranks table, and tempering the last sentence in the Awards section regarding the fact that the de facto/de jure issue with his awards is just one man's opinion, and reflects only the NKVD version of events. Well done, this really is a great collaboration of a number of editors. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine. I've read through the article twice, and made a few style edits. Otherwise, for someone who does not have a very detailed knowledge of the man's career, I found the article overall to be detailed, informative, and well-written. I have only a few remarks/questions, mostly stemming from my ignorance of the subject:

• There appears to be nothing of his activity between June/July 1944 and his arrest and death. Even as a liaison officer he is bound to have done something during this period; and given the amount of scrutiny Hitler's inner circle has been under by three generations of historians, I would be surprised if something could not be found.
  • Well in large part that is due to the fact that he had been appointed chief of Amt VI—Office for Rider and Driver Training—in the SS-Führungshauptamt on 1 January 1944 and at the same time made the SS liaison officer at Hitler's HQ. Besides attending military conferences, he spent much of his time skirt chasing. Kierzek (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
• Is there anything on how Fegelein was assessed as a military commander? Obviously he was resented as a social climber and opportunist, but some assessment of his leadership capability, or even his status among the men he commanded, should be in the article given that he was a divisional commander.
• I was going to suggest including a brief mention on his portrayal in Der Untergang, but then I looked at the talk page archive...
• There is a reference to Beevor 2002 (#30) which does not appear among the list of sources  Fixed -- D.

Otherwise, it looks fine. Constantine ✍ 21:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've finished adding and amending content using Pieper's new book. I've added some of Pieper's analysis of Fegelein's abilities as a commander. The book stops at the end of March 1942, so I am unable to add any further details as to what exactly his duties were once he became Himmler's liaison officer in the Hitler entourage. I think all issues have been addressed as far as we are able. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Good, I am satisfied with the expansion, which gives a fuller picture of his active combat duties. Re his activities as a liaison, I take your word for it that the sources are silent about this period. I am moving to Support. Well done! Constantine ✍ 08:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Support

• A great article. I have corrected a couple of typos myself.[22] "Kurk Knoblauch" is actually "Kurt Knoblauch". As an SS general, he could have been red-linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport

• I made a few tweaks [23], mostly a few typos / missing words.
• "On 27 April, Reichssicherheitsdienst (RSD) deputy commander SS-Obersturmbannführer..." I'm assuming this was 1945? Pls add the year to the date here for clarity.
  • done Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
• The start of the "Death" section is fairly abrupt and might be difficult for some readers to comprehend how we go from his marriage in June 1944 (in the previous section) to the Furherbunker in April 1945. Perhaps at least mention something about the course of the war, the Battle of Berlin, and the Red Army encircling the city etc to give some context? Otherwise any reader who was unaware of these events wouldn't know why a suicide pact was on the cards. Anotherclown (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • done Kierzek (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2015 (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) 01:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

RAAF area commands

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

RAAF area commands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/RAAF area commands/archive1

This article is a little unusual in that I'm unaware of any comparable history of the subject, a command-and-control system that's been defunct since the 1950s but which was a key part of RAAF operations in the Pacific during WWII. There's a plethora of references to the individual commands and indeed to the system as a whole, but I don't know anywhere that someone has distilled it all into a decent overview -- until now! I've had this on the backburner for several years, originally planning a list-like article with subsections on the individual commands following the overview but in the end I decided that the commands all justified their own articles, and that I might put them together in a GT nom/book when complete. As to the article's layout, I'm open to suggestions re. placement of the table (it's a summary, so is it best in the lead or at the end?), as well as the order of the maps (should the lead show the longest-standing arrangement, as it does now, or should we put the initial but short-lived four-command arrangement there and the succeeding five-command arrangement in the main body?) Anyway, hope you enjoy it -- thanks Rupert for the recent GAN and to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Apologies for the quality of the maps but I wanted a consistent format and no issues re. copyright so figured it was simpler to make my own. Also, while I may not progress individual area command articles beyond GAN, I think this overview is worth ACR and perhaps FAC as well, so any concerns relating to the latter are welcome too! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, I actually like the maps. The standard seems okay to me, but then I guess I was never artistic! I plan to post a review, but will wait for some others to chime in first. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments Given the nature of works on the RAAF, it's brave to take on an article discussing the high-level structure of the force. However, this article is in very good shape and is remarkably comprehensive. I have the following comments:

• Having a table in the lead looks a bit odd
  • Moved to end. Also took the opportunity to summarise more fully the transition to functional commands in the lead.
• "determined to implement " - should this be "decided to implement"?
  • I chose "determined" deliberately but I tend to agree it can sound a bit 'off' so went for "decided".
• You could red link all the viable-looking links to articles (eg, for the training and maintenance groups) - some are currently linked while others aren't
  • Actually someone else linked those -- I wasn't planning to because until/unless NAA digitises more of the records, most of the articles will be little more than stubs and I wasn't going to bother with them as yet. I agree it should be consistent, so my preference for now is to consistently de-redlink them -- WDYT?
    • I'm very much pro-red link (per WP:REDLINK), especially as stubs on those topics would probably constitute the best thing available on them Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I suppose my perspective is a bit different and I feel, on the one hand, that a sea of red is bit much and, on the other, that sending readers off to stubs that have no more info than the current article isn't that helpful -- and having done a fair bit of checking I think that'd be the case for all the unlinked groups and commands mentioned in the article except No. 5 Maint Grp, as the unit history has been digitised. You'll find the odd commander mentioned in Trove or Air Marshals of the RAAF at APDC, but then most of them don't have articles either...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• "this freed the latter from garrison duties while its combat units advanced towards Borneo" - this is a bit inaccurate given that No. 11 Group was to take over most of the 1 TAF's bases in Borneo and operate over the area. I'd suggest tweaking this to "this freed the latter from garrison duties following the liberation of Borneo" or similar
  • Done.
• It might be worth digging around in Trove for references to support a FAC, though it could be a frustrating exercise given the nature of the topic - a simple search of RAAF organisation returns over 2700 hits! [24] Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Heh, believe me, I've been through a ton! As I built this overview offline, and the individual command articles alongside it, I did a lot of checking in Trove to try and confirm commanders and supersession/disbandment dates, and by the end I was able to discern most of that from the digitised area command histories in NAA and the OOB from Vets' Affairs. Ultimately, I think I've used the one really useful Trove entry ("Battle 'nerve-centre' goes north"), which gave a rationale for something that confused me initially, namely why NWA, NEA and Western Area lingered on awhile after their command authority had been taken over by the functional commands in 1954 (they were just being used temporarily as "remote control points" for the new functional commands). Tks for reviewing, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Sorry Ian, following up on this review slipped my mind. I still think that all the groups should be linked, but that minor quibble shouldn't hold up the article's promotion as it meets all the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Tks Nick. I guess another reason I've held off links/articles is because I like to try and do things in (pun unintended) groups and although we have formation and disbandment dates for three of the training and maint groups, No. 4 Maint is problematic. I think that at some stage in the late 1940s it was redesignated Maintenance Group (which became Maintenance Command in 1953) but none of my extensive searches have confirmed if or when this took place. Anyway I'll link the two training groups in the main body so at least we have consistency there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed for GAN, and I have reviewed the changes made since then and am of the belief that it meets the A-class criteria. I think moving the table out of the lead was a good idea; my only observation with regards to the table now is that it appears to be uncited (although the information is, of course, cited in the prose above it). Perhaps a couple of generic refs (even if they are duplicates) could be added to the stem sentence that introduces the table to alleviate any concerns that might be raised in the FAC? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Tks Rupert -- from FAC experience I've found that a summary table (e.g. ancestors or issue in royalty articles) can be uncited so long as all the elements are sourced within the main body, so might see how we go there. Your comment was very helpful, though, as it made realise that I hadn't properly cited the disbandment years for NEA, NWA and Western Area, so taken care of that now! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dabs, ext links checks out (including the chameleonic links to the official histories that keep changing their url...grumble), no duplicate links, ref consolidation checks outs, image captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • One of the images (File:RAAFAreaCommands1942.png) is missing alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR req);
    • Done.
  • Does File:Caf hardman.jpg need a PD US tag (or something like that)?;
    • Hmm, I don't think this is a simple question -- I didn't copy it to Commons and wonder if it even belongs there... GermanJoe, could you weigh in? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      • The image should have a Commons:Template:PD-US template as well to indicate the assumed US-copyright situation. As Ian Rose pointed out, the handling of such photos in that period is a bit unclear and has been repeatedly discussed without final consensus on Commons. Personally I believe the deletion of such clearly PD photos based on some legal technicality is ill-advised. But regardless of those boring details: all non-US images should have a template for US copyright and for their home country's copyright on Commons. GermanJoe (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Tks for prompt response, Joe. For everyone's benefit, I meant to say that it wasn't simple because, although clearly PD in Australia being pre-1955, it's also post-1945 and therefore didn't seem to meet the old faithful PD-1996. Anyway, more than happy to add the tag you suggest, Joe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok pls indulge the malformed, potentially not well articulated, half thought / query the follows (misquote "I don't know what I don't know" sort of thing - which is the smartest statement about intelligence gathering anybody ever said that was subsequently accused of being dumb by a dumb person, IMO of cse):
    • "Exceptions to this policy included aircraft depots and the Central Flying School that trained flying instructors, each of whose range of responsibilities crossed area boundaries and therefore came under the control of RAAF Headquarters." The area command structure was static and defensive and confined to Australia so it leaves me wondering about the RAAF units deployed beyond the boundaries of the area commands. For instance those in the United Kingdom, Middle East and Malaya etc? How would / did they fit in? I assume they were under operational command of the RAF in those areas? I guess they were deployed a little after the first incarnation of the area command system but was the need to deploy expeditionary forces considered? And how were they commanded when they were deployed? I wonder if this should this be clarified or have I "left the building"?
      • Definitely no such thing as a dumb question when it comes to command-and-control of the RAAF during WWII... ;-) Yes, I believe that in all cases you've mentioned the RAF had operational control of the RAAF units involved. There were no RAAF wings, groups or commands in Europe, ME or Malaya. Before he proposed functional commands for Australia, Goble had suggested an Air Expeditionary Force for overseas, which would have given the RAAF greater autonomy over its units in Europe and ME, but that was never taken up. I thought all this might be a bit involved and perhaps not strictly germane to this article -- it would definitely fit in a general "Command of the RAAF during WWII" article, but that's an even bigger challenge than this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this looks like a very good article to me. It is concise, and well-written. No issues with prose or MOS etc that I could see. Anotherclown (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Many tks AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2015 (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) 05:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I think it should be good for A-class, and maybe later on at FAC. It passed a GA review way back in May of this year and has gone through some minor changes since then. I'm welcoming all comments and suggestions. Thanks for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 13:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Source link for File:US_Army_M16_MGMC_AA_Half-track.jpg is timing out. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Removed image you mentioned and replaced with a better one.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 16:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: just checking to see if you are happy with the change, Nikki. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Yep, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: I did a bit of copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes. I have the following other suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Done

• this seems inconsistent: in the body the vehicle is described as "7 ft 3 in" wide, while in the infobox it is presented as "7 ft 1 in" Done
• the crew is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body of the article Done
• this seems inconsistent: "tonne" v. "ton" Done
• in the Bibliography you have "Zaloga (1994)", but this doesn’t appear in the citations; you have "Zaloga (2004)", though -- is this a typo? Regards,  DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert: All doneTomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• the conversions currently seem inconsistent, e.g. in the infobox metres appear first, but in the body they appear second after feet (this should probably be consistent); Done
• be careful about overuse of the word "mount". For instance, "mounted on an M33 Maxson mount" (there are a couple of examples which should be reworded). Done AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Added my support as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• suggest the armament be mentioned in the lead (ie twin .50 cals) Done
  • the caliber of the MGs isn't mentioned in the lead or in the body text, only the mark and manufacturer. Same for the infobox. One can't assume everyone reading the article knows the M2 is .50 cal. Done
• the first convert template of each type should render as X feet Y inches, rest abbreviated Done
  • I believe "cubic inches" should be "cubic inch". Done
  • Sorry, I meant in the body of the article, not the infobox. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Done
• there is a errant parenthesis at the beginning of the last sentence of "Early experiments" Done
• the use of bold in the Variants section is not IAW MOS:BOLD, and the M14 bolding of a link is definitely a no-no Done
• I'm not sure the listed vehicles are variants, perhaps "Similar vehicles" or "Prototypes" (if there was a developmental link with this vehicle) would be a better section heading? Done
• suggest using refend and refbegin templates in the Bibliography to reduce size of the text Done
• The American AFV navbox really needs to be collapsed Done
• I have the same observation that I had with the M15 Halftrack article. "per WP:ELNO, what is it about afvdb.50megs that "provides a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it was an FA"? It just looks like a fanboi site to me, perhaps a fairly reasonable fansite, but nevertheless..." Done
• the criticalpast website video would appear to be a PD link, but as you can't link it live without establishing that, I suggest it is treated in the same way as in the M15 article, as an EL. That creates a problem for sourcing what it is current citing. Done

• CommentsSupport
  • You might consider adding alt text but its obviously not an ACR requirement. Done
  • Not sure about this construction: "M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (M13 MGMC)" specifically "(M13 MGMC)", I'd suggest reducing to just "M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (MGMC)" as M13 hasn't been abbreviated so there doesn't seem a point to include it inside the parenthesis. Done
  • In the infobox you have an in service date of 1944 and in the text you state: "The M13 served at the landing at Anzio with the VI Corps of the Fifth United States Army in January 1944". Surely though the vehicles would have been delivered to the Army some time before then (at least to ensure personnel were appropriately trained etc before using them overseas). Do you know when deliveries began? And if so this date should probably be reflected in the infobox in this field. Done Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2015 (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) 14:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

M15 Halftrack

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

M15 Halftrack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/M15 Halftrack/archive1

Prior nomination here.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I have fixed all problems from the previous review. The article has been expanded to include all of it's Korean War history, a major problem in the previous review. I hope this passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support although I do have one question for you concerning the line "To enhance ground support firepower during the Korean War depots in Japan were searched for vehicles that could be refurbished for possible combat use." Is this as a result of the abysmal sate of the US/UN forces early in the war, or was this done to add more firepower after the war stalemated at the 38th parallel? The article doesn't say, but my on curiosity compels me to ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it was during the 38th Parallel fighting, but got no reliable sources.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• this needs a reference: "and a maximum road speed of 41.9 mph (67.4 km/h). Its 60 US gal (230 l) fuel tank provided a range of 150 mi (240 km)." Done
• the presentation of the word "half-track" is inconsistent in the article. For instance "Halftrack", "half-track" and "Half Track"
• petrol --> gasoline (US English variation) Done
• the figure of 2,400 built which is presented in the infobox doesn't appear anywhere else, so appears uncited Done
• "An army report from North Africa" --> "A U.S. Army report from North Africa"? Done AustralianRupert (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert: Ready now?--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Final concern, per WP:LAYOUTEL the box like Commons link probably should be moved out of the External links section (and that section header deleted). I've added my support, but I'll leave it up to you to decide how best to achieve this (my suggestion is to put it in the Bibliography, just below the header). Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• I reviewed this article at GA, and have looked at the edits since it was promoted. I have a couple of fairly minor quibbles in addition to those already identifed:
  • The production figures in the body add up to 2,332, not ~2,400. I suggest the actual total is put in the infobox, per Rupert's comment above. Done
  • The Sd.Kfz. 251 itself isn't really a German equivalent to this vehicle, and in fact, the Germans didn't field anything like this one that I can recall. The Sd.Kfz. 251/21 with triple 20 mm guns was at least an AA halftrack, but I don't really see the point in this "See also", as there wasn't a German equivalent with one 37 mm and two 12.7 mm (or even close) Done
  • per WP:ELNO, what is it about afvdb.50megs that "provides a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it was an FA"? It just looks like a fanboi site to me, perhaps a fairly reasonable fansite, but nevertheless... Done
  • suggest reducing the width of the citations subsection to 20em Done
  • The American AFV navbox really needs to be collapsed Done
    • @Peacemaker67: Ready now?--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • the convert measurements in the body should be in full at first mention, then abbreviated. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: would you mind doing an image review on this one, please? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Tomandjerry211 pic File:M15 Halftrack in Normandy.jpg may be from Flickr, but the licensing doesn't look right to me. Did Gary Schade really take this pic? It needs proper US licensing to be acceptable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: Done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • Overall it looks fine to me, a few points though:
    • "Several M15 "Specials" managed to avoid the post-war scrap down" doesn't sound quite right to me. I can guess what "scrap down" means but could it be written more clearly? Perhaps "avoided being scrapped in the post-war period" or something like that?  Done
    • "...its mobility, enabling to work well..." is this a typo or is it an error in the source (keeping in mind it is a quote)? Specifically should it read "... its mobility, enabling it to work well..."  DoneAnotherclown (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2015 (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) 07:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav monitor Drava

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav monitor Drava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Yugoslav monitor Drava/archive1

Drava is the fourth Yugoslav river monitor I've brought to ACR. She fought the Serbs and Romanians in WWI as part of the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla, then under the Yugoslav flag bravely fought off the Luftwaffe for nearly a week in April 1941 before a bomb from a Stuka when straight down her funnel, sinking her. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Solid article, good work. What I noticed right off the bat is that Berić's death isn't specified in the article body when it talks about 54 of the crew being killed. Also, you should mention that her anti-aircraft guns were operated by Rade Milojević and Miroslav Šurdilović (both survived), that Berić ordered all the ships coded material be burned before she sank and that his first officers Bruno Šegvić and Sulejman Šehović were also killed, per Vujičić. 23 editor (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will get onto those things. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've mentioned Berić's death and those the first officers, the burning of codes, and that two of the anti-aircraft gunners survived. I don't think naming them all adds anything, they are not notable. Thanks for the comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good; I've tweaked the final paragraph in the intro to clarify that Berić was killed in the sinking. 23 editor (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, generally looks okay to me, I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• "munitions supply to the Ottomans became critical, so another attempt was planned..." sorry if I'm being dense, "another attempt" at what?
• 2nd Army is overlinked
• "but was officially handed over to the KSCS navy and renamed Drava in 1920"; not sure of the necessity of the word "but" here, perhaps "and" would be better? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All done. Thanks, Rupert
    • No worries, your changes look good to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• The images look correctly licenced to me (I'm no expert), but I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Great War Island panorama.jpg: might need a freedom of panorama tag: [25]
  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-646-5188-17, Flugzeuge Junkers Ju 87.jpg: the description on the image page could possibly be translated
    • Done, thanks again, Rupert. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support - with some points / prose suggestions:
  • I did all the usual technical checks (dabs, external links, duplicate links, alt text, images, captions, citation consolidation) and couldn't see any issues - no action req'd.
  • "...The anti-aircraft gunners on the ship claimed three enemy aircraft, and nine of the Stukas scored hits...", I wonder if something like this would be better "...The anti-aircraft gunners on the ship claimed three enemy aircraft, but nine of the Stukas scored hits..." (or something like that)
  • "...Sunk by Luftwaffe bombers...", would it be more accurate to call them divebombers?
  • This is a little repetitive: "She was towed out of danger by an armed steamer, and was eventually towed..." (specifically "towed" twice in the same sentence), suggest rewording one instance (although I agree it is probably the most accurate to use the term you have), maybe "pulled"?
  • "When she returned to the flotilla she saw action...", I assume this was after repairs? You could specify this here if you wished.
  • "Enns and two other monitors managed to free three..." try saying "free three" several times quickly..., perhaps reword somehow?
  • "...part of the 2nd Army", consider instead "...which was part of the 2nd Army"
  • I'm a little confused by this "two of the anti-aircraft gunners survived", were they separate to the 13 crew that survived that you have already listed? I assume there is a reason they are listed separately but I'm just not seeing it (as always my confusion might say more about me than what I'm reading though...) Anotherclown (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • All done, thanks Ac. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I'd probably add a line about the hit off Gross Krieg Island to the lead.
• "When she returned to the flotilla she saw action at Rjahovo in early October 1916, where she contributed to the defeat of the Romanian Flămânda Offensive, which involved a crossing of the Danube to attack the rear of Generalfeldmarschall[b] August von Mackensen's Austro-Hungarian Third Army." - this is pretty unclear, and it reads like Enns was involved in attacking Mackensen's Third Army.
• "Having ordered the burning of codes before she sank, Berić and his first officers were among the dead, but two of the anti-aircraft gunners survived." - mentioning the anti-aircraft gunners here seems a bit unrelated to the rest of the sentence. I wonder if it's worth singling them out from the other 11 survivors?
• Link to Caliber (artillery) in the note. Parsecboy (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • All done, Pb. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Done so far, Parsecboy. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Great work, happy to support now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2015 (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) 11:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Reg Pollard (general)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Reg Pollard (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Reg Pollard (general)/archive1

Bringing Australian General John Wilton to ACR recently was part of a long journey improving that particular article but this one was almost spur-of-the-moment -- I became interested in Pollard because he was Wilton's predecessor as chief of the Australian Army and it went from there. I then found out Pollard had a connection to Wilton's predecessor as chief of the Australian military, Frederick Scherger, as they were Duntroon classmates and obviously shared a similar sense of humour (see first para of Early life)! Anyway, hope you enjoy his story; I think it probably has the legs for FAC if successful here, so pls let me know if you think otherwise. Thanks to Rupert for his recent GA review, and in advance to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this for GA and I think it has the legs for A-class. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a couple of minor tweaks, please check you are happy with these and adjust as you see fit;
  • There are a few duplicate links in the lead, but they are probably fair enough in the circumstances;
  • the article is well referenced using reliable sources and employs a consistent citation style;
  • the article is comprehensive, well written, and structured appropriately;
  • the images appear to be appropriately licensed;
  • "File:Reg Pollard 1942 023756.jpg" could be moved to Commons, but this is not a requirement for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Tks very much for stopping by, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images all have alt text (not action req'd).
  • Image review completed above (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • Citation error check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • In the lead you write: "Pollard's early post-war roles involved recruitment"... does this refer to his command of ARTC in 1946? If so I'd have throught "recruit training" would have been a more accurate description than recruitment (unless the sources use that term of cse).
    • Yep, that'd be better -- will alter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I had to make a sustained effort to control my laughter at this piece of timeless wisdom: "...the average soldier complains considerably all the time" (a fact that is even more true today...)
    • I think guileless public pronouncements like that can't help but endear their speaker to us... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You might consider include the edition number for the version of The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History used as the content of many entries does vary between the 1st and 2nd edition (suggestion only, you identify it as the 2008 version which is sufficient to know its the 2nd Edition but saying so would make it obvious).
    • Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing else came up after reading through it. Looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Tks AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note -- Sorry to do this mid-review but I (and I think Rupert based on earlier conversation) was a bit suspicious of the OTRS rationale for the main image and this has been confirmed for me by an OTRS check I requested and finding a non-free copy of the image at NAA, so I've replaced it with the AWM one that was in the WWII section, and added a new WWII image from AWM. I'll see if I can't re-use the main image, or another of him as a general, under a FUR but for now I think we can do without it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• I haven't got much to add, this article looks in very good shape. I do wonder if there is enough on his personal life to meet FA requirements, but it's worth a shot.
  • He seems to have led a relatively quiet life like fellow grazier Frank Bladin, while still doing a couple of noteworthy things, and Bladin achieved FA so hopefully we'll be right... :-)
• Use of CGS in the lead isn't preceded by its use in parentheses. I suggest putting it in full in the second place in the lead, then introducing the initialisation at its first use in the body.
  • Oops, agree.
• The first sentence of the Retirement section seems quite clunky to me, suggest redrafting it.
  • I think the info is useful so would it be okay to just flip the clauses, e.g. "Pollard left the military on 20 January 1963, having reached the mandatory retirement age of sixty and recommended Wilton to succeed him as CGS"?
    • I agree the info needs to be there, but I think the sentence isn't as tight as it could be. Perhaps Pollard reached the mandatory retirement age of 60, and left the military on 20 January 1963, after recommending Wilton as his successor.? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, done it that way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tks for stopping by, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • Have re-checked the image licenses, and all are ok, AWM collection images that pre-date 1959. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:49, 10 August 2015 (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) 11:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia)

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/1st Machine Gun Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

During the Second World War, the Australian Army decided to raise four machine gun battalions, one for each Second AIF division. In doing so, they revived a concept that had been first used by the Army during the First World War, by concentrating the machine gun platoons of the standard infantry battalions into a single entity, in order to provide a higher volume of direct fire support. In practice, the concept was largely misused (or not used) by commanders on the ground, particularly after the focus of Australian ground operations shifted to the Pacific. After the war, the concept was discontinued. This article is about the first of the battalions to be raised. It was recently expanded from a stub, and even more recently underwent a successful GA nomination. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dabs, has alt text, images / licensing look fine to me, captions ok, rmefs, external links check out, no duplicate wikilinks.
  • I reviewed for GA and following the further development that has occurred since then I am satisfied it meets the A class criteria.
  • I did however complete a minor c/e, fix the links to the AS official histories and do a few other minor tweaks [26]. Pls review and adjust as req'd. Anotherclown (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review and those adjustments (they all look good to me). Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments Nice to see a comprehensive article on one of these (to modern eyes) unusual units. I have the following comments:

• The lead is a bit short
  • Yep, an article of this length would generally warrant a couple of paragraphs in the lead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• "The concept had originated within the Australian Army during the Gallipoli Campaign in 1915" - just to check, was this not a standard part of British Army divisional organisation? (the Machine Gun Corps article implies that the British army followed the same evolution as the Australian forces)
• "During the inter-war years, the machine gun battalions had been deemed unnecessary and, as such, when the Army was reorganised in 1921, they were not re-raised, but in 1937, as the Army looked to expand as fears of war in Europe loomed, four such units were raised within the part-time Militia, by converting light horse units and motorising them" - I'd suggest splitting this into two or three sentences
• "the 2/1st was fully motorised upon formation " - please explain what this meant (eg, was it equipped with trucks or tracked carriers, or both?)
• Note that the battalion travelled to the UK as part of a larger body of Australian troops
• I'm not sure about the combination of "the battalion" and "they" - "they" seems appropriate for discussing the unit's members, but not the unit itself
  • Believe I actioned this during my copyedit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• "as a result lost the majority of its vehicles, which were considered impractical in the jungle" - just to check, was this the only significant change to the battalion's structure? (I imagine so given these were pretty simple formations)
  • Sorry, Nick, I haven't been able to find anything else about this. I will keep looking, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries - it's a pretty obscure topic! Probably the only source would be primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I had a look at Kuring and tweaked the sentence as he states that the MG Bn's trucks were changed for jeeps and trailers at this time (per page 207). He mentions no other changes to structure at that time that I could see. I hope this helps. Any issues pls let me know / adjust as you see fit. Anotherclown (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks, AC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
• Can it be noted how large the battalion was at full/nominal strength? From memory, the MG battalions were surprisingly large units. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Nick, I think I've got all of these. Please let me know if I haven't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• Looks typically well researched etc. - nice work!
• Could the first sentence run "The 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion was a battalion of the Australian Army during the Second World War" or something like that? It would instantly contextualise it for readers, without repeating the dates that come after it.
  • I didn't include that when I copyedited but agree it would probably be useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• "became the subject of a book by Ion Idriess." - could we say "a book by the writer Ion Idriess", as although it's linked, it would help the casual reader.
  • Hmm, I think any author would be considered "a writer", so unless we can narrow it down to "historian" or "journalist" or some such, I think it's better left alone... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• "The 2/1st Machine Gun Battalion was formed on 14 December 1939,[2] as part of the Second Australian Imperial Force (2nd AIF) following a reorganisation of the 6th Division's infantry battalions, which saw the removal of the machine gun platoons that had previously existed within each battalion and their centralisation in a single unit." - it's a long first sentence. Could you break it after AIF?
• "During the inter-war years, the machine gun battalions had been deemed unnecessary and, as such, when the Army was reorganised in 1921, they were not re-raised, but in 1937, as the Army looked to expand as fears of war in Europe loomed, four such units were raised within the part-time Militia, by converting light horse units and motorising them." - another long sentence. Break after "re-raised"?
• Is there a link we could use for "motorised"? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Cheers, I've made a few tweaks to adjust the article in line with your suggestions. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I'm sure I'll be supporting after points above are addressed...

• Given the number of reviewers [successful advertising campaign, Rupert -- well done!] I've concentrated on prose [today's word to watch -- "subsequently"... ;-) ] -- pls let me know any concerns there.
• Structure and level of detail seem fine.
• I did double-check image licensing and that looked good.
• No issues source-wise -- reliable and formatting is okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review and copy editing, Ian. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Felt the new lead could use a little tweaking but, apart from that, the changes since I last looked seem fine, so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• the story of the MG companies being created at Gallipoli due to a lack of artillery support is a strange one I haven't seen before. Australian brigades were brought into line with British establishments during the "doubling of the AIF" period in Egypt of early 1916, after the withdrawal. By this point, all British brigades on the Western Front had a machine gun company, and Australian brigades about to deploy to the same place were aligned. Same thing happened with the WWI MG battalions a bit later. I'll dig up the reference, but the directives drafted by White in 1916 are very clear. I'm pretty sure Bean explains it the same way, but I'll pick out the relevant page. Forget that, misread it. The article text is pretty much on the money, although it wouldn't hurt to note that the Australian formation of companies and battalions in WWI conformed to the British establishments. More to come.
• The origins bit would tend to make the casual reader think the idea of MG battalions originated at Gallipoli, which isn't right. The idea of concentrating machine guns under the control of brigades had its Australian genesis at Gallipoli, per Bean Vol II p. 153, and the numbers per battalion were increased from two to four around July/August 1915 at Gallipoli per Bean Vol II p. 514, but the idea of forming them into discrete companies was a British one with which the AIF fell into line. The battalions were a much later idea, 1918, again a British establishment decision followed by Australia as a Dominion, but also to ensure interoperability.
• link RMS Queen Mary
• suggest conducting patrols and exercises - it is a bit repetitive at present
• link Durban
• link Kantara to El-Qantarah el-Sharqiyya
• Royal Northumberland Fusiliers
• the despatched/dispatched variations don't make sense to me.
• suggest linking the Greek towns and locations mentioned
• just need to tweak the equipment bit on Crete, either they lost it all or they lost the bulk of it (given one company had all its equipment)
• the references to "main body" re:Crete, would probably be better rendered as "remainder"
• Haupt returning to the battalion jars a bit. When had he left?
• training and jungle training is a bit repetitive. Suggest dropping the second mention of training, leaving just "jungle exercises"

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for these comments, PM. I think I've got all of these. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2015 (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) 07:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

T48 Gun Motor Carriage

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

T48 Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. The T48 Gun Motor Carriage was a widely unknown tank destroyer produced by the U.S. on a Anglo-American requirement. It served with the Soviet Union (which accepted 650), United Kingdom (which accepted 30), and the U.S. Army (which accepted 1), with the rest (281) being converted at Chester Tank Depot.

The article underwent a GA Review earlier on this month, while after the GA review it underwent some recent copyediting. It is currently undergoing a DYK, and I hope this passes this review. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "The original design had a gun shield taken from the T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" - should "T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" be red linked?
• "Learning from experience with the M3 Gun Motor Carriage, demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood" - this is a bit unclear: what was this experience, and why was deformation of the hood a bad thing?
• "but by the time they arrived" - when was this?
• Over what period was this vehicle produced? Is it possible to provide a breakdown of when deliveries took place?
• "while some of these brigades took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" - given that it's earlier been said that only two brigades used the type, this is unclear (were they issued to other units?) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• All comments are addressed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• The sentence reading "When the M3 Gun Motor Carriage was rushed into service, hoods were deformed in the Phillipines, which while it was tested after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, was fixed with demountable headlights" is rather over-complex, and not very clear: I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Nick-D:Split and fixed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Some of these units took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" is still unclear: these operations occurred pretty much simultaneously, and you've only identified two units here. Was it one brigade per campaign, or where other units equipped with these vehicles? Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I could not clarify if it was used by one of the brigades in the Berlin offensive and one in the Prague offensive, since this is what Zaloga states on p. 36:

The first of these to see combat was the 16th Separate Tank Destroyer Brigade which went into action during the Dnepr River offensive in August 1943. The 19th Brigade fought during the Baranow bridgehead battles in August 1944, and some of these units served in the Berlin and Prague offensives from April to May 1945.

• I'm surprised that the usually very precise Zaloga wrote that; it must have slipped through Osprey's rather hit and miss editing. The problem is that it doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I might have clarified it a little bit with an addition of two sentences about another unit it was used in, although it still may not make sense. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, that text unfortunately still doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I had a go at tweaking the wording. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• @Nick-D: - can you take another look here? Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "The American requirement was dropped later." Does your source give any indication as to why?
  • Sorry, but it does not state why it was dropped.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
• "It was intended solely for Lend-Lease, the T48 was never officially type-classified." Do you think that should have a ";" instead of a comma?
• "The gun on the pilot model had a traverse of 27.5 degrees" Consider wikilinking "traverse" to Gun laying. People without a military background might not know what a traverse is.
• "the British had already won the war in the Western Desert and the appearance of the 75 mm gun," I'm sorry, I don't understand where this 75 mm gun has come from.
• Wikilink "Dnepr River"
  • I addressed all of the issues except the first one.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Freikorp (talk) 11:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: I had a go at copy editing. It might still need a little work, though. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Inconsistent: In the lead “Britain retained 31…”; compare this with the body of the article which says “Britain accepted 30”
  • done.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
• “The U.S. Army also accepted one…” this seems inconsistent with “The US retained 281 vehicles”
  • @AustralianRupert:This is not inconsistent, since the U.S. retained 281, but 280 were converted, while one was accepted into the U.S. Army
    • I've reworded it slightly because it wasn't really clear, IMO, what the intention was. Please check you are happy with my change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm good.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Are there any details about what units employed the British and US examples, and where they were used? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've done a Google search and a Google books search of all of it's possible names and I couldn't find anything that tells about it's service with the U.S. or Britain.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries, thanks for looking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• @AustralianRupert: - can you take another look please? Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• in the infobox you have "99 rounds" for the main armament, but this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the body Done
• "was never type classified..." is it possible to explain what this means, and why it is significant?
  • No reliable sources define it.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• in the lead, "total of 962 vehicles were produced from 1943 to 1945", but in the body "Deliveries of the T48 were made in 1942 and 1943, with 50 arriving in 1942 followed by a further 912 in 1943". This is inconsistent because the later implies that the vehicles were actually produced from 1942 to 1943, not 1943 to 1945.  DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The lead mentions Bagration, but the body does not, or at least not explicitly.
  • Added--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'd add a line about the 57mm gun being superseded in US and UK service by the 75mm gun/17pdr. Done
  • Added--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I meant to say in the lead - guess I wasn't clear. That would explain to the reader why it saw no combat with US or UK forces. Parsecboy (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• On a related point, I'd assume that the US no longer wanted them once the M10 became available - anything in your sources make mention of this? Done
  • None of them mention.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • This discusses the background to the M10 development (specifically pages 4 and 5) - it doesn't reference the T48 specifically, but it talks about the early generation of M3-based TDs fielded by the US Army being stop-gap designs until a purpose-built TD could be designed. That should be sufficient for what I'd like to see added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Parsecboy: Good now?--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Watch ENGVAR - mix of BrEng and AmEng, when it should be AmEng - forex, I see "tonnes" and "petrol".
  • Removed--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Vertical volute" is not a proper noun.
  • Decapitalized--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'd assume the 5 .30 caliber rifles and 22 grenades would be the personal armament of the crew? I find that a bit odd to include in the vehicle's armament.
  • Removed.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Any description of the crew positions?
  • Added--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'd probably alphabetize the list of operators. Done Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: are you happy with this now? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for the reminder. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (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) 11:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

250t-class torpedo boat

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

250t-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/250t-class torpedo boat/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA in May 2015, and I believe it meets the Milhist A-Class criteria. The 250t-class consisted of 27 boats built prior to and during WWI. Many of them served past WWI, and some even saw active service in WWII and into the late 1950s. All constructive criticism will be gratefully received and acted upon. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comment -- just as a placeholder, I reviewed/passed at GAN and will be happy to join in the review here but might wait until some of our experienced warship editors have had a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reckon there's been enough commentary now -- checked changes since I lasted copyedited and, apart from tweaking image positions, had no concerns, so happy to support here.
• Also checked the newly added image so, coupled with the check I did during GAN, I think the image licensing is okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Starting: Let's start with minor issues:

• "in 1913–16" should be "between 1913 and 1916.". The current version will not translate properly
  • Done.
• I'd like to see some work on the last paragraph of the lede, I find it very confusing, although admittedly I can't point to a single specific reason. I don't find the descriptions in the WWII section to be confusing at all, so I think it's just the wording.
  • I've split the final para and made a minor change to the wording. Let me know whether it reads better now?
• Why is the Background not part of the Description? Generally, shouldn't these be merged into a Development while the other sub-sections are part of Production?
  • I don't write a lot of ship articles, but I've never struck this query before. To me, it seems natural to have a Background section explaining the reason the class was created. It isn't strictly development, it is almost "Concept" in nature?
• Am I correct in understanding that the boats only made an attack in a single instance in WWI? If so, I would recommend making the "but none were lost" in the lede more direct - ". Although widely used during the War, the boats only fired in anger on one occasion and suffered no losses."
  • Well, I don't think I can say that. Given their size, they may not have been mentioned if they participated in attacks alongside other vessels, and we are not to know if they fired on subs or floating mines etc. I omitted that 76 T fired on the Italian MAS boats as they withdrew after sinking the Szent István, and we don't know if 98 M fired during the attack on the airfield. Perhaps a statement like "Although widely used during the War, the class suffered no losses, and available sources indicate they were only involved in a few engagements." What do you think?
• "She was re-armed with two 40 mm (1.6 in) guns" - I suspect this was the Bofors, and if so it's worth mentioning it here. The 20 mm mentioned just after this would likely be the Oerlikon, and again it would be nice to know for sure.
  • I'll re-check the source, but I'm not sure they specify the make of gun. I agree that it is highly likely they were Bofors and Oerlikon guns, but as you say, without a source it would be inappropriate to state it as a fact.

That's about it, it's easy to read, seems relatively complete and otherwise good to go. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Maury. Will get onto those points in the next day or so. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Have had a crack at your points, @Maury Markowitz: let me know what you think, especially regarding the "losses/shots fired" bit? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything above has been addressed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Maury! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• No DABs, external links OK.
• In the interest of simplicity, I'd take out all the different group info and consolidate them as a range. The data will still be available in the main body, but it's a bit much for the infobox.
  • Done, I left the endurance ones in due to the big difference in the M-class.
• There are a fairly large number of photos available in Commons, although their licensing need work. Several should probably be added to show the ships after WW1.
  • Do you mean the Romanian ones? Or did you find others outside the relevant categories?
    • I just added another one of the first T class, although it's a close up and may be of some interest. Ideally you'd have at least one WWI, one interwar, and one WW2/postwar photo to cover all the bases. You might want to check with Nikkimaria, but many of the pictures on Commons should be covered by the Anonymous-EU and PD-1996 tags, IMO, and thus useable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The Romanian WWII ones don't look to me to be PD. I have added one of 80 T with battle damage.
• Link Yarrow boiler in the infobox and move it to the missing |Ship power= parameter along with the horsepower rating.
  • Done, but I was looking at HMS Hood and saw that the ship power field just listed the HP, but propulsion had the shafts and boilers? Which doesn't make sense to me, as propulsion consists of the turbines driving the shafts, doesn't it? Is there any firm rule? The template notes aren't exactly comprehensive.
    • It gets confusing, I know, and changed after I did Hood, so you'll find plenty of examples where the power parameter doesn't include boilers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Done.
• The conversion for 450 mm actually is 17.7 inches, so watch for rounding errors.
  • added sigfig=3 to conversions.
• You need to explain what 250t means.
  • I'm fairly certain that it means that the ships were designed to a nominal displacement of 250 metric tons, but since I cannot prove that with anything that I have to hand...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• I'd suggest taking the conversion for fuel capacity to one decimal point past the whole number lest you get criticized for bothering to do the conversion when it's the same.
  • added sigfig=3 to conversions.
• Down to Service history, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Have addressed all these except the 250t bit, will sort that shortly. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You should have |Ship power= with the boilers and horsepower figure as well as |Ship propulsion= with the # of shafts and turbines. I'd drop the fuel types as that's covered in the main body. Remember that the infobox should be streamlined as much as possible to summarize the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Done now. I can't find where it is explicitly explained why they are known as the 250t-class. Greger calls them that, but doesn't say why. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Sturmvogel 66 I think I've addressed all your comments thus far. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• You can find some additional details on the ship's armament in Friedman's Naval Weapons of World War I - details for the gun mounted on the boats are on the bottom right corner of page 294, and for the torpedoes on page 351.
• Is it worth mentioning Sparviero? I don't know that it's a particularly relevant detail.
  • Removed.
• There's a link for the Cattaro Mutiny
  • Linked.
• I'd cut the redundant links in the post-war transfers tables
  • Done. Weird that Template:Navy doesn't accept |links=no
• I assume the citations in the table headers cover the notes on the specific fates for wrecked boats?
  • Yep. Do you think it needs to be in each note to be clearer?
• The lead says the Greek boats were sunk by German aircraft, but the body says Italian Ju-87s sank the first one, and the rest of the attackers are unidentified.
  • I've specified Axis in the lead, and noted that Greger says Proussa was sunk by Germans, rather than Italians. Greger says the rest were sunk by German aircraft.
• Only four of the original twenty-seven... - "original" here implies that more boats were built later
  • Removed.
• I might rearrange the para about the wartime fates about the Yugoslav boats - I get that you're doing it in order, but it makes more sense to me to talk about T1 and T7 at the same time, since they were both seized and transferred to the NDH - it seems confusing to jump back and forth between boats that were captured by the Germans, transferred back to the Yugoslav government in exile, etc.
  • I have a feeling that it would be just as convoluted the other way, as it would be jumping between the next changes and repeating some info (ie gun changes). I have broken up the para though.
• She continued in Yugoslav service...taken out of service - "service" twice in one sentence is a bit repetitive
  • Removed.
• The next sentence about T5 reads oddly to me too - maybe break it up to avoid the awkward clauses?
  • Me too, done.
• The lead says the last Romanian boat survived until 1958, but the body makes no mention of this.
  • Yep, a case of conflicting sources and a typo, I've gone with the Romanian-specific source and contrasted the other source in a note.

Parsecboy (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: Nice work. I only a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• • is there a place of publication that could be added for the works by Bell, Hathaway, Monakov & Rohwer, Smillie, and Sondhaus;
  • there is some inconsistency in the presentation of state locations, e.g. "Annapolis, Maryland" v "Annapolis, MD" etc.
  • some of your Notes end in full stops, and some don't;
  • "En route to the Black Sea after handover" and "En route from the Adriatic to Portugal after handover" -- is it possible here to provide slightly more detail here about what caused the loss?
  • in regards to the Niehorster web pages, I suggest adding "|work=World War II Armed Forces: Orders of Battle and Organizations" to the cite web templates. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • All done. Nothing more available on the loss in the Bosphorus though. Thanks for the review, Rupert! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • "At the time of the Axis Balkan Campaign of April 1941, T1 and T3 were assigned..." these were Yugoslavian Navy ships and a reader that was following the text closely should realise this; however, a casual reader that went straight to this section might not. Perhaps make it move clear with something like: "At the time of the Axis Balkan Campaign of April 1941, the Yugoslavian T1 and T3 were assigned..." or some other similar construction (suggestion only).
  • Otherwise I read through this and couldn't see any issues (I fixed what I presumed was a typo here [27], pls revert if I got this wrong). Anotherclown (talk) 06:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks, Ac! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:13, 27 July 2015 (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) 01:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Sieges of Taunton

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk

Sieges of Taunton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1

This article recently passed a GA, and I'm hoping to move it on towards FA. This is my first effort at a military history article, so I think it important to take it through this forum before going for a FA review. Personally, I learnt a lot writing this article and found the sieges quite interesting, and hopefully that is conveyed in the article even to those who don't live in Taunton, Somerset, or even the United Kingdom! As with any review, all comments, criticisms and opinions will be well received. Thanks, Harrias ^talk 17:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: G'day, and welcome to Milhist A-Class Review. The article looks quite good in my opinion, and I believe it meets the A-class criteria. I made a couple of tweaks, so please check you are happy with these, and adjust as you see fit. Also, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • in the citations "Toulmin 1822" should probably be "Toulmin & Savage 1822";
  • not sure about the semi colon here: "according to Hyde; Blake..." It could probably be replaced with a comma or a full colon. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. All the tweaks look good, and I have implemented both changes as suggested too, thanks! Harrias ^talk 20:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll review this... tomorrow, probably. More comments in a bit. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 07:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments -- very enjoyable and I'm close to supporting...

• Prose-wise, copyedited per my normal practice so pls let me know if I misunderstood anything; one query:
  • "the culprits lynched and killed" -- I always thought lynching was a form of killing, so do we mean some were lynched and some were killed by other, unknown, means?
    • You are, of course, correct. I've removed "and killed" as redundant. Harrias ^talk 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Content-wise, it's not exactly my area of expertise but I note Hchc2009 reviewed/passed at GAN, which I think harks well.
• Structure of the article seems simple and straightforward.
• Image licensing looked okay to me.
• Reference-wise, I just wasn't sure about BCW Project -- what makes it a reliable site?
  • It absolutely definitely does not meet our RS standards. I thought I had removed all references to it, but obviously missed one. I've altered the text slightly as I can't find anything else that directly backs up the previous statement, but nothing of importance has been removed anyway. Harrias ^talk 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: Thanks for the review and for the copy-edits you made to the article, all looks good. Harrias ^talk 15:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tks for those quick fixes; just one other minor thing, is it correct to capitalise "South West" here (you do it twice so I assume so but thought I'd check). Anyway, happy to support -- an engagingly written article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I hate it written capitalised, but our article South West England uses that format, so I assume that is how our MOS prefers it. Harrias ^talk 15:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ceradon

• "They allowed the Royalist forces garrisoned in the castle, under the command of Major William Reeve, to surrender and retreat to Bridgwater" why not just: "The Royalist forces under Major William Reeve that were garrisoned at Taunton Castle surrendered and retreated to Bridgwater."?
  • I can be a little verbiose. Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "In early 1645, Blake sent raiding parties out from Taunton and, according to Hyde, '[commanded] a very large circuit, and [disturbed] other parts in Somersetshire.'" Could the quote not be paraphrased? I feel like leaving how it is is distracting.
  • I can see what you mean, but right now I'm struggling to paraphrase. I'll come back to this point. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Harrias: Perhaps: "Blake sent raiding parties out from Taunton that, according to Hyde, took large amounts of land and disrupted activities in the area of Somersetshire. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 16:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Ceradon: I'm not convinced that conveys quite the same meaning, how about "Blake sent raiding parties out from Taunton that, according to Hyde, controlled a large area and disrupted activities throughout Somerset." Harrias ^talk 18:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Harrias, okay. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 18:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "south-eastern" this is minor, but any reason for the dash?
  • I'm pretty sure that's the grammatically format for that usage. It's certainly the way that most UK books and newspapers write it. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "halting their attack for the night" if the battle was on 7 May, but the Royalists did not attack again until 9 May, their attack was halted for more than just one night. I think we can get away with just "halting their attack."
  • Yup. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "The attack was renewed around 11 am on 9 May, and over the next seven hours, Hopton's army advanced slowly through the town, forcing the Parliamentarian troops back one building at a time, until they had retreated to a small perimeter in the middle of the town comprising the castle, an entrenchment in the market square, St Mary Magdalene Church and an earthen defence known as "Maiden's fort"." This sentence is really quite monstrous. Perhaps: "The attack was renewed around 11 am on 9 May, and over the next seven hours, Hopton's army advanced slowly through the town. His forces pushed the Parliamentarian troops back one building at a time, until they were left with only a small perimeter of land in the middle of the town. Within the perimeter was the castle, an entrenchment in the market square, St Mary Magdalene Church and an earthen defence known as "Maiden's fort"."?
  • Wow. Yes. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "they sent an advance party of ahead of them" of what? Or was that a typo?
  • Typo, removed. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "began to march back eastwards." I think just "marched eastwards" is fine.
  • Okay, changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "in the region of 10,000 men" just "about 10,000 men" would do, methinks.
  • Why use one word when you can use four?! Changed as suggested. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• "Wickenden ... Purkiss" can add the full names please?
  • I had sort of assumed that I'd named them previously! Sorted. Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

That's about it. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ceradon: Thanks for the review; particularly picking up some of the shortcomings in my prose! Harrias ^talk 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - NB: I reviewed at GA. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2015 (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) 04:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Russian battleship Oslyabya

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Buggie111 (talk)

Russian battleship Oslyabya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Russian battleship Oslyabya/archive1

Oslyabya had a very brief career before she became the first ship sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. She took about eight years to build and had only about two years of service before she was sunk. The ship was one of three Russian second-class battleships built to support their strategy of commerce raiding if war had broken out against the British. While not intended to stand in the line of battle, the Russians had no choice to use them that way once the Russo-Japanese War began. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous phrasings and any jargon that needs to be explained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I might mention in the lead that she was a second class battleship intended to support commerce raiders, and had a weaker main battery and thinner armor, since this is probably a significant factor in the ship's fate.
  • Added the fact that she was a second-class BB to the lede, but the rest is, I think, better dealt with in the background section.
• You might give a bit of context on the 2nd Pacific Squadron (you know, that the 1st Squadron had been wiped out during the actions in and around Port Arthur).
• No dupe links. More to follow later.
• Did the ship participate in the Dogger Bank incident?
  • No, that was Rozhestvensky's own first division.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• I might give a bit more context on Tsushima
  • Add a bit, see it you think that it's enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me.
• Check ENGVAR - looks to be US English but I see a "draught"
• Standardize whether you include states/countries in refs. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Only if they're not prominent cities like London, New York, Boston, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Anything actioned here? Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments As always with your nominations, this article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

• I'd suggest adding in a bit of context about the Russian Fleet's deployment from the Baltic to the Far East, noting why this occurred and the scale of the movement.
  • Done some, but I'll probably have to dig out Pleshakov to fully respond to this and several of your other comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Likewise, some background on the immediate lead-up to the Battle of Tsushima would be helpful.
  • See if the new material suffices.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Also, can anything be said about the condition of the ship at this time? Much of the fleet was in a bad way.
  • Good point. There's nothing specific available on the ship herself, but I've added some information on her likely degree of overload that meant that her waterline armor was submerged and that her thinner upper armor was all that was available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• "With the Russian fleet in two columns and not one, Oslyabya was forced to almost stop in its tracks, aggravating the situation" - this is a bit unclear: why was the ship forced to stop? Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Pls let me know if I misunderstood anything in my copyedit; other points:
  • "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding armored cruisers like the Russian ships Rossia and Rurik and the Peresvet class were designed to support their armored cruisers." -- I'm assuming that "their" means "Russian" but pls confirm; in any case the sentence seems a bit convoluted and could stand recasting or splitting.
    • Since the Russian armored cruisers are the only ones mentioned, what others could "their" possibly mean? This sentence doesn't seem problematic to me, but I'm happy to take suggestions if it's still bothersome upon a re-read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I know it seems obvious to you but I think it could be clearer. Maybe just some punctuation and clarification, e.g. "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding armored cruisers like the Russian ships Rossia and Rurik; the Peresvet class was designed to support such Russian cruisers." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
        • This is an interesting case in how people interpret things in their own way. I used the exact same language in the three other FAs for the ships of this class and nobody had a problem with it once I tweaked it to make it read better in the first FA. I'm not denying that it can't be further improved, but I find it kinda funny that this is one of the things that you feel still needs to be improved since I've reworked it several times already. I've tweaked it some, see how it works for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Works for me now, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Nebogatov had no idea that he was now the squadron's de facto second-in-command ... During the Battle of Tsushima on 28 May, Oslyabya led the Second Division of the squadron" -- can you pls clarify in the text just which squadrons these are?
    • Does the second para of the Russo-Japanese War section not suffice?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I think it gets a bit confusing when three squadrons are mentioned in that para, i.e. the 1st, Second, and 3rd Pacific. At the very least I'd re-establish the name of the squadron in question when it's first mentioned in the new subsection for the Battle of Tsushima. BTW, did the Russians not name their squadrons consistently, i.e. "Second" instead of "2nd"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, I think that I see the problem now, you're confusing the squadrons with the tactical divisions that Rozhestvensky organized his combined forces into before the battle. I've linked division to hopefully clarify that a little. Not otherwise sure how to clarify things since the names are really less important than the command relationships between the admirals.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
          • I still think it helps to treat (sub)sections as something a reader might go to without reading all the preliminary info and therefore should contain sufficient info to more-or-less stand alone. As far as repeating the squadron name, I'll take your word it's not vital, however I think we should change the new opening sentence for the Battle of Tsushima section, i.e. "The Russians were spotted the following morning" -- the last date I saw (for Von Fölkersam's death) was two paragraphs above so suggest we spell out the date the Russians were spotted.
            • Clarified this (I hope) and followed your suggestion about the date in the first para of the battle section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Also in the the last paragraph of the Russo-Japanese War section, "Presumably, Oslyabya was just as overloaded..." -- is the "presumably" the way McLauglin couches it or is that your interpretation? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
            • McLaughlin doesn't mention Oslyabya when discussing the overweight status of the Russian battleships, probably because her waterline armor belt was submerged when she was fully loaded with coal, much less overloaded as they presumably all were. This should probably be tweaked a little bit, but I already discusses her overweight problem earlier and I'm at a bit of a loss how to remind the reader of that without simply repeating it. Any thoughts or suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
              • Yes, not easy. I think if it were me I'd probably still reiterate her overweight problem by saying something like "Oslyabya had been overweight when built, which meant that the main armor belt was fully submerged..." and cite that per the Design section (McLauglin 107-08, 113-14). I certainly think that would be safer for FAC, which I assume is the next destination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
                • That does sound like a sensible approach; see if the revised wording works for you. So how did you figure out that FAC was next up? ;)- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • It's a gift, I guess... ;-) Okay, that tweak works for me, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Flooding of her starboard forward magazine was ordered" -- do we know who ordered this so we could change passive to active tense?
    • I doubt it as I don't think that many bridge personnel survived. But I will check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • • Not available.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• No dab/duplinks.
• Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
• Sources look reliable to me and no formatting issues leapt out, but could you add an OCLC for Busch in the absence of ISBN?
  • Dunno where that came from, but deleted it since it was only a supporting cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
• Not sure about the image licensing in this case, perhaps Nikki could look over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Oslyabya14.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that I've sourced these satisfactorily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think the image review has been addressed satisfactorily. I would think the images were covered by Russian law, not EU law, and there is no information in the licensing about original date of publication or where published. I suggest @Nikkimaria: needs to respond to the nominator on the issues raised before the image review can be signed off on for promotion. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
      • It's impossible at this date to know the identity of the photographers so Russian or other nationality is impossible to tell. Since both photos were taken in French North Africa, French nationality is more likely and EU law would apply. I have no information about date of publication on either, but a print of File:Oslyabya14.jpg is linked which shows that it was published commercially with an inscription in French. Given the location I presume that they were taken by the same person, but who really knows?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
        • So that's a bit of a problem with regards to copyright status - assuming EU law applies, we would need a publication date of at least 70 years ago. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
          • If you look at the photo of the print at [28], I'd have to say that publication was no later than the 1920s and likely earlier. You just don't see that ornate style in the era of Moderne and Art Deco.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Sturm, I suggest if you are making that claim about it being 1920s or earlier based on the matte in the photo of the print, then that should be included in the description of the file. If this is going to FAC, it will be important to have it in place when it is looked at there. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure what you mean. I've linked the photo of the print in the other versions parameter on :File:Oslyabya14.jpg. Do you think that I need to do it with :File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg as well?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
                • I mean add your supposition about the age of the print to the file description of File:Oslyabya14.jpg. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR req).
  • Image completed above (ongoing).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • Slightly repetitive language in the lead: "Sources differ on the exact number of lost, but over half her crew was lost with the ship." Specifically "lost" twice in the same sentence, perhaps change one instance to improve the prose? (suggestion only)
  • Prose here could be improved: "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding ships like the Russian armored cruisers Rossia and Rurik...", perhaps consider something like: "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiders like the Russian armored cruisers Rossia and Rurik" (use of ships could be avoided) (suggestion only)
  • Is the definite article ("the") really req'd here? "The Russian strategy since 1897 was that ships from the Baltic Fleet...". It seems a little jarring. Perhaps just "Russian strategy since 1897 was that ships from the Baltic Fleet..."
  • "Rozhestvensky's reunited squadron sailed for Camranh Bay, French Indochina, on 16 March and reached it on almost a month...", perhaps more simply consider "Rozhestvensky's reunited squadron sailed for Camranh Bay, French Indochina, on 16 March and reached it almost a month..."
  • After reading through it I'd say it looks good other than a few potential prose tweaks listed above. Anotherclown (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • In the absence of any response I've implemented these (relatively minor) changes, pls just revert any you disagree with. Adding my support now at any rate as the article looks like it meets the A-class criteria to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry for my slow response, but thanks for making these changes for me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 27 July 2015 (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) 02:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. Part of my series of variants of the M3 Half-tracks. Created this article back in January. Sent it to GA last month and passed quickly. I would say this is short on coverage, but since the low amount of refs mentioning it, I'm stuck with what I have for know. Thanks for your responses for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a couple of suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• "declared as substitute standard" --> do you mean "substandard"?
• the first paragraph of the Service history section seems a bit abrupt. Perhaps it would be smoother if you discussed how it was generally employed first before providing a specific example?
• "because of the reconstruction of infantry battalions" --> do you mean their reorganization?
• in the Citations, should "Hoffman (2013)" be "Hoffman & Staary (2013)"?
• in the Bibliography you mainly seem to abbreviate the states where the works were published, except for Hoffman. Please make this consistent
• in the Bibliography Zaloga is probably overlinked
  • @AustralianRupert:All are rectified in someway by now. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, thanks for those changes. I have a couple more questions below. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
• "limited standard" --> is it possible to clarify what this means? For instance, did it mean that only certain types of formations would receive the vehicle, or it would only be used in an emergency?

• done--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• regarding the encounter where the vehicle was used against German tanks, is there any information that states that after this the vehicle wasn't used in this regard, or was used differently in some way? The reason I ask is it just seems to hint at this, without explicitly saying it.

• fixed--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• do you know if the US leased the vehicles to the French during World War II, or after it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is unknown--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• No worries, thanks for your efforts. I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Support with the following suggestions: Freikorp (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• "could penetrate 3 in (76 mm) of armor at normal ranges", perhaps mention what a normal range for this weapon is. Done
• Prose states "Around 500 were produced", though the infobox declares 500 even. Would it be more appropriate for the infobox to state "Approx 500", or something similar? Also the article later states "312 T30 HMCs were delivered in their original configuration, as the last 188 were converted back into M3 Half-tracks", bringing the total number to exactly 500, in comparison to the earlier statement of "around 500". Does your source explicitly state 312 and 188? Or have you extrapolated one of the figures based on the other? Done

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • Image has alt text (no action req'd).
  • Image is PD and appears to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • Minor inconsistency in the presentation of "US" vs "U.S." I believe either is acceptable by convention (depending on ENGVAR mostly) so whichever form you prefer pls standardise throughout the article for consistency (the relevant policy is at MOS:U.S.).
    • Standardized.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know what formations the vehicles served with in Sicily, Italy and the Pacific? As I'm assuming it only served with relatively few divisions perhaps these might be listed (if available).
    • No sources that mention that.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This could be written better in my opinion: "After several similar occasions, the U.S. Army learned that they should not put self-propelled howitzers or mortars into direct combat with tanks..." Perhaps consider something like: "After several similar occasions, the U.S. Army learned not to employ self-propelled howitzers or mortars in direct combat with tanks..." (suggestion only)
    • @Anotherclown:Changed, but differently.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this article looks ok to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Tomandjerry211 (alt): - can you take a look at Anotherclown's review? Parsecboy (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that wording is worse in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Fixed--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes that works, thank you. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2015 (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, 26 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Donald Hardman

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Donald Hardman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Donald Hardman/archive1

Time for another RAAF chief, this one being the second and last RAF officer to run the service. That caused resentment, but he soon proved his worth. He had a good pedigree: fighter ace in WWI, foreign postings between the wars, and group command in WWII. He also seems to have been a likeable chap, as well as an imaginative organiser. His main claim to fame is that he transformed the Air Force from its WWII-era geographically based command-and-control system into a functional command system, which essentially exists today. I'd originally thrown this at GAN but enhanced it to what I think is A-Class level while awaiting review there, so decided to cut to the chase and nominate it here. I don't know if I'll take it to FAC after this, as the article's post-military section is a bit thin, but I welcome any comment in that regard as well. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: another fantastic article, Ian. I only have one comment/suggestion:

• "seventeen-year-old private in the Artists Rifles, a London Regiment" --> I don't think the link here for "London Regiment" is correct. I believe that the Artists Rifles and the London Regiment are two distinct units. Perhaps "...the Artists Rifles, a London-based regiment..." might be more correct? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Rupert! Re. Artists Rifles, the source did capitalise London Regiment. Looking further, it seems the London Regiment was the parent unit, so if I altered to "part of the London Regiment" that might work better... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    • That works for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Caf_hardman.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Tks Nikki -- updated the link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Not much to fault with this. I'm not keen on the pinch created by the first two images and the infobox, something that WP:IMGLOC suggests trying to avoid. I suspect that the image might manage just as well with just one of those images, which might alleviate the issue slightly?

Well I think we should have a shot of the type of plane he flew in WWI at least. I guess the article wouldn't die without the Brisfits but OTOH he did fly them a fair bit between the wars, so I'd still prefer to keep it unless other reviewers also think it's too much...

• "On 1 March 1941, he was promoted temporary group captain." This feels like it is missing a word? That said, you do the same in the first sentence in the following paragraph. Is it common to miss out "to" for promotions? It doesn't sound right to me, but I guess if it is the common phrasing...
  • Missing the "to" is pretty standard in British Commonwealth military articles. I don't have a strong feeling about it but again would prefer to retain.
• "The decision by Australia's Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, to appoint an RAF officer caused resentment in the Air Force.." I know it should be obvious, but I think a clarification that you are talking about resentment in the Australian Air Force would be useful.
  • You're absolutely right, I'll tweak that.
• The "no RAAF officer..." quote could do with an inline reference closer to it than the end of the paragraph.
  • Fair enough, will do.
• MOS:QUOTE recommends changing the capitalisation to avoid having capital letters in the middle of a sentence, such as "..proclaimed that "An air force.." If you do want to retain the capital, add a colon.
  • Might do the latter, tks for suggestion.
• Add a year of publication for the Australian Dictionary of Biography source.
  • When it's an online version of a source (as opposed to a scanned copy like a newspaper) I've always just used a retrieval date only and that seems to have been accepted in the past.
• Really picky point: the automated references all have full-stops at the end, but the ones you've written (such as 2, 3, 4 etc.) do not. Try to be consistent between the two. Harrias ^talk 15:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I can be picky too so don't apologise! In this case though, again, I've gathered this to be an acceptable way of formatting short citations to works in a References section, based on using the same style in many articles that have gone through GAN, ACR, etc.

Thanks very much for reviewing, Ben. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Support, as I said, there was little wrong with this to start with. For FA I might push a little bit more on some points, but frankly, this article is great. The issues on which we don't entirely agree are almost completely technical, so I have no problem supporting the article in its current state. If you get a chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sieges of Taunton? Harrias ^talk 20:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Tks for your support, Ben. The English Civil War is not exactly my area of expertise but I'm sure the article will be interesting so will try and stop by. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images all have alt text (not action req'd).
  • Image review completed above (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • "The life expectancy for even an experienced RFC...", abbrev "RFC" needs to be introduced.
    • Yep, will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "On 18 October 1921, he rejoined the RAF..." Royal Air Force should be spelt out in full here at first use.
    • Ditto. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to confirm he was posted to the Air Ministry from 1940 to 1944? This seems like a long time, particularly in wartime. Any idea why he didn't serve in an operational role during this period? At the time Wings were generally commanded by a Group Captain so I guess I'm just a little surprised he didn't get one or serve in some other capacity outside of Britain over this period. No dramas if its not available in the sources, just thought I'd ask.
    • I thought it was quite a long posting myself but the sources seem to confirm it (without explaining exactly why). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is this a typo or is the error in the original text ""no RAAF officer of sufficient age, or operation experience..." (specifically should it be "operation experience" or "operational experience"?)
    • Tks for picking up what I'd love to say was a deliberate error to see if people were paying attention but of course it wasn't... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Under Hardman, No. 78 (Fighter) Wing was re-equipped with RAF de Havilland Vampire jet fighters to garrison Malta and support British operations in the Mediterranean." How much of a role did Hardman have in the decision to deploy No. 78 Wing? I ask because to me this sentence might potentially imply to someone that he had some role in driving this to occur (potentially because he was British) but I'd assume the decision to deploy the formation would have been taken by the Australian government for national policy reasons. I do seem to recall there was some deal re the Vampires being provided by the British as a trade off for dispatching the Wing off the top of my head though so I imagine Hardman could have had some role in brokering this. Is this possibly what you are alluding to here or am I way off? (really I'm just guessing and perhaps I'm seeing a potential implication where there isn't one). Happy to strike the cmt if I've pulled something from you know where.
    • You're dead right about the QPQ ("Malta? Sure Whitehall, we'll furnish the crews if you furnish the planes..."), but there's nothing much on Hardman's precise role. Stephens does mention Hardman when he discusses the deployment, but that's about it. Happy to change the wording to "During Hardman's term" or some such if you think the current wording seems loaded. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sir Donald Hardman died on 2 March 1982..." do the sources say what from?
    • 'Fraid not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It is a minor nitpick but the various Stephens references in the references list are not in chronological order. Anotherclown (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think I put Australia's Air Chiefs where I did because of "(ed.)" in the author field but perhaps that's taking alphasorting too far... ;-) Tks for review, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Re the wording about Malta its a minor issue so I'm happy to add my support and leave it up to you taking it forward. Your prosed rewording to "During Hardman's term" sounds good to me though if you do wish to change it to avoid any possible misinterpretation. Anotherclown (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
        • Many tks, AC -- I think I will change it to something along those lines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 24 July 2015 (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) 07:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Malvern Hill

Nominator(s): ceradon (talk • contribs)

Battle of Malvern Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive2

I believe I erred when submitting this article for FA-review before A-Class review, so here goes. I'm trying to get this article and a few more to FA status or at least A-class status within the next few months. I believe the article is in good shape, save for some things that don't flow. I'll work on those as soon as I can. Thank you for your consideration. ceradon (talk • contribs) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on sources Just one minor nitpick:

• One of the external links is a uncategorized redirect.

A fine article.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211: Thank you. In regards to the link, which one is it? I can't seem to find it. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: G'day, I had a quick look, but I have to go out for a bit, so I will post a partial review for the time being. Overall, I can see that you've put a lot of work into the article and I don't see too much holding it back from A-class. I have a couple of suggestions:

• I think the first sentence of the lead is a little convoluted and probably could be split;
  • Reworded; good now?
• In the infobox you have "37 batteries", but I can’t seem to find this figure in the body of the article (I can find the 10 batteries figure);
  • Fixed; that was mine own folly.
• There is some inconsistency in presentation of distances, for instance compare: "two miles (3.2 km)" v "one mile (1.6 kilometers)"
  • I'm not following. The "two miles" tells of Malvern Hill's distance from the James, while the "one mile" says how long Malvern Hill's slope is. I'm sorry if I haven't made that absolutely clear, but I'm not sure how I could elucidate that further. Thoughts?
    • G'day, sorry I didn't make myself clear. I meant compare "km" with "kilometers". The style should be consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Okay, I found a few instances of that and corrected them. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 03:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Not sure about this: "McClellan's supposed feeling…" why was it supposed? I’d suggest just removing this word as it seems like casting doubt
  • Some historians do cast doubt on whether McClellan truly believed he was outnumbered, or where he was just boosting Confederate numbers to curry support in Washington. But anyway, I've removed supposed, though it does make it a bit inconsistent with the first note in the article.
• The sentence beginning "Captain John E. Beam of the Union's 1st New Jersey Artillery" in the Beginning of battle section is possibly trying to do a bit too much; I suggest trying to split it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I was confused a bit when I read it. Don't know how that didn't get copyedited. Is it good now? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, your changes look good to me. I've read through the rest of it now and made a couple of minor tweaks. It might pay to get Dank or someone to take a run at tightening some of the wording closer to a run at FAC, but I think it is good enough for A-class. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• Comment <strikethrough>Alas, I didn't know this review was going on. Perhaps I jumped on the train on this one at a bad time. I am undertaking a nontrivial... what would I call it?... sortuva-maybe-rewrite, and alas again I tend to write slowly because I check many sources and chew them over like cud. I intend to add a new section about the abortive Confederate barrage, and then check every detail top-to-bottom, probably with an eye on a run at FA in a few weeks. I've never been involved in a MILHIST A-review (at least not that I remember), and have no idea how long it tends to keep going.• Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)</strikethrough>
  • Done with copy edit• Lingzhi♦(talk) 05:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
• Image check All images look OK except for one I'm not sure about (the recent photo of a cannon). I have queried Moonriddengirl or her various tps editors about it. I expect it's OK. If it isn't, deleting that one image would do no harm to the article. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 08:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • update: modern img licensing OK too as per moonriddengirl• Lingzhi♦(talk) 12:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • There are a couple of duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • James River
    • John Magruder
      • Delinked.
  • Some of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only, not an ACR req).
  • Image review completed above (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • Some of the headings seem non-standard and you might consider adopting some of the more common headings used in other articles on similar topics. For instance "Reasons for outcome" might more simply be changed to "Assessment", while "After battle" (which seems very clumsy to me) might be changed to "Subsequent operations" (suggestion only, up to you of cse).
    • Changed "After battle" to "Subsequent events". As for "Reasons for outcome", I was going by the model at this FA.
  • Is it standard to not use ranks in ACW articles? There seem a number of instances where notable officers are introduced without their rank at first instance in both the lead and the body of the article (for instance McClellan, Magruder, Smith etc).
    • Fixed as many as I saw.
  • There seems to be some terms that although linked in the lead, should also be linked on first appearance in the body of the article (such as notable individuals like the commanders, various formations etc) - see WP:REPEATLINK.
    • Done.
  • There are a number of instances of ranks continuing to be used at second instance contrary to MOS:SURNAME, for instance "As more of McClellan's forces arrived at the hill, General Porter continued..." should just be "As more of McClellan's forces arrived at the hill, Porter continued..." (to further confuse matters you seem to use "General" and "Brigadier General" interchangbly in some places also - the casual reader will be confused by this or at least they should be)
    • Fixed as many as I saw. Do report any you still see.
  • "McClellan left his troops at Malvern Hill and traveled downstream aboard the ironclad USS Galena towards Harrison's Landing on the north bank of the James River." Why did he do this? Presumably there was a reason (reasonable or otherwise). Or did I miss where you discuss this? Was he conducting a reconnaissance there for instance?
    • He went to Harrison's Landing to inspect his army's future resting place there. Added that to the article.
  • Is there a reason "Fifth Corps" is wikilinked to First Corps, Army of Northern Virginia? Doesn't seem an obvious connection (although I have no knowledge of this subject so perhaps there is?)
    • A gaff on my part.
  • "The firefight awoke three Union boats on the James..." use of the word "awoke" seems a little too poetic / almost euphemistic to describe naval gunfire support / a bombardment in an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps reword to state simply what occurred (or replace awoke with "alerted" or something like that)?
    • Reworded.
  • There are other examples of such prose that I think could be tightened, for instance: "Artillery fire, both Confederate and Union, continued to boom across the hill for at least an hour..." why not just say "Confederate and Union artillery fire continued across the hill for at least an hour..." or something similar?
    • Done.
  • "...by this time, it was four in the afternoon..." inconsistent with the requirements at MOS:TIME
    • Changed to "4 pm"
  • In many places the article uses an overly descriptive narrative in a style that I'm not familiar with seeing regularly employed in our battle articles (e.g. "artillery boomed", "The scene after the battle on Malvern Hill was ghastly", "the horrors of war were shown in stunning clarity" etc). Also it uses quite a few first hand quotes. I'm unclear what style is generally used in our American Civil War articles so if I wrong pls tell me to pull my head in, yet to me this style seems more in keeping with one more often employed in popular non-fiction than in an encyclopedia. I wonder if this could be dialed down a bit?
    • I've never heard that one before. I'm afraid that's just how I write. Not sure how I can "fix" that.
  • "Both capitals, Washington and Richmond, became hospitals." This seems like hyperbole to me and is an extension of my previous point. Surely the doubtless effect of the requirement of both sides to treat large numbers of wounded could be described in more accurate, less dramatic terms? One assumes there were makeshift hospitals set up etc...
    • Tightened this up a bit.
  • "Colonel Henry Hunt, the Union chief artillerist, who accumulated and concentrated the Union guns, did commendable work...", this sounds like someone's opinion. If so it needs to be attributed (my concern is the word "commendable"). Otherwise it should be re-worded to highlight the importance of Hunt's proficient placement of the guns on the outcome of the battle without saying it was "commendable".
    • Reworded.
  • "according to Campbell Brown of Richard Ewell's detachment, hung like an albatross over Lee's men." - this appears to be a quote so quotation marks are probably req'd here (i.e. around the hung like an albatross over Lee's men." If its not a quote and its your words it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me and would suggest rewording to be more matter of fact.
    • Reworded.
  • The prose here is a bit much too "the deliverance of Richmond from the Union Army that threatened it..."
    • Reworded.
  • And straight after it "Newspapers in Richmond made no small fuss of this after the battle."
    • Reworded.
  • Sounds like commentary "The comment of "so small cost to the victors" may be worthy of debate..." Suggest rewording.
    • Reworded.
  • "The "full confidence" comment"... it doesn't seem necessary to repeat the quote in the next sentence, you might just consider being more economical by saying something like "such opinions were not unanimous though..." or something like that.
    • Reworded.
  • "He was labelled either an imbecile or a traitor." This seems to be a unequivocal statement with no qualification. Surely it doesn't adequately sum up all sides of the public debate that must have occurred at the time? Wouldn't there have been some commentators that defended McClellan and if so what view are they reported to have advanced? What did McClellan himself have to say about his conduct for that matter? Presumably he wasn't quiet on the subject.
    • Took that piece out. It was a bit much. I think the other parts of your comment are covered in previous paragraphs in the same section.
  • The use of quotes throughout the article seems to be excessive to me, and lends itself to the issues I have highlighted above (pls see the guidance at WP:QUOTEFARM). In reality much of the useful information they convey could be retained and presented more succinctly by paraphrasing them using your own words.
    • Can you give some examples please?
  • Overall, this article appears to have been a substantial undertaking and it has much to commend it. Unfortunately though I think there are quite a number of issues which would need to be addressed before it could be successful at FAC, hence why I have raised many of them here now. I do not regularly review ACW articles though so I'll accept I've little experience with the standard in that area, as such if you think I have erred in any of my criticism pls feel free to say so and I will revisit my comments. If you would like clarification of any point I'll be glad to do so also. Anotherclown (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Anotherclown: Replied. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Gday. Thanks for getting on to my comments so quickly, mostly those changes look good to me. Some points:

• "Both capitals, Washington and Richmond, were filled with their respective faction's dead and wounded, and provisional hospitals sprung up all about the two cities..." This is an improvement but still problematic to me. Firstly "their respective faction's dead and wounded" almost seems too drawn out (you could probably get away with just "the dead and wounded"), and secondly it is still inaccurate to say the cities were "filled" with the dead and wounded as it is an overstatement. What is the point you are trying to make? Is it that the dead and wounded were concentrated in casualty collection points in Washington and Richmond (as opposed to elsewhere) but that the medical facilities available there were inadequate and makeshift arrangements were required for their care as a result? Secondly I'd suggest changing "sprung up" to "set up" as it is more accurate and less "story-like".
  • Done.
• I notice you have started to implement the abbreviation of ranks. I've got my own opinions about this tendency (I think they should always be written in full for lay readers); however, I accept that there appears to be long-standing consensus in ACW articles for this style so its up to you which you use. That said there are now two styles being used, one with ranks abbreviated (i.e. "Brig. Gen") and others written in full (i.e. "Colonel", "Captain", or "Lieutenant" for example). This inconsistency seems problematic to me.
  • Done. Tell me if you spot anymore, but I think I got them all.
• In the lead "Magruder and D.H. Hill, respectively", what rank was D.H. Hill?
  • Just prior to you quote, it has Maj. Gens. Magruder and D.H. Hill. I was hoping the "Gens." would indicate I meant "Generals"
• "The division of George McCall, badly damaged...", what rank was McCall?
  • Done.
• There is inconsistency in the initials for Hill (sometimes you write "D.H." and others "D.H"), pls see MOS:SPACEINITS for guidance.
  • Done.
• Several individuals introduced with rank in the lead still need to be introduced at first instance in the body of the article in the same manner (for instance McCellan, McGruder, Smith all in the first paragraph of the "military situation" section). (Essentially my point is that the lead and the article are considered separate by the MOS IRT formal introduce of people and wikilinks etc so its not doubling up). To clarify:
  • "In spring 1862, Union commander George McClellan developed..." pls add McClellan's rank here.
  • "the Federal advance was halted by the Warwick Line, a defensive position commanded by John B. Magruder..." pls add Magruder's rank here
  • "To stymie the Southerners' retreat, McClellan sent Willaim F. "Baldy" Smith...", pls add Smith's rank here
    • All done.
• You requested examples re quotes but unfortunately there are far too many for me just to say this one or that one and have you change only those. My point is that unless using the text directly from the source or quoting a first person account is really necessary to enhance understanding (i.e. to illustrate a verbal or written order that was given for example, someone's opinion, or perhaps even a key commander's interpretation or thoughts of a cse of events on the battlefield etc) then I cannot see it justified to use them here. In so many places you use quotes merely to set the scene for the reader (and do so well I might add), but this is a method that is not in keeping with encyclopedic summary style. Just the facts is what is req'd here, not usually how a non-notable individual felt, or what they saw etc. Some specific instances to (hopefully) illustrate what I'm referring to:
  • This one here seems to be of little encyclopedic value and could probably be removed: McClellan was greatly heartened at the display, writing to his wife, "The dear fellows cheer me as of old as they march to certain death & I feel prouder of them than ever." Fine in a book of cse dedicated to the subject but I can't see how it is relevant in an encyclopedia which is meant to be concise and stick to the facts.
  • This one has no purpose for me and could be deleted also: "What the road was... I cannot recall," remarked Lieutenant Thomas Livermore of the 5th New Hampshire Infantry, "I know simply that it was darkness and toil, until we began climbing a hill and were greeted with advancing dawn." In my experience all forced marches are tiring so I'm uncertain what else this is being quoted for? Is the point to reinforce the confusion about which road was the Quaker Road? If so I think the point has been made sufficiently elsewhere.
  • And this one could be mostly paraphrased rather than quoted: "The Union soldiers were resting in position," Brent recalled, "some sitting or lying down, and others moving at ease or disappearing behind the ridge."[33] He also saw the muzzles of cannons that rimmed the hill's slope. Brent thought the Union line "seemed almost impregnable".[33] For instance: Brent observed the Union soldiers resting in position, whilst the disposition of the cannons detected rimming the hill's slope gave him the impression that the position was "almost impregnable". This wording of cse is merely a suggestion based on what I assume your intent was in including the quote. The idea is where you have included a quote to draw out the salient points and paraphrase it instead.
  • Likewise here: "Huger still stayed in place until someone from Lee's headquarters "conducted [them] to the front". Why is it necessary to use a quote here? Wouldn't it not be easier just to use your own words rather than mangling a quote?
  • Or here: "We lived in one immense hospital, and breathed the vapors of the charnel house," a woman remembered." This just seems to be scene setting / story telling.
    • Reworded the ones I saw.
• Some may think this sub-set of criticism is overly prescriptive and maybe it is. To be clear I'm not saying we cannot use some level of quotation to enhance our reader's understanding of an event and how it was experienced by those that lived through it (or died in it for that matter). On the main I agree we can attempt to "set the scene" for them with some quotes if that is your preferred style (although only sparingly and only where its important), but overall I think this is done too often in this article. Equally in some places using quotes just seems to be done to avoid writing something in our own words which might seem a little lazy (sorry, I'm not saying you are being lazy, indeed clearly in writing such a detailed and heavily researched article you are not, but more effort could be expended to use your own words that's all).
  • I've reworded or removed some of the quotes. I hope that will be sufficient.
• "Lieutenant Charles B. Haydon of the 2nd Michigan Infantry recalled that he was almost buried in sand and stubble when a Confederate shell exploded near him, and that he caught a ball from a shrapnel shell that stopped rolling near him and had to dodge two more." Why are the experiences of Haydon notable? Whilst admittedly not a quote it seems to be included here purely to describe the experience of an individual rather than illustrate a key aspect of the fighting or the cse of the battle. As such it seems a little like padding and I would suggest it be removed. (this is a suggestion only and I certainly would not oppose it being retained verbatim if you or others disagree, I guess I'm trying to illustrate a point I see with the way you have written this article which I don't believe lends itself to "encyclopedic style", whatever that is...)
  • Removed.
• I am still concerned by "Confederate and Union artillery continued to boom" ("fired" is far more accurate, "boom" is a sound but seems to be being used to describe an action), although your other changes to this sentence look fine to me.
  • Done.
• Likewise (and I mentioned this one above but not in detail) "The scene after the battle on Malvern Hill was ghastly." This is the writer's opinion about how the reader should feel about a scene he/she didn't observe. Of cse we can assume that the average person viewing the scene would find it "ghastly" but it is not fact and I don't really think it is appropriate. (again some level of this would be ok, and I am probably being overly critical, its more this sort of language coupled with the multiple instances of excessive description and quotes that creates a "non-encyclopedic" impression when I read it.)
  • Done.
• Ok I'll end this here and see how you go in response. To lay my cards out on the table though - I think this is a good article and am happy with the changes you have made so far. There are still some MOS issues though (re inconsistent abbreviated and non-abbreviated ranks for instance which has recently been introduced into the article, and the continuing issue of missing ranks etc). These will need to be fixed before I'm prepared to add my support. IRT the issue of the quotes and the overly descriptive language - at this stage I seem to be the only one to whom this seems jarring (nothing raised in the ACR by anyone else or in the previous FA or the GA that I can see), so I'll leave it up to you as to what you decide to do about it (it is after all only my opinion and it may well be considered to be fine by other reviewers). I will not oppose on the basis of these points if you choose not to action them (although obviously I wouldn't be able to support promotion in that instance unless there was a clear consensus from other reviewers to the contrary). Hopefully my examples have helped to clarify what I mean at any rate. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Anotherclown: I agree with you on the quotes -- I do believe some of the quotes I included were superfluous. As for the over-description, I would like to get a few other opinions on that. @AustralianRupert and Lingzhi: Can you guys give your opinions re: whether I was being too descriptive? Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think it's a judgment call. In general, however, no one has ever been penalized at FAC for adopting a straightforward "just the facts, Ma'am" tone. The use of key quotes by key people to reinforce key points and thereby burnish the "prose is engaging, even brilliant" aspect is clearly a good thing, but if anyone at all perceives the adjectives as being too poetic, then dialing them down a bit is harmless enough. In all, although I have never been in a MilHist a-class review (that I can recall), I don't think this is an issue that can't be resolved quickly. That's my .02. • Lingzhi♦(talk) 04:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ceradon: your recent changes have gone a long way towards addressing the issues that I saw with the article so I've added my support now. Thanks for your patience and for working through my points so diligently. A couple of final suggestions:

• I raised it above but you didn't specifically respond so I'm unsure if you disagreed with my comment; however, I'd be concerned that this was commentary: "Following the battle, the horrors of war were shown in stunning clarity" (up to you if you chose to leave it in when you go back to FAC but it just doesn't seem right to me).
• Its a minor issue but I don't think your "In popular culture" section is MILMOS compliant, pls see WP:MILPOP which states ""In popular culture" sections should be avoided unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture...". The way to get around it (as a suggestion) would be to simply delete the heading but retain the content of the section. (again up to you though).

Kind regards. Anotherclown (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Anotherclown: I implemented your suggestion in the latter count. In the former, I reworded a bit; do you find this sufficient or would you prefer that I remove the entire sentence? In any event, thank you for your support and your recommendations. They have definitely improved the article. By the way, your username reminded me of a teacher years ago who used to call me "another clown". C'est la vie, I suppose. :-) --ceradon (talk • contribs) 09:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hello again, that looks fine to me now. No worries and all the best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2015 (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) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Marlborough (1912)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

HMS Marlborough (1912) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A bit of a departure for me, this was the second command flagship of the Grand Fleet for much of the war. She had quite an eventful career, being in the thick of the fighting at Jutland, where she was badly damaged by a German torpedo. After the Great War she was involved in the British intervention in the Black Sea during the Russian Civil War and ultimately served as a target for weapons tests. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• No DABs, external links OK.
• Images appropriately licensed.
• Some redundancies in the displacement section in the infobox.
  • Not sure what you're talking about.
• Change HMNB Devonport in the lede to Devonport Royal Dockyard. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Good catch
• I wouldn't advise abbreviating yards. Yd looks very odd as you very rarely see it ever abbreviated.
  • Done
• group of battleships battering of the German light cruiser fix this.
  • Done
• German cruiser launched probably two torpedoes awkward.
  • It seems fine to me as is, and I can't think of a better way to say it.
    • Umm, "probably launched"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but the question isn't whether Wiesbaden launched the torpedoes or not, but the number of them ;)
        • Ah, perhaps simply "German cruiser launched one or two torpedoes"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Works for me.
• knocking the shores loose Is that what they're actually called? I've always heard of them as props.
  • Could be a BrEng vs. AmEng thing - Campbell calls them shores (and that's where the article here is, incidentally).
• Might consider consolidating these into a single sentence: She was repaired by the Armstrong Whitworth shipyard at Jarrow. The work lasted until 2 August, and she thereafter departed for Cromarty, arriving on 5 August.
  • Merged.
• Second command reads oddly to me, even though I think that it's proper RN terminology. Perhaps assistant or deputy commander?
  • Does Simon have an opinion on this, because it still seems odd to me. Perhaps 2nd-in-command or something?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Don't forget this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
      • That seems fine to me, though I'd defer to Simon if he has an opinion on it.
• I think that you mean that the ship was re-commissioned in 1919.
  • Fixed
• Link to 4th Battle Squadron and kite balloon.
  • Added both.
• Add the ampersand command to the entry for Perry and Pleshakov.
  • Done
• Standardize publisher location data for state/country.
  • Fixed
• Stationery office.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Sturmvogel 66: - anything else to address? Thanks Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• According to The Times Marlborough commissioned at Devonport on 2 June, 1914, and according to the Navy List completed to full crew on 16 June.
  • Do you have the full citation for the Times? I don't have a subscription. Also, Burt says she was commissioned on 16 June.
    • "Naval and Military Intelligence," The Times, 5 June, 1914, p. 14. This gels with the Navy List which is specific about when a ship commissions or otherwise (or doesn't mention it, especially during the war).
      • Thanks, corrected now.
• Marlborough joined the First Fleet of the Home Fleets, not Home Fleet, which was renamed Grand Fleet on the outbreak of war. Given she was already flying Sir Lewis Bayly's flag in the Fleet by 30 June then she was already "fully commissioned."
  • Burt just calls it the Home Fleet, which is how I've always seen it - but added a reference to Bayly.
    • It was the officially the Home Fleets from 1912 to 1914.
      • Ok, added the "s".
• When she joined the Fleet she wasn't the flagship of the deputy commander - Bayly was junior to the Vice-Admiral Commanding the Second Battle Squadron, Warrender, on whom supreme command would have devolved.
  • So what is Burt referring to when he says "2nd flag, Home Fleet"?
    • No idea. But Marlborough wouldn't be the flagship of the second-most senior officer in the First/Grand Fleet until 19 December, 1914, when Burney hoisted his flag in her. So Burt's pretty much wrong.
      • Odd that Burt's confused, but I suppose nobody's perfect.
• Burney didn't become Second-in-Command of the Grand Fleet until August, 1915.
  • Wouldn't Warrender still have been senior until he left in December?
    • Burney was senior to Warrender. At any rate the title of Second-in-Command was more a method of delegating certain administrative functions in port. Jellicoe knew full well that if anything happened to him anyone could be appointed to succeed him in the long run (as eventually happened when Beatty was appointed in 1916).
      • Fair enough.
• Post-War: Unless Marlborough was decommissioned then "recommissioned at Devonport" would be better.
  • Fixed per Sturm's comment above.
• 4th and 3rd Squadrons: 4th and 3rd Battle Squadrons presumably. Seems incredible Burt got that wrong. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • My habit is to give a full unit name and then use a shortened form - it seems to bog down the prose if you give the full name every time, especially multiple times per paragraph. Thanks Simon. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest that that's taking author's license a bit too far, especially when for a brief period in 1912 the Royal Navy used "# Squadron" to describe Battle and Cruiser Squadrons combined. Your call, of course, but given the number of appearances one might as well be complete. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • That's a fair point, I think - they should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
        • @Simon Harley: - are there any remaining issues with the article? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• No dablinks; removed some duplinks.
• Copyedited and did some reformatting of the text so let me know if any probs.
• Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
• Sources look reliable and I didn't spot any formatting issues there.
• Image licensing generally looks good although I'm wondering how we know for certain that the infobox picture is indeed UK Government given there's little info at the source site. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that's a good point - I've replaced it with one that's demonstrably PD in the US. Thanks Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Just following up, I'm certainly inclined to support at this stage but would like to see if there are any further changes required by Sturm or Simon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
• Apologies for the egregious delay, but I'm happy to Support now. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Checked the few changes since I reviewed intially and see no issues so I'm happy to support too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: generally looks quite good. I only have one minor point to raise:

• The conversions for the ship’s characteristics seem slightly different in the body v the infobox, for instance compare "622 feet 9 inches (190 m)" to "622 ft 9 in (189.81m)". Is there a way to make this consistent? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A good point - fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2015 (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) 10:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was developed further following its GA review (copyedited once more by GOCE) and I think it meets A-class criteria Tomobe03 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

• "made no explicit reference to Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.": The text should explain the relevance of these chapters.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comment - a brief explanation is added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed to "would have permitted" (which is best if that's correct). Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Are there more images you could add?

• Could not find any that specific to the topic. Generic images of UN peacekeepers are available, but none of UNCRO specifically.

• Several external links are dead or have connection issues.

• Updated a couple of UNGENSEC reports urls, and rescued the rest from wayback machine. All urls reported fine by checklinks now.

• Please try to use American or British English, not both (ex. centred or criticize)

  I think I got them all now to BE (except one in references, reflecting exact source wording)

• No DAB's
• No bad citations
• May want to seperate ORBAT

• Give the size of the mission info, I'd rather not - if it is not a dealbreaker here.

• More later--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments, cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: good work, this looks pretty good to me, although I am not a subject matter expert so I couldn't really check it for content etc. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• in the order of battle table, I suggest adding the year to the month as it is not clear whether it is March 1995 or March 1996 you are referring to;

• Added

• I found the first paragraph of the "Response to Croatian offensives" a bit awkward. I had a go at copy editing, but wasn't really able to come up with anything better, so it might need another set of eyes, sorry;

• Had another go at ce of the paragraph - could you have a look to see if it is any better now?

• in the References, some works have place of publisher and some don't. For instance compare O'Shea with Ramet. If possible, please make this consistent.

• All book sources now have the location parameter.

Thanks for your comments. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review: where did you get the data reflected in the map? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

From Balkan Battlegrounds, Map I: National Battalions in UN Forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Early 1993 - I just added that info to the file description at the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

• "South Korean diplomat Byung Suk Min was the civilian head of the mission, while the military commanders of UNCRO were Generals Raymond Crabbe and Eid Kamal Al-Rodan." The generals are red linked but not the head of mission, who seems just as deserving of an article.
  • I'm not quite sure Byung Suk Min meets WP:GNG - please correct me if I'm wrong - and therefore does not merit a standalone article. The pair of generals, on the other hand, satisfy WP:SOLDIER criteria and are (red)linked in consequence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". I see that was the legal name at that time, but I think "Serbia and Montenegro" would be clearer for readers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think such a change could lead to confusion of casual readers who might think that the reference is made to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro rather than the federal republic which preceded it. I am aware there is no substantial difference to most readers, but I also don't see a point in deliberate introduction of an inaccuracy when the FRY term is linked to an article explaining away any doubt. If there's a consensus of all or nearly all reviewers to change this, I'd be more willing to accept such a move, but personally I don't see it contributing to clarity.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• For someone like me who is colour blind, south and west in the map look quite similar. Could one of them be changed to, say, bright red?
• "In 1990, following the electoral defeat of the Communist regime in Croatia, ethnic tensions worsened." I assume a Croatian nationalist party won and tensions between the Croatian majority and the Serb minority then worsened, but this needs spelling out.
• "After the elections, the Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslovenska narodna armija, or JNA) confiscated the weapons of Croatia's Territorial Defence Force (Teritorijalna obrana, or TO) to minimise any resistance." Presumably Serb-controlled JNA and what resistance. Again needs explaining.
• "allow negotiations by neutralizing any influence caused by fighting" - problems might be a better word than influence.
• "disarming Croatian Serb elements of the TO, overseeing JNA and HV withdrawal from the UNPAs, and return of refugees to the area." The multiplicity of initials is confusing - is it possible to re-word?
  • Those follow MOS:ACRO right now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• This is a first rate article, but I found it difficult to follow due to the excessive use of initials, which I think is unsuitable for an article intended for general readers. I think in many cases they should not be needed - e.g Croatian and Croatian Serb forces could be referred to instead. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I'll see what can be done right away to cut down a number of initialisms.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
  • All the images have alt text (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • That said the only images though are the logo and the map - I wonder if there are other images available which illustrate the operation? (Perhaps of some of the forces involved?) (suggestion only)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • I made a few tweaks - one to alpha sort the reflist [29], and the other an endash for MOS compliance [30].
  • Otherwise I've read through the article and couldn't find any major issues. I'm not well versed on the topic but it seems to be a well written summary. Anotherclown (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Support - the only thing I'd suggest is to give the nationality of the two UNCRO commanders in the introduction. Excellent wrk. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2015 (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) 10:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) & Hawkeye7 (talk) & Gecko G (talk)

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think it meets all criteria. Just a list of campaigns that the U.S. Army served in, with a introduction to the U.S. army's campaigns in WWII. Found this about a week ago in a wrecked state (little more than a stub). Improved quickly, while Gecko G and Hawkeye7 helped me with formatting and prose. Passed a BL review several days ago. I hope this passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

SupportComment: G'day, good work. I only have a couple quick questions at this stage: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• in the References, the Center of Military History and Drea works appear to be missing years of publication. Would it be possible to add these in?

• This isn't possible, since it does not mention the date in the Google Books catalog.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Worldcat.org provides 1992 and 1993 as the years of publication. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• done.Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:54, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

• the Dandocollins work appears to be missing a place of publication. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• @AustralianRupert: done.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps the "blanket campaigns" could be explained a bit more in the lead; it probably wouldn't need much more than a brief clarifying sentence;

• doneTomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder if the United States Army Air Forces should be mentioned somewhere in the lead;

• doneTomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• The American Theater doesn’t seem to get a mention in the Overview. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• @AustralianRupert:doneTomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• The Aleutians campaign seems to appear in both the Pacific and American Theater sections. Is there a reason for this? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Added a note with an explanation and a citation.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Works for me, thanks. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

• I know very little about modern war but in view of the shortage of comments I will have a go.
• It does not bother me but starting a list article "This is a list" is forbidden at FLC. removed
• I am showing my ignorance but I do not understand the 2nd paragraph. "In all, 46 World War II campaigns were designated:" Designated by who? Done For medals? Done What is a blanket campaign - one in several theatres? Could the term be linked? – Unfortunately, but no.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
• "Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,[4] and the Japanese invasion" Repetition of Japanese. Done
• "While U.S. support for China was a reason for the war," No change needed, just my ignorance - did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour in revenge for US support of China?
  • No, I'm pretty sure that they bombed Pearl Harbor because of the U.S.-imposed oil embargo and several other issues.
• partook - my dictionary says this word is old fashioned or humourous. I suggest "took part". Done
• Images. It would be helpful to give the date photos were taken in the caption. Done
• "Stalemate; Germans conduct a fighting withdraw to the Gustav Line." I would say withdrawal. Done
• A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: Mind checking this again?
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • All images have alt text (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions mostly look fine, one possible issue:
    • The caption for File:117th Infantry North Carolina NG at St. Vith 1945.jpg is contradictory. Specifically "... during the Battle of the Bulge in January 1945. Taken on 31 December 1944..." How can it have been taken before the battle it depicts? (Or am I reading this incorrectly some how?)
      • FixedTomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 11:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • This sentence is a bit repetitive: "Although many campaigns were fought in Asia and the Pacific, the major focus of the U.S. Army was always on the European Theater, where most of the U.S. Army was ultimately deployed." Specifically "U.S. Army" twice in close proximity. Perhaps consider rewording? To me something like "Although many campaigns were fought in Asia and the Pacific, the major focus of the U.S. Army was always on the European Theater, where most of its strength was ultimately deployed..." might work.
    • @Anotherclown:Done.Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 11:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this looks to a very good addition to the encyclopedia to me. Will glady support once the points above are addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:49, 2 July 2015 (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) 10:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The 80th Infantry (Reserve) Division is an overlooked training formation that remained within the United Kingdom throughout its existence during the Second World War. Very few sources talk about this division, or its sibling training formations. The article has just passed its GA review. All comments are welcomed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I had a look at this during the peer review and not a lot stood out to me. Great work, as usual. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Cox's full name was Lionel Howard Cox if you want to use this: [31]

  I had forgot about that website! I could not find that chaps name anywhere, so thank you. Just a pity that his full name does not bring up any photos on the IWM website to use.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • this sentence seemed a little awkward to me: "The notional Fourth Army's VII Corps, which after being transferred south to FUSAG, included the newly created fictitious 80th Infantry Division"

  Had a little play with the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Yes, that looks good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • is there a citation that could be added for "footnote a"?

  Added.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • irregular capitalization: "General officer Commanding"; this should probably be "General Officer Commanding", or "General officer commanding" (I'd probably go with the first one)

  Meant to address this a while ago, and forgot!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • in the References, some works have locations of publication, but others don't. For FAC, this will need to be consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks mate for the support and comments. I have also addressed your concern regards the location of publication.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

• " keep German garrison": ?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dank. I have inserted the missing word, to complete the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Source review

• You don't need both an oclc and isbn in one source, you just need one of them.Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

That source uses a template. I have updated the template to remove the OCLC reference.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • A few of the images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR req, suggestion only).

As you note, it is not a requirement, but I will try and sort this out soon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • "Major-General Cox took command..." should just be "Cox took command..." removing rank at second use per WP:SURNAME

Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Is the typo in the quote here in the source or accidental - "preconceived notion of what FORTUTUDE would accomplish." - (should be "FORTITUDE" shouldn't it?)

Quite right! I have just checked the source, it is indeed a typo on my behalf and is now fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

• • Otherwise looks very good to me. The deception aspect was particularly interesting. Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review and comments. I, likewise, found the deception aspect of these forgotten training divisions to be very interesting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• The lead image probably counts as a derivative of the original patch - I'd assume that it would count as a work of the UK government.

Ideally then, the patch images should all be updated to include information akin to this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3rd_US_Armored_Division_SSI.png ?

Yes, I'd think so.

I shall sort this out then :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Is there a source used for the Fortitude map? FAC reviewers will probably ask you for one. Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I will be honest and admit, until you said that I never looked at the file details. If one was to dig up sources that supported the image, and added them to its page, would that satisfy future FAC reviewers?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably, though you could also ask User:ErrantX what he used, since he created the map. Parsecboy (talk) 10:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have left a message for him on his talkpage, although i note he has not been actively recently. I will bare this in mind before taking the article further, and if necessary will attempt to source the image myself.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right; I am trying to work out the best way to source this. Basically; using all of my sources on the Bodyguard plan I put together the map. Sourcing all of that info would be rather laborious (but, possible - mostly by checing out all of the relevant ops. article pages and selecting a relevant source). There is a similar map here which is not explicitly my source, but it handly encompasess all of the data. But it's maybe not the most reliable source (although it does cite sources on page 2). --Errant ^(chat!) 20:11, 8 July 2015 (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) 03:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Paterson Clarence Hughes

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Paterson Clarence Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Paterson Clarence Hughes/archive1

Another Australian fighter ace, this time our highest scorer in the Battle of Britain, Pat Hughes. Given his seventeen victories in less than two months during the battle, one can only wonder if, had he lived, he would've challenged Clive Caldwell as Australia's leading ace of the war. Beyond the air fighting, though, this is a bit of a love story, as Hughes' English bride Kay figures prominently in the main sources. Thanks Cliftonian for his recent GA review, and in advance to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from GA reviewer: looks like I was right about why he transferred to the UK. Takes one to know one I suppose ;) —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: oops, forgot this. Well done again Ian. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again, John! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support: fantastic article, Ian, I couldn't find anything to pick fault with. I believe that the images are all appropriately licenced, the article is well-written, comprehensive, and well referenced. Well done and thank you for helping to improve my own knowledge on Australia's contribution to the Battle of Britain. I read this for B-class review, and it got me then, as it does now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • All the images have alt text (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • In the lead: "..and, later, Bristol Blenheim fighters..." Is it correct to call the Blenheim a fighter? I'd of thought it was a light bomber or some such. (suggestion only - I admit I'm unclear on what role they were used in and at what time, perhaps they were both at various stages or in different roles by different squadrons?)
    • The Blenheim was conceived as a light bomber but when introduced before the war it could outpace many fighters and some fighter versions were made. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "...his father was by now working as a labourer..." perhaps instead "...his father was by then working as a labourer..." (suggestion only)
    • Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • What are "spots before the eyes" - I'm assuming its some kind of medical condition / visual disturbance, but it might be good to wikilink it if an appropriate article exists so as to explain it to readers (suggestion only).
    • Australia's Few suggests it was the beginning of battle fatigue but since there doesn't seem to have been any contemporary diagnosis I thought it best to just stick to the symptoms he seems to have reported at the time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a minor tweak to alphabetically sort the reflist [32], otherwise this article looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Tks for that and all your comments, AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2015 (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) 04:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Halifax Explosion

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk)

Halifax Explosion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Halifax Explosion/archive1

The Halifax Explosion was one of the largest non-nuclear explosions of all time. This article recently passed GAN and I'm hoping to take it to FAC at some point in the future. Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

• "with the recently formed Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Halifax "became internationally known as a centre for care for the blind".": WP:INTEXT may be a problem here, and more so because the source may not tell us who said it. Also, more is quoted than is indicated by the quote marks.
• "$35 million": This might be a dumb question, but ... Canadian or American?
• "It has now become a "fashionable neighbourhood" and shopping district.": I'm not a fan of unexplained quote marks in Wikipedia (except in my reviews!). Readers who know the context might not get confused, but many readers will get tripped up. (Are you quoting someone? The meaning and value of a short quoted phrase like this one tends to vary depending on who's saying it. Are you giving us the name the area was known by? Expressing skepticism?)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Great work, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Dank! I think I've addressed all of these issues, let me know if not. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Looks great. I'm used to seeing C$, but I'm sure you know better than I do. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• From what I understand it's always C$ in the US but Canada uses both, or at least I've seen both here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Mont-Blanc was under orders from the French government to carry her highly explosive cargo to Bordeaux, France" Maybe "cargo from New York via Halifax to Bordeaux"
• "The two main points of departure were on the East Coast at Sydney (HMCS Landsdowne) in Cape Breton and Halifax." I would link Sydney and Cape Breton, and what does the ship in brackets mean.
• "Hospital ships returned the wounded, and a new military hospital was constructed in the city." What does "returned the wounded" mean? Transported people wounded in U-boat attacks?
• "guarded by patrol ships of the Royal Canadian Navy." You say above that the RCN had virtually no ships - maybe mention that they had acquired some by 1917.
• " "special protections" for the ship" What does this mean?
• I found the explanation of the collision confusing:
• 1. Comparing the map with an atlas, It appears Bedford Basin is in the north-west, and ships proceed south-east between Dartmouth to the north and Halifax towards the open sea. If this is correct it would be helpful to explain it.
• 2. "Navigating from the inner harbour into Bedford Basin required passage through a strait called the Narrows." This appears to mean that ships proceeding to sea had to go from the inner harbour through the strait and Bedford Basin and on the Atlantic, but presumably this is wrong - the inner harbour is between the basin and the sea. I suggest "Navigating from Bedford Basin towards the Atlantic required passage through a strait called the Narrows"
• 3. *"The Mont-Blanc started moving at first light on 6 December" What time was first light? Was the Imo overtaking the Mont-Blanc or were the ships coming from different directions.
• 4. I think it would be better not to mention geographical locations which are not explained (or which do not help to explain what happened), such as inner harbour, George's Island, Pier 9 and McNabs Island.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments, Dudley - I think I've addressed all except the last. I'm trying to track down a reliable source describing how far apart the two were when they first saw each other, and will sub that in for Pier 9 when I do. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• More comments
• Caption: "Map of present-day Halifax; Bedford Basin is in the northwest and is accessed via the Narrows between the North End and Dartmouth." Maybe "Map of present-day Halifax. Bedford Basin is top left and the Narrows between Dartmouth and Halifax leads towards the Atlantic off the bottom on the right."
• "but was likewise too late to venture up the harbour before the nets were raised" I see that I misread what the Mont-Blanc was doing - I thought it was coming out of the harbor like the Imo. My carelessness but "likewise too late to venture up the harbour" may have made me think they were going in the same direction, so perhaps this could be amended.
• "Mackey gave a short blast of his ship's signal whistle to indicate that his vessel had the right of way" - right of way because the Imo was on the wrong side of the channel?

• Yes, that's correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Did all the crew of the Mont-Blanc escape?
• "was felt as far away as Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island" "caused an earthquake as far away as"?

• That would not be technically accurate - this was a shock wave but not an earthquake. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• "The commission would continue until 1976, participating in reconstruction efforts.[" Did reconstruction really take 60 years? If so, why?
• A very interesting article, but I am puzzled why the Mont-Blanc was (initially) blamed, as the article appears to show that the excessive speed and refusal to give way of the Imo was the cause. Could this be explained?
• Interesting that the article also provides further examples of how WW1 led to advances in medicine.
• Did Coleman get any posthumous award or other recognition? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Except as noted above, I've addressed these. Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. I would however add the explanation that the Mont-Blanc had the right of way because the Imo was on the wrong side. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Body and Refs
  • Duplicate links to Rockingham and the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic.
  • 4 external links have problems with connection.
  • Standardize hyphens in the isbns

Hi Tomandjerry211, I've corrected these, thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Support: great work, Nikki, I only have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• In the lead there seems a little inconsistency in presentation, e.g. "twenty minutes later" v. "20 minutes later". I'd actually suggest removing one of these, as it seems like repetition, but if kept it should probably be consistent
• "the north end to rescue survivors", should this be "the North End to rescue survivors"?
• "Germans had mocked victims of the Explosion", this probably should be "Germans had mocked victims of the explosion";
• There is some date format inconsistency in the article: for instance "5 December" v. "December 13, 1917" Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AustralianRupert, I've addressed all of these. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Support

• I felt the prose could stand some trimming/tweaking here and there, so let me know if any concerns with the result, but overall I found it a very impressive read -- detailed but not overly so, neutral, thoroughly referenced, and well illustrated.
• Images generally appear properly licensed but should File:Halifax Explosion - harbour view - restored.jpg have a US PD tag, like the others? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I've added that. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2015 (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) 10:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik/archive1

Dubrovnik was the only destroyer leader built for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia between the wars. She was captured by the Italians during the 1941 April War, and as Premuda was the most effective Italian war prize of WWII, being involved in convoy escort and troop transport to Africa. She was later captured by the Germans provided naval gunfire support, and conducted mining operations as TA32. Her last fight was the Battle of the Ligurian Sea. She was scuttled by the Germans in April 1945 as they withdrew from Genoa. She just passed GA (after previously failing GA and having a lot of work put into her), and I believe she now meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments Looking at the careers of these ships you're bringing to A-class makes my head hurt. I hope that you're quietly fixing up articles on deadly boring topics like Royal New Zealand Navy ships to stay sane! I have the following comments:

• There's a bit of repetition of new country/new nation in the first para of the "Development" section

• Have tweaked that with an abbreviation and some rewording, let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Do we know why Škoda guns were specified? (presumably for commonality with other weapons used by the country)

• My assumption is that it was because Yugoslavia had close relations with Czechoslovakia in the 20's or because Skoda guns were commmonly used in the Austro-Hungarian fleet (familiarity), but there isn't anything I can find that explicitly says either of those reasons. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Did the ship try to escape the Italian invasion, or see any combat?

• No, nearly all the Yugoslav ships stayed in port throughout, and were captured in situ by the Italians. There was a bit of minelaying and some planned operations against the Italian enclave at Zara by torpedo boats and minelayers, but Dubrovnik and her smaller destroyer companions pretty much stayed put. With the exception of one destroyer blown up by her officers, and a couple of torpedo boats and one sub that escaped, that was it. The navy rank-and-file and many officers were mainly Croats, and many of them had no stomach for fighting for the Serb-dominated regime. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Can you say why the Italians pressed this ship into service (to make good losses, make use of a high quality ship, etc).

• Nothing specific, the Italians pretty much pressed the whole Yugoslav fleet into service, undoubtedly because they needed the ships, but I haven't seen a source that states that was the reason. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support with only a couple thoughts. First, Battle of the Ligurian Sea says that TA32 was "severely" damaged. Is there an issue here, or can you fix it if it's wrong? Same thing with USS Gleaves (DD-423)#European invasions. Otherwise, great work! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I'm not sure if this will help you. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• • The damage was to her rudder, I wouldn't call that severe, she still made it home. Thanks, ed17! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • One of the images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency (not an ACR req, suggestion only).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • "When she was captured by the Germans, Premuda's new guns had not been completed." This seems to be a little repetitive as the point is already made in the last paragraph of the previous section. Perhaps consider if its necessary to include here again. Alternatively you might delete "...and the new guns had not been installed..." from the previous section if you feel the second instance is req'd (the paragraph does seem to rely on this information in my opinion) (suggestion only).
  • Otherwise fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Ac. I've adopted the alternative approach. I agree the para relies on that info. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - one typo I caught - Szent Istvan was sunk in June 1918, not 1915. Parsecboy (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course. Thanks, Pb! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:16, 2 July 2015 (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) 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wilcke was one of the German fighter aces of World War II to become a wing commander. He had fought on the Western and Eastern Front and was killed in 1944 when the Lustwaffe had lost the air war over Europe. Thanks in advance for your time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support I've only got two comments:

• The first note needs a citation.
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• There are two "clarification needed" tags in the article
  • I had to revert these. Look for the Note2, it explains the nomenclature of Luftwaffe units. It is never spelled out, it is either a regular number, for squadrons, or a roman numeral, for groups. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks, since I am not an expert at the Luftwaffe, it didn't seem clear to me.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Since the rest of my comments seemed like nitpicks, I did them myself.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• "He claimed his tenth victory, again a Hurricane, on a 11:15 am mission targeting the London area on 20 September" - does that mean the kill was at 11:15? The mission hit London at 11:15? It took off at 11:15?
  • good point, reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Heh, that was my initial copyedit, an 11:15am mission being one that took off at 11:15, but fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• In general, German terms are given first, so why not for Battle Group Wilke?
  • agreed, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• "...claimed 137 victories of which 97 victories were credited to Wilcke." - this can't be right - he was already over 100 by this point, and then it says his tally rose to 135 later.
  • The full sentence reads "During this summer offensive the Geschwaderstab of JG 3 "Udet" claimed 137 victories, of which 97 victories were credited to Wilcke", I underlined the parts you commented on. What I tried to say, in a specific time frame his unit claimed 137 victories and Wilcke accounted for 97 of these. In Sports, Barcelona beat Munich 3:0 and Messi scored two of these goals. Does this make sense? MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I get that, but the article says that by early September, his tally was at 100 victories - this line makes it sound like he got almost another 100 during the Battle of Stalingrad. I think you're saying that in the course of the 1942 summer campaign, he scored 97 kills, but it's oddly placed here - I would probably move it to the end of the first paragraph in the Wing commander of JG 3 section. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I reworded the sentence. I think it is clear now MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Might be worthwhile to explain why the 150 mark came with a ban from flying, even if just in a note.
  • good idea, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Stabsschwarm needs a translation
  • added MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Might want to check th translation of the Wehrmachtbericht - I don't think the German refers to him as a night fighter. Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • good catch, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
    • All looks good to me now. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments -- leaning to support pending resolution of Nate's points...

• Pretty happy with prose now but let me know if I stuffed anything up with my copyedit.
• Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
• Image licensing looks okay and couldn't see any obvious referencing issues.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think everything's taken care of now -- well done as usual, MB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I made a few copy edits, but not a lot stood out to me. Please check you are happy with my changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2015 (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) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid/archive1

The biography of one of the main regional warlords that dominated the fracturing Abbasid Caliphate in the early 10th century. As general and as ruler of Syria and Egypt he showed himself capable, wily, but also prudent and restrained. I greatly expanded this article in January, using the main prosopographical study on him and a few complementary sources. It passed a thorough GA review, and I feel it is ready for ACR scrutiny. With whatever suggestions for improvement made here, it will hopefully one day make a fine FA candidate. Constantine ✍ 16:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

• I'm making some small tweaks to make it more accessible to a broad readership, but overall, your writing skill is terrific. Your articles brighten up the Main Page.
• " he was later released and spent his life until his death in 957 in retirement": "his life until his death" is discordant, and "retirement" raises an unanswered question (what he was retired from). It's probably better to say that he wasn't doing (whatever he wasn't doing), if that's the point.
• " Thus in 936/7 or 937/8 (most likely in autumn 937)": Personally, I think this slows the story down; I'd just go with "Most likely in autumn 937"
• " The meeting was not entirely fruitless, as al-Ikhshid secured from the Caliph the recognition of his authority over Egypt, Syria with the thughur as well as the Hejaz (carrying with it the prestigious guardianship of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina) for himself and his sons for thirty years, an arrangement that echoed the similar agreement between the Tulunid Khumarawayh and Caliph al-Mu'tamid in 886." I don't follow.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• As usual, thanks for your thorough and well-considered copyedits. I've further rewritten the areas mentioned in the 2nd and 4th bullet points above, hopefully for the better. On the third, I did consider it but the gain in text fluency is IMO not that great. I prefer to leave it as it is. Constantine ✍ 11:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sure thing. What does 936/7 mean? MOSNUM has advice on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• It is the common way in literature of rendering the Hijri years into Common Era ones in the usual case where they don't coincide (in this case AH 325 and 326). Constantine ✍ 12:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Support - quite an interesting read, I only have one issue to be addressed:

• File:Fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate.jpg - the uploader is not the copyright holder, so it should have the same copyright template as the original, along with the {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} tag. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the vote and the remark on the licensing, it had totally escaped my notice. Any recommendations, going beyond ACR requirements? Constantine ✍ 20:32, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support -- looks good, just a couple of fairly minor things image/source-wise below:

• Like Dan, I think this is very well written, and I hope I didn't misinterpret anything during my relatively light copyedit.
• Although I know very little about the period in question, the content seems comprehensive, neutrally presented, and reasonably easy to follow.
• Image-wise, I think that the one Parsecboy mentions above would need a US-PD tag.
• Source-wise, again given the caveat of not being an expert, the references seem reliable enough to me. However it doesn't look like Lilie is cited, so it perhaps belongs in Further reading.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ian, and thanks for your edits and your kind comments. I've tagged the file, and as for Lilie, it is referenced by the acronym PbmZ. I am somewhat surprised there seem to be no further comments, I'll take that and your endorsements as a good sign! :) Constantine ✍ 10:42, 16 May 2015 (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) 08:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

John Wilton (general)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

John Wilton (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/John Wilton (general)/archive1

I started improving this article on Australia's senior soldier for most of the Vietnam era way back in 2012, partly to follow up my work on his predecessor as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Fred Scherger, and partly to see if I could add a general to my list of air marshal and admiral FAs. The "epitome of the professional army officer", as his biographer David Horner put it, John Wilton was as cool and "proper" as his clipped moustache and stern visage suggested, but a leader who always seemed to have the welfare of his men at heart. A great deal has been written about him, so I can only hope I've correctly balanced what to put in and what to leave out. One thing that surprised me was finding no evidence of any memorials (street names, parks, prizes, etc) so if any of you Army types or Canberra residents know of something that can be substantiated by sources or even your own photos, that'd be great. Thanks to Anotherclown for his helpful GA review that just concluded, and to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Very impressive. I found one error: He was appointed to the General Staff Advanced Headquarters Australian Military Force, South West Pacific Area. That's not correct. SWPA had Land, Air and Naval components. The HQ of land one was Allied Land Forces, under Blamey. It had its headquarters (LHQ) in Melbourne. When MacArthur's GHQ moved up to Brisbane, Advance LHQ moved up there. In 1944, Advance GHQ moved to Hollandia, so another headquarters was formed, Forward Echelon Advance LHQ (Forland). This followed Advanced GHQ to Manila. Meanwhile, Advanced LHQ moved to Morotai to provide logistical support to the operations in Borneo. Wilton spent some time with Forland in Manila, before becoming Colonel GS (Staff Duties and Training) at Advanced LHQ on Morotai. Advanced LHQ became Advanced Headquarters Australian Military Forces (note the plural), but only when SWPA was dissolved on 2 September 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Many tks Hawkeye; will check over the Horner bio tomorrow and recast that bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: Wilton was accorded a military funeral at Duntroon and cremated at Norwood Park Crematorium. We know where Norwood Park Crematorium is (since it is not far from my home) but I doubt if everyone would know. Unfortunately, neither Norwood nor Mitchell has an article, but I think it should read "... in the Canberra suburb of Mitchell." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've had a go at recasting the LHQ bit (as well as a few other minor things) and just settled for "Canberra" to broadly clarify the location of the Crematorium as Mitchell wasn't mentioned in any source I have. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan. I know we've discussed "in the event" before but for me "in any event" (or "as it happened") can sometimes connote something haphazard; anyway I left your change re. 3rd Division in New Guinea, where I think it worked, but recast the sentence re. withdrawal from Vietnam to avoid any such wordage (and incidentally remove the original passive voice). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

In the part you reworded, did "in the event" mean something like "but in fact" or "nevertheless"? Oxford Dictionaries gives "as it turned out", but as I recall, you objected to that substitution before. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cambridge Dictionaries says "used to emphasize that what happened was not what you expected". That sounds like "instead" to me, or if emphasis is appropriate, "but in fact". Would those work in general? - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Tks for those, Dan. Cambridge is probably closest to the meaning I had in mind, and indicates to me that it should be acceptable usage in Aus/BritEng articles. I think "however", "nevertheless" and "in fact" are best minimised in an encyclopaedia (though I don't shoot every example on sight). Anyway, as I've said, I'm quite happy to go with the wording we have now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments Nice work as usual Ian. I have the following comments and suggestions:

• "His eight-year tenure as Australia's senior Army officer" - this is a bit confusing: my understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that the CCOSC wasn't in charge of the Army, but had a independent advisory/coordination type role.
  • Yes, that's my understanding as well; I meant that he was Australia's top-ranking Army officer as CGS and then CCOSC. If you think it's clearer to say it like that I could do so, and reword the earlier "Army's highest-ranking position" to "professional head of the Army", which I'd considered doing anyway...
    • I'm not sure that that's an accurate representation of his role as CCOSC (which seems to have been a pretty toothless type of position). How about "His eight-year tenure as Australia's senior Army officer and head of the Australian military covered almost the entire period of the nation's involvement in the Vietnam War." - this seems to be in line with what the quote from the official history in ref 81 says. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Mmm, I think we're agreed that CCOSC didn't directly command the armed forces, which is why I'd be leery of "head of the Australian military". What about "His eight-year tenure as senior officer of first the Army and then the armed forces..." or words to the effect? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • That sounds good to me Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
• "the couple had two sons and a daughter" - should this be "the couple later had two sons and a daughter"?
  • Heh, I figured the "later" was a given and I think it's often expressed as I did it...
    • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• "Port Kembla in Sydney" perhaps just "Port Kembla"
  • Yeah, I know they're linked but I figured it was helpful for the uninitiated to not have to follow those links.
    • My understanding is that the Wollongong area isn't considered part of Sydney (especially at this time), so the wording is a bit inaccurate. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Arrgh, I don't believe it, I was confusing Port Kembla with Kurnell -- of course you're right, thank you... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• "Although not strongly religious, he made a point of attending church parade regularly" - does the source say why? (was he hoping to improve Duntroon's culture?)
  • I think it was simply to set an example, will see.
• Can more be said about Wilton's time in Thailand? Given that there was considered to be a high chance of war breaking out in the country, with SEATO being heavily involved in its defence, this looks to have been an important position.
  • Sure, I initially had just a line about the posting, then thought it was worth adding the strategic importance he saw in it, but I could probably build it up a bit more.
• "Phước Tuy Province" and "Vũng Tàu": I'd suggest using non-diacritic versions of these per the common usage in English language reliable sources
  • Heh, after all the trouble I went to to use the diacritic... ;-) No, that's probably fair enough, the major sources don't seem to employ it.
    • I have to confess that I'm not sure who won the Wikipedia diacritic wars ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
• "Wilton also resisted suggestions to rotate the Australian task force out of Phước Tuy" - it might be worth elaborating on this (from memory, the argument from the US was that Phuoc Tuy had been largely pacified, and that the good quality Australian forces could be better used elsewhere) Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, I think it was something along those lines, will check/add. Tks for stopping by, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay Nick, done all I said I would above, happy to discuss further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I've tweaked the text for the last point: it seems that Wilton was talking about a hypothetical situation here. I'd suggest fixing the Port Kembla issue above, and am happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Tks Nick, pls see above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
          • BTW, Anotherclown checked image licensing at GAN but if you (or Hawkeye) get a chance to verify for the purposes of this review, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:116302WiltonPortrait1945.jpg AWM image, Australian public domain, copyright expired in 1995
• File:6th Australian Field Regiment - Syria 1941 (AWM 008195).jpg AWM image, Australian public domain, copyright expired in 1991
• File:Korea AWM044755.jpg AWM image, Australian public domain, copyright expired in 2003, free licence
• File:RAAF UH-1D of 9 Sqn in Vietnam 1970.jpg USAF image, public domain
• File:Australian Centurions Vietnam.jpg USA image, public domain
• All images okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Many tks Hawkeye. Nick, I'll just await your thoughts (or anyone else's!) on the last bit of the opening para before I list this for closure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 13 May 2015 (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) 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Yugoslav torpedo boat T1/archive1

The first in what will hopefully be a series of A-Class nominations of smaller vessels of the Royal Yugoslav Navy. Saw service with five navies, and was part of the escort that was unable to protect the Austro-Hungarian dreadnought SMS Szent István from Italian MAS boats in 1918. Expanded significantly in last few months, and recently successfully nominated for GA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments: looks pretty good to me. Just a few minor comments from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• check the English variation, I see some British (e.g. "harbour") and some US (e.g. "defense")
• "fitout" or "fit-out"?
• the first sentence of the Interwar period section seems a bit long and might be smoother if it were split somehow.
• are there any details about what the ship was used for during the Interwar period?
• in the References, London is probably overlinked
• the licencing of the image used appears correct to me (no action required)

• All done. Added a bit about the interwar period, but she was a small ship and they didn't have much money. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• No worries, thanks, I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The interwar para says that T 76 and three other 250t boats were given to Yugoslavia, but then six 250t boats participated in the Mediterranean cruise in 1929 - I assume you meant that there were three other T-group 250t boats, since that's the breakdown given in the class article.
• Is Hvar worth a red link?
• "She continued in Yugoslav service under that name..." - I assume that refers back to Golešnica?
• There are a couple of duplicate links in the interwar section. Parsecboy (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • All done. There were four F-group boats transferred to the Yugoslavs as well, so the six were six of the eight, so I've clarified. Also clarified the final name. These are my edits. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me, great work on this little tin can ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Support

• Great job, I only have one comment. The name Golešnica, is it derived from Golešnica? If yes, I think it would be good to mention it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Given it was initially given to her by the Croats, I doubt it. I haven't found any RS for the basis of the name. Thanks for the review, MB! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:02, 12 May 2015 (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) 05:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

SMS Gefion

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Another German cruiser, this was the last unprotected cruiser built in the 1890s. She saw action during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900-01. The ship was out of service by World War I due to a lack of personnel to crew her, so she was used as a depot for U-boats. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Note - for some reason, I forgot to actually transclude this until now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

All look fine to me, thanks as always Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Support I added a note on SMS and linked Haugwitz, alt-text missing on image in infobox but not required for A-class, good job MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the note - I tend to forget it, if you haven't noticed ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Support There was a lone sentence that needed a smidge of attention. I adjusted it thusly. Gecko G (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Image review All images are appropriately licensed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking them, PM. Parsecboy (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2015 (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) 04:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Second Battle of Kehl (1796)

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Second Battle of Kehl (1796) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is part of a series on the Rhine Campaign of 1796 that I and some others have been working on. It recently passed to GA and I think it meets the A-Class standard. auntieruth (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

• "the heavy Austrians fire": ?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but I didn't tackle the lead, which jumps around and is hard to follow. It will need some work if this one is headed to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments: (I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow, so I'm posting these piecemeal today)

• "Austrian and imperial troops"

Link to imperial, few readers will understand the reference.

Ive added this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• "At Kehl and the city of Strasbourg lay a complex of bridges"

Does this mean "Between Kehl and Strasbourg"? In any event, remove "and the city" because that's already mentioned in the para above.

Generally I find the third para of the lead very difficult to understand. I think it needs a re-write.

These issues have both been addressed. I'll start working on the body now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments This article is in good shape, and I have only the following comments:

• I'd suggest mentioning what war this battle formed part of in the first sentence
• The para starting with "The French plan called for two armies to press against the flanks" and the next two paras would benefit from the addition of the approximate dates when the events it describes occurred Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• done! auntieruth (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Support My main comment is now addressed. I'd still suggest moving a mention of the war into the first sentence, but it's not a big deal given that it's at the end of the initial (short) paragraph Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "and earlier in 1796, when the French crossed into the German states on 23–24 June." You link 1796 to the first battle, but I would spell it out.
  • fixed
• "the autonomous corps of Wilhelm von Wartensleben" I would move note 1 explaining autonomous corps to here.
  • fixed
• The infobox gives the date of the battle as 13 to 18 September, but you only mention events on the 18th in the lead and do not spell out that they were the Battle of Kehl.
  • fixed
• "Control of the surrounding territory there prevented the French from crossing to safety in Strasbourg". I do not understand this. If the French controlled Kehl and the bridges, and the Austrians the surrounding territory, then how could the French retreat to Basel and not across the bridges?
  • if you're referring to the aftermath section, I think I've fixed it.
• There is no background section. Some of the second paragraph of the lead could be moved to a short paragraph which covers the earlier history and the war before 1795.
• Is no map available? The description of the dispositions of the forces is incomprehensible without one.

**looking for one. Added auntieruth (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Further comments

• "On 18 September 1796, the Austrians temporarily acquired control of the tête-du-ponts (bridgeheads) joining Kehl and Strasbourg until a strong French counter-attack forced them to retreat, leaving the French in control of the bridges but the Austrians in control of the territory surrounding them." I would merge this into the first sentence. It is confusing to have the first half of the battle at the beginning of the lead and the rest not until the third paragraph.
• Much of the second paragraph of the lead seems to me to belong in the background section.
• "After he tried to force his way through, the Austrians fell back to Weingarten at 49°3′5″N 8°31′50″E and waited there for the French to catch up.[11] By the time the French arrived, Scherb found himself caught between detachments of Austrians by the Kinzig river and behind him." This is a bit confusing. "catch up" sounds as if they are on the same side, and "By the time the French arrived" sounds as if there were two French forces. Perhaps delete "to catch up" and change the next sentence to "When Scherb arrived, he found himself caught..."
• "The Austrians had insufficient reserves to meet the fresh troops from Strasbourg. By 23:00 though, the French had recovered Strasbourg, the village of Kehl and all of the French earthen works." Were the fresh troops the ones mentioned before or new ones? Also why "though"?
• Looks good. A few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• I think I've dealt with all these now. auntieruth (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support - although I am not really happy with the lead. You have not dealt with the first two points in 'further comments'. I still think that you should say in the first paragraph that the French recovered the ground lost by the initial Austrian success rather than leave the reader to work it out from the wording of the 3rd para, and I also think that some of the 2nd para belongs in the background. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• OH! I finally understand what you were asking me to do. I think....auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2015 (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) 05:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

American Expeditionary Forces order of battle

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

American Expeditionary Forces order of battle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class standards. Just an order of battle for the American Expeditionary Forces. Might be a little short on content for the history of corps, but since I could not find anymore RS's for content, I just left it there for now. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsInvolved Support (any closing co-ordinator pls note I have significantly contributed to this article now during the cse of this review – 99 edits at the time of writing)
  • Good work so far, just a few quick comments from me:.
    • Organisation above corps-level should probably be included – my understanding is there were two armies (First United States Army and Second United States Army), with a third forming.
      • Added--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The lead includes some good information; however, it probably needs to be referenced in this case (as it is not just a summary of information included in the sections below it with refs).
      • Added.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The planned size of the AEF (4 million) and the fact that some 2 million men had reached France by the Armistice is probably worthy of being included in the lead (its currently in the infobox), but would of course need to be supported with a citation.
      • No citation, might want some more reliable info.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I found a citation and added something for this now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I have made a bunch of copy edits, mostly to formatting but a few others too – see here [33]. Pls check I didn't muff anything up. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Also some of the images had been lacking some of the req'd bibliographic details / licensing information, especially File:AEF marching in France.jpg. I've gone ahead and made the changes I think were req'd now; however, if someone with more knowledge about images is able to have a look and check what I've done and make any further cmts / changes as req'd that would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • There are a few notable units / formations that are mentioned in the ORBAT but aren't wikilinked – in particular some of the subordinate brigades. It might be a good idea to wikilink these where pages exist. This category might help you locate which have articles – Category:Infantry brigades of the United States Army. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Linked--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Those changes look good to me, thanks for that. I've continued to copy edit and make some further changes, pls see here [34]. If there are no issues with those I'm now fairly comfortable with where this ORBAT is at (although I'm no expert on the AEF) and only have one more point:

In the lead you currently have "When it was sent to Europe, it had seven corps...". Is 7 correct? Only 5 US corps are listed (with two attached French corps). Can you pls check this? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, there were nine corps, but there were only structure info for only five of them.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries – could a note be added to explain this (with a ref)? Anotherclown (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Note added with ref.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

In its current form this note is not clear enough and the reference given (Gibbons p 91) does not seem to mention anything about nine corps [see the Project Gutenberg copy here [35]. My assumption is that the plan was for nine corps but only five had taken the field by the time of the armistice. Indeed from what I can tell the General Organization Plan of the AEF planned for it to consist of 9 corps in three field armies and there is structure information for all of these organizations actually seems to be here: [36] (including Third Army and VI-IX Corps which are not currently listed in your ORBAT). As these appear to have actually been formed and served during the occupation of Germany these need to added for completeness. Quite a few publications state that only five had been formed by the end of the war (including several already cited, but also Gibbons p. 388 which states: "By the 1st of September, the United States of America had five such army corps in the field, martialling a strength of about one and one-half million bayonets." As such the way forward as I see it:

• Make the lead clear in regards to the fact of the planned vs actual size at the armistice; and  Done - decided to have a go at this myself
• Expand the ORBAT to include the missing army and corps; and  Done – I have fixed it--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Lastly I am concerned about the accuracy of some of your referencing. Can you pls clarify the cause of the Gibbons p. 91 discrepancy? Unless I missed something this does not support the information you stated it does so I'm left to wonder if the other refs are accurate. Was this a one off mistake? Can you pls double check your other refs? Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead myself IRT the nine vs five corps issue, so have now marked this as done; however, this still leaves the issue of the structure being incomplete (i.e Third Army and VI-IX Corps). A few other points come to mind as I've worked through this:

• Ranks for commanders should probably be included;
• The list of commanders for most formations appears to be incomplete (these are available from the two Army War College Historical Section publications; and
• Are there page numbers available for the Coffman and Pershing references? This really needs to be added to satisfy WP:V. Anotherclown (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I could not find any page numbers for those two refs.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Also it occurred to me that the American Expeditionary Force Siberia and American Expeditionary Force North Russia should probably be included. I'm not really very familiar with US military history though so I wonder what others think about this. Anotherclown (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think adding AEF North Russia and Siberia is really necessary, as I wrote the article to be about the AEF (hence the name and links), and I am pretty sure they served at the different fronts, times, and reasons (aka. The AEF North Russia and AEF Siberia were sent to support the White Russian side in the Russian Civil War, with other Allied Powers (including Britain and France).). -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Howdy. Weren't the AEF North Russia and Siberia still part of the American Expeditionary Force though? As someone not familiar with the topic the name alone would suggest so to me at least (and therefore possibly to other readers). That said I agree with your reasoning for not including here, but only if the ORBAT you are currently working on is intended to only cover the AEF on the Western Front (which again seems a valid limit to me and I would recommend doing so). If this is the case then it needs to be made clear that this ORBAT is only for the Western Front, whilst I think mention of the AEF North Russia and Siberia could still be made in the lead (for instance you currently mention those deployed to Italy) for completeness / accuracy. A suggestion as to how we make this distinction clear though doesn't come easily to me at the moment though. So again I'm open to suggestions / opinions of others. One possible way might be a name change for the article e.g. to something like Order of Battle for the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front or some such variation (there is a List of orders of battle which may give you some ideas for names as there are quite a range of variations and as far as I'm aware no real policy to dictate naming conventions). Anotherclown (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Renamed and moved. -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've continued to help expand the ORBAT today and made a few more changes, some outstanding points / questions I see:

• Blurbs need to be added to most of the formations (all Armies and Corps need one), and others need to be expanded (like what you have II Corps for instance). At the least I'd recommend that they should mention date of formation, key activities and demobilization.

• Added--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• Do you intend on adding ranks for the commanders? I think it would be appropriate.

• Added--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some formations have complete lists of commanders, whilst others only have one (presumably that at the time the ORBAT is correct as at) – as such you probably need to standardize on one or the other (I am partially responsible for adding some of these, sorry).

• Standardized, but since I don't know the last couple, I just left them there.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• If you intend on listing all commanders then the date of their command should be included too (you do this in some places but not others).
• Is the infobox really appropriate? Most ORBATs I have seen don't use them, and this one mostly seems to duplicate that at the American Expeditionary Forces article.

• Removed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is http://www.vetshome.com/military_corps_patches_history_1.htm a reliable source per WP:RS? I'm not 100% sure it qualifies. From looking at it you could probably use the Army War College Historical Section to replace this reference fairly easily which would strengthen the quality of your reference base. Anotherclown (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Removed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok I've gone through and completed a final copy-edit. Well done in seeing this project through to this point, quite an effort. I'm not in anyway an expert on the AEF; however, from my limited understanding of the topic and the research I've done during this review I think that this is a fair attempt at a ORBAT and am willing to give it my support for promotion. Pls note though that during the cse of this review I have made quite a few edits – 99 at the time of writing – admittedly most were copy-editing but there has also been some content, so I think that I would be considered by others to have contributed to it to the point where I am no longer uninvolved. Per current processes ACRs require the support of three uninvolved editors, so if this is to be successful we will probably need a few more editors to review it and support it as well. If I can assist later in the review I will attempt to continue to do so though of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work on this so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• the first sentence of the lead seems quite awkward and probably should be rewritten
  • Rewritten--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• please use a consistent date format. For instance compare: "12 July 1918" with "August 15, 1918"
  • Fixed
• I don't think the Key section is really necessary
  • Removed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• grammar "The I Corps" (and similar constructions); this should just be "I Corps" as it doesn't need the definate article
  • Addressed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• what's the Baker misson? It gets mentioned in one of the photo captions without any context. Could you provide a link to an article that explains it?
  • There is no article explaining the Baker Mission, it just got mentioned in the main article on the AEF.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, I found this: [37], which provides a little context. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I've added my support now as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Support

• I Corps painting image should mention it is a depiction by Don Troiani. It is currently presented as if it were an actual photograph.
  • Fixed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Other than that I don't see any problems. The article's title is a bit of a mouthful but I suppose there isn't much room for rewording that. Freikorp (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:America's_First_Convoy_1917.png: should the publisher be Houghton Mifflin?
• File:Americans_in_Champagne-Marne_offensive.jpg: source says that those pictured are National Guard, not that the artist himself is – do we have sources to verify the license given? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks, @Nikkimaria:Nikkimaria, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Does the uploader of Americans_in_Champagne-Marne_offensive.jpg have the right to release it under that license? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I found it on Flickr, and I am pretty sure it was released under the specified license that it was stated on the page.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's fine, but since the uploader is not the creator, are we sure the uploader has the right to release the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Support

• although I have I suggestion. Some of your corps are dated as of a battle (or campaign) and others have a date. I suggest in particular that they have dates and other information as available. For example, I Corps (structure as of the Battle of Saint-Mihiel) tells me nothing about when....auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've attempted my best to fix it. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Much BETTER! thanks. auntieruth (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Collingwood (1908)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Collingwood (1908) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Collingwood (1908)/archive1

HMS Collingwood was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships and frequently served as a flagship during her short career. Completed a few years before World War I, she played a minor role in the war with only participation in the Battle of Jutland enlivening the endless routine of patrols in the North Sea and training. Rendered obsolete by the ever-increasing size and power of more recent dreadnoughts, she became a training ship after the war until she was sold for scrap in 1922. The recent publication of her ship's log has confirmed what I've been otherwise been unable to document and I believe that she now meets the A-class criteria. As always, I'd like readers to look for stray usages of American English and unexplained jargon in addition to the normal things like prose, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• You can get a pretty good level of detail on the Grand Fleet's activities 1914-16 from Jellicoe's memoirs - see HMS Iron Duke (1912) for example.
• Seems odd that the only 1 paragraph in the Jutland section actually discusses the battle - either add more context to the Jutland section (as I've done with Iron Duke) and split off the rest or remove the subheader altogether. I prefer to give a little more context, but it's a matter of taste.
• Would probably be worthwhile to point out that after the 18 August operation, Jellicoe basically decided to abandon the southern end of the North Sea due to the threat of mines and U-boats unless there were good odds of a decisive engagement (again, see Iron Duke)
• Got a Harv error in the ref section.
• I spot an "armor" - watch out for ENGVAR
• According to the caption on File:First battle squadron in the North Sea (April 1915).jpg, the third ship from the left is Colossus, not Collingwood - this also has a dead link from DANFS
• You might want to add File:Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916.svg. Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oh, and link to Action of 19 August 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing out Jellicoe's memoirs, so I've expanded that section quite a bit using it. I've also expanded the Jutland section as you suggested. Don't know how you got a harv error since I don't use harv or sfn cite formats. See how it all works and let me know if there's anything that I missed or need to further expand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Nevermind that bit, Anotherclown fixed it earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Some images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Some inconsistency in presentation of name of class of ship with "St Vincent class" vs "St Vincent-class" (I don't know which is right but imagine it would probably need to be used consistently through out the article).
    • The hyphenated version is a compound adjective that modifies "ship" or "battleship". The unhyphenated version isn't a compound adjective and so lacks the hyphen.
      • No worries - I think you might have explained this to me in the past (I still don't understand it but no worries!) Anotherclown (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some inconsistency in the capitalization of Zepplin.
    • Good catch.
  • Perhaps wikilink "U-boat".
    • Done.
  • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your taking the time to look this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I reviewed this article at GAN in December 2014, and have looked at the changes made since.
• image licenses are all ok.
• no initial conversions of the guns?
  • Not if they're linked.
• 3 inches (76 mm) roofs should be 3-inch?
  • Indeed, good catch.
• the lead could be expanded a bit with some detail. It is a bit short at the moment, I know she didn't have that exciting a service life, but some more detail on Jutland or the later Action would be good. Even that Prince Albert was on board at Jutland.
  • Expanded a little, but there's really not a whole lot to work with since she didn't have a prominent role in Jutland and never even fired her guns in the near-battle on 16 August. If you've got any other suggestions, I'll be happy to incorporate them.
• what was the Battlecruiser Fleet?
• the Germans mustered 18 battleships and 2 battlecruisers what type of battleships? dreadnoughts?
• Fleet on the 21st does this conform to MOS:DATEFORMAT?
  • No, but the reviewers at FAC don't seem to be insisting on it.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I think that I've addressed all of your points so see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Happy now, supporting. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:46, 6 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Operation Pamphlet

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Pamphlet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Operation Pamphlet/archive1

Operation Pamphlet was an convoy operation of World War II in which the veteran Australian 9th Division was transported home from Egypt. The operation had an unusual precursor, in which Churchill and FDR argued with Australian Prime Minister Curtin and (by proxy) General MacArthur over whether the division should be returned. After Curtin won this argument (largely by default), the troops were packed into four of the famous converted "monster" ocean liners and transported home. The Australian Government was greatly concerned about their safety and, in line with standard doctrine, the convoy was escorted by powerful naval forces, including the main body of the British Eastern Fleet for a period. Happily, it was not detected or attacked by the Axis, and arrived safely in Australia in late February 1943.

I started this article last year after stumbling on a surprising number of references concerning the operation, and it reached GA class in November. It's since been expanded and copy edited and I'm hopeful that it is of A-class standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• "subsequently": same as last time. One was redundant after I moved things around; the other two mean "soon" or "later" or variations thereof, and I can't tell which.
• "United States": I reduced this in a few places, as I often do, to US, U.S., American, or nothing, depending on context. There are conflicting opinions and some confusion. The bottom line is that frequent use of "United States" as an adjective sounds wrong to most people, in and outside the US, and influential US style guides (such as Chicago and AP stylebook) reflect this. No one, AFAIK, has a problem with saying "United States" at first mention or occasionally, in any context, but especially in formal contexts; thus WP:ARTCON. It won't bother me if you want to revert some of my edits back to "United States", but please don't revert all of them.
  • Thanks Dank, that looks better. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• I read Maughan to say that the cable from Churchill about retaining the Australian forces' heavy equipment probably came in November. The text currently says "On 21 November, the commander of the 9th Division, Major General Leslie Morshead, was informed by General Harold Alexander, the commander-in-chief of the Middle East Command, that a decision had been made to return the division to Australia. However, Churchill subsequently informed the Australian Government that due to a shortage of shipping the 9th Division would not be permitted to take its heavy equipment ...". I can't support a blanket prohibition on "however" at the start of a sentence, as some Wikipedian copyeditors do; it seems like a reasonable way to start some paragraphs. But that's the point ... it signals a break, a change of direction, and often, quick jumps aren't the best way to minimize a reader's memory load. Better here, I think (with slightly less detail, if that works for you), would be "In November, the commander of the 9th Division, Major General Leslie Morshead, was informed by General Harold Alexander, the commander-in-chief of the Middle East Command, that the division would return to Australia, though Churchill added that their heavy equipment was to remain behind." (I read Maughan to say that the heavy equipment was staying not just because they were going to have a hard time shipping it, but because they wanted to keep the equipment.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a good point: I've tweaked this para to make it a bit clearer Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. The changes are acceptable, for A-class and FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Support

• I copyedited this after its GA review and am satisfied with info/prose changes made since then.
• Structure and level of detail look good to me, sources/citations likewise.
• Image-wise, suggest all could use PD-1996 (as the Preparation one does already).
  • Well-spotted - fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Ian Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd never heard this codename. It is much less well-known than Operation Stepsister (which has no article).
• I'd be interested in Dank's opinion on whether "the maximum which Queen of Bermuda could maintain" should be "the maximum that Queen of Bermuda could maintain". I get confused about this.
  • Butting in, I think it should be "that", now you mention it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
• There is no use of Hasluck's account in The Government and the People 1942–1945 pp. 193-203, which is odd. There are some bits that could be elaborated on to more fully explain the background of the operation. I think that most of the reader interest in the operation would be more on the reasons why than the operation itself, which is well done in any case.

  Hasluck notes the reasons:

  There were, however, many reasons besides any danger to Australia behind the recall of the 9th . There was the need to relieve the burden placed on the 6th and 7th in New Guinea, allied with insufficient military faith in the militia ; the old principle that the Australian Army should fight as one army under one commander ; the difficulty of maintaining reinforcements for a division overseas ; the ambition to strengthen the South-West Pacific Command for an eventual offensive ; the political difficulty of extending the area in which the militia could serve (owing to Labor objections to what was termed conscription) so long as there was still a volunteer expeditionary force in an overseas theatre; the"psychological" effect of absence on the men of the 9th. (p.193)

  • Whoops! I'd actually bookmarked the relevant section of my copy of The Government and the People, but then must have forgotten about it! I'll add some stuff in. I'd rather stay clear of his blow by blow account of the foreign policy manoeuvring, but there's certainly more I need to add; his description of why the division was wanted in Australia is well presented. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • (As a note, I will get up to this later in the week: I've had limited editing time this weekend) Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• I think the reader might get the impression that the return was MacArthur's idea. It actually stemmed from Blamey's proposed restructuring of the Army in September 1942
• The target date for Lae-Salamaua was May 1943. (This slipped to September.) But all the five available US (32nd, 41st, 1st Marine) and AIF (6th, 7th) took heavy casualties in Papua and Guadalcanal. Also, in November 1942, faith in the Militia and the US divisions was at a low ebb.
• The plan to send the US 25th Division to Australia was aborted, and it was diverted to Guadalcanal. This would probably have been in MacArthur's mind. The US 24th and 1st Cavalry Divisions were earmarked, but neither arrived until the second half of the year
• Not all of the promised air reinforcements eventuated either; I don't think that the RAAF ever reached 75 squadrons.
  • Butting in II, actually the article says 73, not 75. No it didn't quite reach that but it came close (70 or so in all I think) so I wouldn't have thought elaboration was necessary in this case, FWIW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

    The article is correct; it was 73 squadrons. I'm not sure it is worth mentioning; but the 1943 allocation of aircraft to SWPA meant that the RAAF was limited to 45 squadrons in 1943. (p. 212) Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D and Hawkeye7: Just considering listing this on the coord talk page for closure (though I can't promote myself) -- been very quiet here so wondering if there's anything still outstanding from the above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian - I need to add some stuff from Hasluck (which has been delayed). I'll try to do this tonight. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, done. Thanks for suggesting this Hawkeye; hopefully it does the trick without getting into the blow-by-blow details of the diplomatic dispute around the division's return to Australia. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • All images have alt text (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of the location of a couple of the publishers in the references section. Specifically some you give as "Canberra" others as "Canberra, Australian Capital Territory".
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some minor inconsistency in presentation of editions for instance "1st ed" vs "Third revised ed" i.e. numerals vs spelt in full (minor nitpick).
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "During 1940 and 1941, three infantry divisions and other units assigned to I Corps of the Second Australian Imperial Force (AIF) were transported to the Middle East..." I wonder if an explanation as to what they were doing there is needed for context for readers not more well acquainted with the topic. For instance "During 1940 and 1941, three infantry divisions and other units assigned to I Corps of the Second Australian Imperial Force (AIF) were transported to the Middle East, where they were subsequently involved in fighting German and Italian forces..." or something like that. It is of course implied but it might be helpful (suggestion only).
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
      • They fought a campaign against the Vichy French as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I made a few minor MOS edits and added an OCLC, pls see my changes here [38] and amend as req'd if I got anything wrong.
  • Otherwise I found the article to be well written, flowed logically, was concise yet covered the topic well, and provided some very interesting insights (e.g. Curtin's concern for the convoy etc). Well done in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your edits and review Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2015 (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) 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Theodor Weissenberger

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Theodor Weissenberger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it should the criteria. Weissenberger was among the few pilots of World War II to achieve ace status flying the Me 262 jet fighter and died shortly after the war in a car racing accident. I hope you enjoy the read. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• as usual, fine work. As usual, I made some tweaks for passive verb tense etc. Support per prose. If someone wants me to check the sources, I will. A cursory look at them revealed no problems; they are the typical sources MrB uses for his articles. auntieruth (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work so far, I have the following suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• I did a quick copy edit. I think it should be okay for A-class, but it may need more if you intend on taking to FAC;
• do we know his parent's names and where he went to school?
  • sorry no I don't MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • no worries, if it is not recorded, there is no need to add it in AustralianRupert (talk)
• do we know what aircraft he flew while with 2./Flieger-Ersatz-Abteilung 14?
  • sorry no I don't MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• inconsistent presentation: "Weissenberger" v. "Weißenberger";
  • one occurance fixed, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• the first sentence of the World War II section doesn't seem necessary to me, and seems a bit abrupt;
  • I thought it helps the reader understand the sequence of events better. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, my concern is that it is very abrupt and doesn't link well with the following sentence. I've tweaked it now to how I think it might be reworded; pls check and adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• I suggest trying to split this sentence (as it seems a bit long): "His unit, 1.(Z)/Jagdgeschwader 77 (JG 77—77th Fighter Wing) was a Zerstörer (Z—heavy fighter or destroyer) Staffel (squadron) flying the twin-engine, up to three-seat, Messerschmitt Bf 110 stationed in Norway, operating in the area of Murmansk during the Continuation War, the hostilities between Finland and the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1944."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• "during the Continuation War, the hostilities between Finland and the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1944". Perhaps it should be clarified that the Germans were flying in support of the Finnish during that conflict? Not sure...
  • good point, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
• the convert templates seem a bit inconsistent, for instance sometimes they seem to spell out the whole word e.g. "kilometers" and then other times just use the abbreviation e.g. "km". Could this be made consistent?
  • I used the whole name on first occurance of a metric unit and from then on the abbreviated variant. I thought this is how it should be done MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Not sure, sorry. I will let this one go through to the 'keeper. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• are the timings that events occured such as taking off, or aircraft were shot down really relevant? While its great that these details exist, I personnally think it is too much in this sort of article (that said, I recognise that I am probably in the minority here, so I am not insisting on removal, just voicing an opinion);
  • Acknowledge, let's see how others feel about this level of detail MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
• in the Awards section it seems to imply that the subject received the Iron Cross in 1939, but the body of the article doesn't seem to mention this. Am I misinterpreting this?
  • you may be? The year 1939 refers to the variant of the Iron Cross and does not mean he received the award that year. Historically, four variants of the Iron Cross have been awarded, the 1815 variant, the 1870 variant, the 1914 variant and the 1939 variant. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, I've tweaked this to make it a bit clearer (in my mind, at least). Please check that you are happy with this change. AustralianRupert (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review and CEing the article MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks again for the review, your changes look appropriate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• I reviewed this at GAN in January and have had a look at the changes since then.
• suggest He claimed eight of these victories over the Western Allies while flying the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter.
  • Thanks, done MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• I would put the English rank equivalents back in, even if only as notes. German ranks are pretty unintelligible to non-German readers.
• all toolchecks are ok
• that's all I have. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Image check all but one are PD, the remaining one (the group photograph of Oak Leaves recipients) appears to have a valid FUR. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:45, 2 May 2015 (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) 06:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Clinton Engineer Works

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Clinton Engineer Works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Clinton Engineer Works/archive1

A high-level Manhattan Project article. These are surprisingly hard to write. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments (close to a support) from Hchc2009:

• A very interesting article; having recently done the (rather simpler) Big Inch pipeline, I sympathise with the difficulties! :)

  That's a pretty good article actually. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• "It was in... and was named after... The production facilities are mainly in" - the tense changes here from past to current; it should probably be consistent I think.

  Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• "although the northern part of the site in Anderson County." - a word missing?

  Y Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• Worth linking "segregated community" or "black residents"?

  Y Liked to Racial segregation in the United States. I don't think the reader needs to know what black people are. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• "On 25 June 1942, the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) S-1 Executive Committee deliberated on where the production facilities of the Manhattan Project should be located." Could this very first sentence be softened slightly for a new reader? I was thinking that if it began something like "In 1942, the Manhattan Project was attempting to construct the first atomic bomb. This would require new production facilities to be built, and on 25 June the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) S-1 Executive Committee met to discuss where these should be located." it would bring the reader in more gradually.

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• "This portion of the quiet rural area was called Black Oak Ridge..." - it was unclear who this quote was from as it isn't attributed (I'm guessing Stone and Webster)

  Y Stephane Groueff. Added who said it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• "The 700 tons of graphite blocks" - I wasn't sure that this should be "the", as it seems to be first time the 700 tons is mentioned ( 1,500 long tons is mentioned above). Probably needs a metric/imperial equivalent as well.

  Y Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Cast uranium billets" - I had to look up what a billet was in this context (I thought it might be a spelling mistake for bullet!) - worth linking to Semi-finished casting products

  Y Done. Well spotted. I would have linked to the Wiktionary otherwise. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• "500 mg of plutonium" - mg was expanded when used above

  Y Not anymore. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• The usage of "percent" and "%" isn't consistent.

  Y Americans abbreviate per cent to percent, so I have done this per MOS:PERCENT. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 11:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

• • @Hchc2009: happy? This has already had an image review and otherwise looks good to go. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, happy, now supporting. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • "...and shipped the first few hundred grams of this to Los Alamos in March 1944...", what was at Los Alamos? Perhaps a wikilink or a brief explanation what occurred there (suggestion only)

     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Some inconsistency with "Stone & Webster" vs "Stone and Webster"

     Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I did a copy edit and made few MOS changes, pls see here [39]
  • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 15 April 2015 (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) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav monitor Sava

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav monitor Sava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Yugoslav monitor Sava/archive1

Another in my series of Austro-Hungarian/Yugoslav river monitors. As the Austro-Hungarian Temes-class monitor Bodrog, she fired the first shots of World War I. She then went on to serve in three more navies under the name Sava, being scuttled and raised twice. She still exists, although she has been reduced from her former glory and is now an ammunition barge. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• In general, where you had "subsequently", I took a guess at the chronology; please fix it if I guessed wrong.
• "8/9 September": The night of? the 8th or the 9th? the 8th and the 9th? See WP:SLASH.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the c/e and review, Dan. Night of. Fixed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images are PD and appears to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • "This was followed by forays of the monitors..." perhaps → " This was followed by forays of the Division..." (per Vardar)
  • "... which meant insufficient clearance for the monitors to navigate freely...." perhaps → "... which meant there was insufficient clearance for the monitors to navigate freely." (again per Vardar)
  • Consider splitting this fairly long sentence (like you did at Vardar) "After the scuttling of the monitors, around 450 officers and men from the Sava and various other riverine vessels gathered at Obrenovac, and armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels, started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups."
  • "...but the larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo on 14 April..." perhaps → "...but the larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo by 14 April..."
  • I made a quick tweak to the article on the basis of the ACR for Vardar - see here [40] - pls revert if I somehow got this wrong. Anotherclown (talk) 08:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Adopted all suggestions and added alt text to both pics. Thanks for the review, Ac! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Support - not much to pick on as usual

• Are there any maps of the relevant areas? I had a look through Commons in the Danube category but nothing seemed particularly helpful.
• It would be nice to include a link to the other surviving monitor - I imagine many readers will have the same reaction I had - "what's the other one?" - but probably not the ability to figure it out easily. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Added a map, it's not ideal, but does show the locations of several of her actions in WWI. Also linked the museum ship SMS Leitha, now alongside the Parliament in Budapest. Thanks for the review, Parsecboy! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:53, 18 April 2015 (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) 06:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SMS Körös

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

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

• Featured article candidates/SMS Körös/archive1

SMS Körös saw action at Belgrade and elsewhere in WWI as part of the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla, and after transfer to the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), she saw service as Morava during the Axis invasion in April 1941. Scuttled, she was raised and served the Navy of the Axis puppet state the Independent State of Croatia as Bosna until she hit a mine and sank in June 1944. My second ACR foray with river monitors of Yugoslavia following the recent promotion of Yugoslav monitor Vardar. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

• "120 mm (4.7 in)/L35 guns": There are a lot of things that would work for me, such as "120 mm (4.7 in), 35-caliber guns", but not this. This notation suggests that "(4.7 in)" is part of the name of the gun.
• Search throughout for "subsequently", and replace it with soon, later, later on, consequently, or something else, depending on its meaning.
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan! Will do. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments Who said that river monitors are boring? This ship certainly had a busy career! I have the following comments:

• Can anything be said about the ship in the periods 1892-1914 or 1920-1941?
  • Not that I can find. Given the lack of opportunity for "peacetime cruises", perhaps not surprising. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a shame. My understanding is that ships like this often spent lengthy periods out of commission, so that might be part of the story. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
      • I have to go into the uni library to check a possible source for the inter-war years, but it may not help much with this one, because it is a British political summary and may only cover international visits at sea (rather than on rivers). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• "The following day, Körös assisted SMS Enns when she took a direct hit and began to take on water." - which ship was hit is a bit unclear (I'd suggest tweaking this to "The following day, Körös assisted SMS Enns when the latter took a direct hit and began to take on water" or similar)
  • Done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Was the ship's armament changed over time? The anti-aircraft guns obviously wouldn't have been part of her original fit out.
  • Probably, but according to Greger (an authority on Austro-Hungarian naval matters), the two 66mm guns were part of her original fit out. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• "Morava was subsequently raised and repaired by the navy of an Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, in which she served as Bosna." - I take it that no date is available here?
  • No, I haven't been able to locate one. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• "She struck a mine and sank in June 1944" - similarly, I imagine that a location isn't available? (I imagine that this was the result of the very successful mining campaign against the Danube conducted by Allied heavy bombers, in case that helps with further research) Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Managed to find a reference in Warship Intl. Added. Thanks for the review, Nick. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed. I suspect that the gaps in the ship's history will be a barrier to this reaching FA status, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• I won't be nominating it for FA unless I can fill the gaps. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments - not much to nitpick here.

• Please add armor to the infobox.
  • Done (I screwed up the syntax, curly brackets were missing...) Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
• See some "she"s and "it"s - should probably be standardized. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Parsecboy: not sure where you mean? I've stuck to "she" as far as I can see. There are a couple of references to flotillas that use "it"... Let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Guess I misred those lines. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: would you mind doing an image review on this one, Nikki? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

• File:SMS_Körös_in_the_Danube_in_1914.jpg: where was this postcard published? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • According to the site it was obtained from, the postcard was sent to an Austro-Hungarian Empire ship, the SMS Erzherzog Friedrich in 1914 (when she was deployed in the Med). Does sending a postcard through the mail count as having been published? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The image was published - I was just wondering about the copyright status in its source country. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • OK. Austria-Hungary I expect. I don't know what happened to Austro-Hungarian copyright after 1918. Any ideas? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
        • As far as I've been able to tell, it would have continued to fall under the Austro-Hungarian law until Austria created its own copyright legislation, which I think was in 1936 - if that's the case the copyright would have expired 10 years after publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Good enough for me. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:13, 14 April 2015 (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) 22:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

R. V. C. Bodley

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk)

R. V. C. Bodley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/R. V. C. Bodley/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after successfully nominating it for GA and DYK, and and taking it through a peer review, i'd like it to reviewed by people familiar with military articles as i'm not sure if it is quite up to featured status (I would like to nominate it for FAC eventually). This is my first article nominated for A-class at any project. Freikorp (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport

• One external link is a Uncategorized redirect.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I've got no idea how to fix that, other than changing it to an offline source. Help please :). Freikorp (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Don't think putting the same citation over and over again is necessary.

I assume you are referring to the use of the Snell PDF (incidentally the same reference referred to above) which was, at a couple locations, used multiple times in a row. Originally the citations weren't directly after one another, it just ended up that way after things were moved around. I've removed all unnecessary uses of it now. Freikorp (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• I found some images on Flickr that their copyright has expired and are in PD.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

The only image of Bodley that i'm seeing there is the one that is already used in the article. Have I missed something? Freikorp (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Supporting.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

• "at locations including Bowdoin College and the Colony Club.": Mentioning these two places and not others suggests that these appearances were memorable or important. Not saying how they were important raises a question.

I only added them because specific locations for his lectures were not easy to find and and these particular locations were notable enough to have their own wiki article. They weren't of any particular importance. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've changed "Bodley" to "he" or "him" in many places throughout; there's a point that I believe you're not getting here, that restating "Bodley" when it's not necessary for comprehension creates a kind of mini-paragraph-break. Those kinds of breaks can be useful for comprehension, but they're tedious if you overuse them.

Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Bodley was a descendant of Sir Thomas Bodley, and also Gertrude Bell's cousin.": If he wasn't a descendant of Bell's cousin, then less ambiguous would be: "Bodley was Gertrude Bell's cousin and a descendant of Sir Thomas Bodley."

Done. Freikorp (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support: looks good to me. I only have a couple of minor suggestions:
  • "Like every other westerner allowed to visit the region, he reported that there..." This seems a bold statement. Can we be certain that every westerner did this? I'd suggest maybe just saying "He reported that..." Or perhaps "Like other western writers allowed to visit the region..."

• It does seem bold, but extremely few westerners were allowed into the region, and from my limited research none of them appeared to say anything to the contrary, so it may very well be true. Nevertheless, I think removing the word every is probably the right thing to do. Freikorp (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• • per WP:DATERANGE, the years of service in the infobox should probably be presented as: "1911–19" and "1939–43"
  • "Peattie 1992, p. 333–334" probably should be Peattie 1992, pp. 333–334"
  • title case: "The Hiyoshi review of English studies" --> "The Hiyoshi Review of English Studies"
  • title case: "Fiction 1876–1983: A bibliography of United States editions – Authors" --> "Fiction 1876–1983: A Bibliography of United States Editions – Authors"
  • there is a harvnb error in the bibliography in relation to the Ahmed and Othman source, as it doesn't seem to have a specific citation pointing to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• All issues addressed. Thanks for your review. Freikorp (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments -- been meaning to look this one over for a while:

• I've only copyedited the lead a bit, and spotchecked prose elsewhere, but the writing looks in pretty good shape.
• I also spotchecked the Dale Carnegie reference and tweaked a bit for clarification.
• Structure makes sense, as does the level of detail.
• Sources look acceptable to me.
• As far as the image goes, I'd be interested in Nikki's opinion as to where it needs US PD tag, which is suggested on the file page.

Because I haven't read word-for-word, I won't support outright but other than the possible minor point re. the image, no objections to seeing it promoted -- good effort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The image does need a US PD tag as well, though it should be a fairly straightforward pre-1923 designation from the looks of things. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Tag added. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2015 (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) 10:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Labuan

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Labuan/archive1

The battle of Labuan was a fairly one-sided engagement fought between a heavily-supported Australian Army brigade and a weak Japanese battalion on an island off the coast of Borneo in June 1945. The engagement was one of two battles which took place during the Australian-led invasion of the Borneo Bay region, which is now generally regarded as a less-than-necessary operation.

I have drawn on a wide range of sources in developing this article, and it passed a GA nomination in January. It has since been expanded and copy-edited, and I'm hopeful that it meets the A-class criteria. I'm also considering further developing the article to FA status, so any comments in that direction would be appreciated.

I should note that I have a family connection with the events of this battle: my granddad was a member of the 2/43rd Battalion during its operations on Labuan and the eastern shore of Brunei Bay, though it saw relatively little fighting in this particular engagement. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

• "subsequently" (throughout): replace by soon, later, later on, or consequently, depending on the meaning.
  • I've thinned it out a bit Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Where it appears, I can't tell whether you mean "soon", "later", or (in at least one case) "consequently". All three are common meanings in articles that show up at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
• "would subsequently assault Balikpapan on 1 July": was to assault Balikpapan on 1 July
• "The 24th Brigade Group was carried by the Australian landing ships infantry HMAS Manoora and Westralia, as well as ten Landing Ship, Tank, five landing Craft Infantry, seven Landing Ship Medium and one landing ship dock from the United States Navy. A total of 38 LCVPs and 26 Landing Craft Mechanized were": Ugh. Unparsable for anyone who doesn't know the jargon.
  • Not sure that there's a better way of presenting it though? - my sources used similar formulations. The links to the different ship types should help here. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Your sources were written with a readership in mind that knows military jargon. How will the typical reader be able to make sense of "ten Landing Ship, Tank, five landing Craft Infantry"? How about "ten landing craft for tanks, five for infantry", etc.? - Dank (push to talk)
      • That seems to be simplifying things too much IMO, and would introduce inaccuracies given that the ships didn't necessarily carry these loads (eg, elements of the infantry battalions were transported in LSTs). While there's doubtlessly scope for improvement, similar formulations in the Battle of Arawe and Battle of Morotai articles were judged FA-worthy prose ;) Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Searching for "landing craft" in Battle of Arawe, I get three hits: "five Landing Craft Tank (LCT) and 14 Landing Craft Medium (LCM)" and "two LCVPs (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel)". In all 3 cases, you gave the reader consistent capitalization, acronyms, and links so they could find out what these things were. Without those visual clues, readers who don't know the jargon have no way of guessing that, in this case, an X Y (both nouns) is a kind of X rather than a kind of Y. (How likely is it that "post office box" would mean a kind of post office rather than a kind of box, or that "garage door" would mean a kind of garage?) - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Thanks Dank - I've standardised on the acronyms for the smaller craft and LSTs (which is what the sources generally use). Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Some reviewers may not be on board with your solution, but I like it and I'll be happy to say so at FAC ... the full names aren't enlightening, they're confusing. (On top of the big grammar problem, some of these things weren't carrying what the name suggests, as you say, and "landing ship dock" reverses the grammar of all the other landing ships ... it's actually a dock.) Three suggestions for getting this to fly at FAC: 1. If you're going with acronyms for these things, do it consistently ... always use acronyms, links, and consistent capitalization. I made those edits. 2. Preface it with "a variety of landing ships" if you've got a bunch of them listed; I made that edit too. 3. If reviewers still complain, be ready to add a footnote that explains the acronyms, for readers who don't want to click on the links.
              • Thanks for that Dank. I can also argue that the acronyms are the WP:COMMONNAME for the ship types. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
                • Agreed with that too, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
• "6.51 am" (throughout): See first sentence of WP:MOSTIME.
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• "became bogged": bogged down?
  • Given this is referring to a single tank getting stuck in mud, "became bogged" seems better: "bogged down" in this kind of context is usually used to describe a military force which can't meet an objective. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Agreed, but "bog" (without "down") isn't listed in Cambridge Dicts, Oxford Dicts, or AHD. How about "stuck in the mud"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your review and edits Dank Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • A couple of the images appear to lack alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency [41] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions mostly look fine - one minor question:
    • "An infantry company's radio team on 26 June" - is "radio team" correct terminology for the period? I'd have called them signalers.
      • Good point: the AWM database calls it a "signalling position", and I've tweaked it accordingly Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Some difference in the presentation of ship types: "Landing Ship, Tank,", "landing Craft Infantry", "Landing Ship Medium" and "landing ship dock". Is this difference correct or should they all be capitalized etc?
    • Fixed per Dank's comments Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "On 3 January 1942, the island was captured by unopposed Japanese forces..." or "On 3 January 1942, the island was captured unopposed by Japanese forces..." (very minor nitpick I agree)
  • Two sentences starting the same way one after the other here: "The pre-invasion air attacks on north Borneo began in late May. The...", consider instead: "Pre-invasion air attacks on north Borneo began in late May. The..." (suggestion only)
    • Fixed - thanks for this suggestion Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Lieutenant Colonel Norman → Norman per WP:SURNAME.
    • Done Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this looks like a very good article to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments -- Hi Nick, for now I just looked over the RAAF-related stuff, if I get a chance to do a full review then I will:

• I'm not sure how Morison puts it (Long doesn't seem to say) but Bostock was head of RAAF Command, of which First TAF was a major component -- he didn't command First TAF directly.
  • Whoops. Morison calls him the overall commander of the air support for the Borneo operation (or words to that effect). Fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Since you show an image of a No. 1 Sqn Mossie, you might mention in the main text that No. 86 Wing comprised Nos. 1 and 93 Sqns (and can leave the citation as is, Odgers mentions them).
  • I've added that detail, as well as noting that the wing arrived a month later than planned Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review Ian Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No prob. Since it now has three supports, incl. image check, I won't delay promotion to conduct a full review, I'm sure it'll be fine for A-Class -- if you take the FAC I'll try to have closer look there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support: looks good to me, although perhaps in the strength field in the infobox, you could provide something indicative of the size of the Allied force (if the exact figures aren't known), e.g. "One infantry brigade with supporting blah blah". Or something similar. Not a warstoper, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a good idea - thanks. No sources, including the 24th Brigade's post-operational report, give a strength for the allied force. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2015 (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) 14:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Hermann Graf

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Hermann Graf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yet another German World War II fighter pilot I am nominating this article for A-Class. I believe to have covered all major aspects of his career and life. Please let me know what you think about the article. Thanks! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments (pending support) by Auntieruth

• Very interesting article. It had some grammatical and wording issues, which I've tweaked. Feel free to revert if I've changed meaning. I've also smoothed out some duplication.

• Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, so how did he end up in American hands? Schuman says one thing, but one of the external links you provide as additional information says something else.

• Can you help me out here? What aspect exactly is different? He surrendered to the Americans, they handed him over to the Soviets. Is that not clear? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Sources you've cited look reliable and credible. Thought you might find this interesting as well. Endler and Pele in Der Spiegel. " Die Pelés flogen unter dem Namen "Dr. Graf und Frau" mit einer Lufthansa-Boeing-707 nach Frankfurt. "

• Thanks, I had a look at the Spiegel article, I am unsure if it is safe to conclude that Dr. Graf actually refers to Hermann Graf. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• I know you're out of town visiting your mom, so when you get back, .... auntieruth (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Why is the bit on him helping Jews escape to Switzerland piped to German Resistance to Nazism? Unless I'm missing something, this happened before the Nazis' rise to power.

• removed link MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "over over Kharkov" - also, piping that to the First Battle of Kharkov article seems a bit WP:EGGy to me. I'd suggest rewording to "Flying air superiority missions during the First Battle of Kharkov in September..."

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "On 30 April 1942 he became an "ace-in-a-day" after shooting down six enemy aircraft in the region followed by seven on 2 May and 8 May respectively." - this mentions 3 days but only 2 kill tallies - were the 7 kills split between 2 and 8 May?

• reworded, seven on 2 May and again seven on 8 May MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• "When he claimed his 150th victory, a Yakovlev Yak-1, on 4 September 1942, his own aircraft suffered over 100 hits during this encounter. He was the second pilot, after Gordon Gollob, to achieve this mark." - this makes it sound like Gollob's claim to fame was having more than 100 hits to his aircraft. It would make more sense to rework these sentences to something like "On 4 September 1942, he claimed his 150th victory, a Yakovlev Yak-1; he was the second pilot, after Gordon Gollob, to achieve this mark. Graf's aircraft suffered over 100 hits during the engagement with the Yak-1."

• reworded. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• "...married the German actress Jola Jobst..." - she has already been introduced, just her last name will do at this point.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Images

• File:Hermann_Graf.jpg: strongly suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}} instead of the current tag, and expanding the FUR accordingly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• No DABs, external links OK. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Images all have alt text (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images check completed above (one point outstanding it seems).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • "In the late spring, 1941 Graf claimed his first aerial victory on 4 August 1941 during Operation Barbarossa" - seems redundant to say "1941" twice in this phrase.
    • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • These two stubby sentences could be linked: "Inflation in the Weimar Republic in 1923 wiped out all the family savings. From a very early age, Hermann learned to work hard to make a living." Consider instead: "Inflation in the Weimar Republic in 1923 wiped out all the family savings and, as a result, from a very early age, Hermann learned to work hard to make a living." (suggestion only)
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Incorrect tense here I think: "Here the trio of Füllgrabe, Graf and Grislawski is joined by..." should be "Here the trio of Füllgrabe, Graf and Grislawski was joined by..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "In early June the unit transferred back to Romania..." incorrect link to Romania here (it should have been linked at first instance, if at all).
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "On 3 February 1942 he accounted for his victim number 47..." → "On 3 February 1942 he accounted for his 47th victim..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Upon his return to his post...", consider wording more simply as "Upon return to his post..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Long run-on sentence here: "The next day, Graf, officially remaining in command of JG 50, was appointed acting Geschwaderkommodore of JG 1 and transferred to Jever and Graf appointed Grislawski as acting-commander of JG 50." → consider instead something like: "The next day, Graf, officially remaining in command of JG 50, was appointed acting Geschwaderkommodore of JG 1 and transferred to Jever. Graf subsequently appointed Grislawski as acting-commander of JG 50."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "This relatively early release was by many perceived to be caused..." → " This relatively early release was perceived by many to be caused..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Graf's release from captivity as a PW is mentioned in both the "prisoner of war" section and the "later life" section (including the date), which seems a little unnecessary. Suggest moving the detail re his release from the "later life section" to the "prisoner of war" section and deleting any duplication.
    • restructured MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In the table of aerial victories there seems to be a typo for the date of victory # 48. Currently listed as being in 1943, but I assume from the other entries it should be 1942. Anotherclown (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • done good spot MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review, I believe to have addressed your comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Not worries. Those changes look fine, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2015 (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) 08:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav monitor Vardar

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav monitor Vardar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Yugoslav monitor Vardar/archive1

This river monitor saw action in WWI as an Austro-Hungarian vessel, along the Danube from Belgrade all the way into the Black Sea. After the war she was transferred to the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia). She saw action in the invasion of that country by the Axis in April 1941 but was scuttled less than a week after the invasion commenced. The article has recently passed GA and has been further improved since then. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. Appreciate the c/e. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments - not much to nitpick here.

• Was she actually renamed "Temes (II)" and not just "Temes"? Authors commonly add stuff like (II) to differentiate between ships with the same name that were in service around the same time, but the ships didn't actually have the disambiguator painted on the hull. I've seen this a number of times on German warships from the period (see for instance here).

• Good point. Fixed.

• Watch Engvar - I see "program" and "armour"

• Completely acceptable in Aust English.

• I'd provide a translation for German terms like "Flottenabteilung".

• Done.

• Any clue as to what the vessel was doing between 1920 and 1941? Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• No clue so far. The Yugoslavs didn't do much between the wars, and didn't have much money to do it with. Thanks for the review!

Support Comments: I made a couple of minor tweaks and have a couple of minor suggestions, otherwise looks fine to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• in the References section, slight inconsistency: "London, England" v. "London"

• I've removed the links from locs unless possibly ambiguous.

• also in the References section, London is probably overlinked

• see above.

• the links to Niehorster's website do not appear to be working for me. Can you please check that the url is correct? Cheers.

• Done. He's changed his web address. That is a pain in the arse. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • Minor prose nitpick here: "The Yugoslav monitor Vardar was a Sava-class river monitor built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy as SMS Bosna, but she was renamed SMS Temes before she went into service." The sentence works but I think it could probably be tightened, consider perhaps: "The Yugoslav monitor Vardar was a Sava-class river monitor built for the Austro-Hungarian Navy as SMS Bosna, but was renamed SMS Temes before she went into service." (suggestion only)
  • Normally I believe we consider sections mostly independent / stand alone, so this sentence probably needs to be clarified: "The ship was a Sava-class river monitor built...". I'd suggest something like "...The Vardar was a Sava-class river monitor built..."
  • "...and seven machine guns..." Do we know what calibre? If so this should also be specified in the infobox. If its not available in the sources that's fine of course.
  • Not sure about this: "During this task, she was drawing fire away from the battle-damaged monitor Enns when she received a direct hit in the crew quarters aft, and had to move out of range." (I'm no grammar expert by do we call this passive voice? and is that bad? Sorry I'm on drugs after stomach and spine surgery so I could be writing anything right now...) At any rate I think perhaps you might consider rewording it, consider perhaps: "During this task she attempted to draw fire away from the battle-damaged monitor Enns, but after receiving a direct hit in the crew quarters aft she had to move out of range. She was then run ashore to put out fires and stop leaks, before being towed out of the battle area by an armed steamer, and taken to Budapest for repairs." (suggestion only - what you had was / is workable in my opinion)
  • "This was followed by forays of the monitors..." perhaps → "This was followed by forays by the monitors..."
  • "On 9 May 1917, she was renamed SMS Bosna as the original SMS Temes was returning to service after a complete rebuild..." → "...On 9 May 1917, she was renamed SMS Bosna as the original SMS Temes was due to return to service after a complete rebuild..."
  • "... which meant insufficient clearance for the monitors to navigate freely...." perhaps → "... which meant there was insufficient clearance for the monitors to navigate freely."
  • "...charges on the bridge exploded and the bridge fell onto the tugboat..." Is there any more information on this. I'm assuming it was enemy action, or was it an accident?
  • This is a fairly long sentence: "After the scuttling of the monitors, around 450 officers and men from the Vardar and various other riverine vessels gathered at Obrenovac, and armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels, started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups." Suggest breaking it up and rewording, consider something like: "After scuttling the monitors, around 450 officers and men from the Vardar and various other riverine vessels gathered at Obrenovac. Armed only with personal weapons and some machine guns stripped from the scuttled vessels they started towards the Bay of Kotor in the southern Adriatic in two groups."
  • "...but the larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo on 14 April..." perhaps → "...but the larger group only made it as far as Sarajevo by 14 April..."
  • I'm struggling with the last few sentences to be honest as it seems a little repetitive. You mention that their objective was the Bay of Kotor, say the first group made it but the second didn't, then say the remainder made it to the Bay of Kotor (which you kind of already said) but were captured. Perhaps consider rewording somehow (sorry no suggestions come off the top of my head).
  • No chance of an image of the ship I suppose? If not its not a warstopper.
  • Overall the article looks fine in my opinion and ticks the boxes, just some minor prose changes to consider. Anotherclown (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Ac. Have implemented pretty much all your suggestions, and have tweaked the last couple of sentences to eliminate the repetition. Here are my edits. We don't have a source for the calibre of the MGs. Almost certainly 7.9mm, but nothing to confirm it. Pics are a problem due to licensing issues, I'm cleaning up a line drawing as a substitute, but it could be a while. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Those changes look good to me, adding my support now. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2015 (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) 07:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Kehl (1796)

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Battle of Kehl (1796) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think (I hope!) it meets the requirements. It's had several thorough goings-over, and the only glitch that arose during the GA process was in the image review--I swapped out the controversial image with one whose authenticity I can verify. This is one of several that have been through A-class review (or are in review) related to the Rhine Campaign of 1796. This battle is actually the one that marked the start of the campaign in the Rhineland. auntieruth (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this for GA and I think it has the legs for A-class. I have a couple of nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• "between the French king and his subjects" --> I think this would be clearer as "between the French king, Loius XVI, and his subjects..."
• "24–year–old General Abbatucci" - minor nitpick, but the dashes here should probably be hyphens
• same as above for "dual–pronged"
• same as above for " 7,000–man militia"
• Renchen appears to be overlinked
• the Sources section appears to be slightly inconsistent in its presentation. For instance consider how Bertaud has the year near the ISBN, but the Dodge, Phipps, and Smith entries have it in brackets near the name
• I wonder if the subsequent siege of Kehl shouldn't briefly be mentioned in the Aftermath. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Rupert. I think I've fixed all your comments above. Added something into the aftermath as well. auntieruth (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments, very close to a support:

• "Initially, the rulers of Europe viewed the revolution in France..." - as the first sentence of the first section, this hasn't established which revolution you're referring to (there are quite a few revolutions in France!). I'd advise "Initially in 17xx, the rulers of Europe..." to contextualise the material that follows.

• done

• "They threatened ambiguous, but quite serious, consequences " - you could lose "quite" here without losing the meaning

• done

• "The French émigrés continued to agitate for support of a counter-revolution abroad." - unclear what "a counter-revolution abroad" means in this context; is it that the emigres, who were abroad, were agitating for support, or that the emigres wanted action to take place outside place? Or both...?

• fixed

• Is the Rhine linked?
  • In lead
• Consistency of 21st century / twenty-first century / eighteenth century

• fixed

• Worth linking Trier and similar German states/places

• done (in caption and in text)

• "(including the three autonomous corps)" - I'm not sure you've explained what these are yet, so it shouldn't have the definite article (indeed, does the article ever explain what they are?)

• clarified. Also added a note.

• "and had already made itself onerous, by reputation and rumor at least, throughout France. " I'd advise "and already had a poor reputation throughout France" - at the moment it is hard to see if the article is saying it really was onerous or not.

• clarified

• "After April 1796, pay was made in metallic value, " - does this mean "pay was issued in coins rather than in paper money"? If so, worth being clear here.

• done

• "from the free imperial cities, and other imperial estates, " - worth checking capitalisation of "imperial" here, I'm not sure its right/consistent

• Imperial City of Rottweil. imperial cities (generally). Imperial Cities of the HRE.

• " Army of Sambre-et-Meuse" - consistency of how you're italicising these

• done. Dj and I have a long-standing disagreement about this.

• "the Swabian circle polities" - do you explain/link what these are anywhere?

• Yes in the Geography and political complications section

• "his troops assaulted the advanced posts in Strasbourg, " - I'm not sure what "advanced posts" means in this context; is it that they were "advanced"/sophisticated, or that they were "forward posts"?

• forward.

• "With French occupation, the Swabian Circle was vulnerable to be treated as an enemy" - this felt a bit ugly as a phase; is there any alternative? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• yes. Fixed.
• I just saw this. I'll get to it later today. auntieruth (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• All done.  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I don't know what "The fortunes" means in the first paragraph; does it refer to something connected to that paragraph? Also, "Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach" suggests that Kehl wasn't just a city in Baden-Durlach (since the usual way to say that is "in") ... what was the relationship of Kehl to Baden-Durlach? Otherwise, the lead is fine. That's all I've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• okay, I think I've fixed it. auntieruth (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Now I get it, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments - not much to nitpick here, great work.

• In the lead: "...and earlier in 1796, when the French crossed into the German states on 23–24 June" - this appears to reference the topic of the article. I'm not sure what should be here instead. It seems to be a copy-paste mistake from Second Battle of Kehl (1796)
• Sometimes, the German term is given first, followed by the translation, and other times the reverse. It should be standardized one way or the other.
• Might be worthwhile to explain why Fröhlich attacked the Swabian camp in the Aftermath section. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• done, done and done.  :) auntieruth (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• That was quick! There was one tweak I made you should check, but everything looks good to me now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "the French drove the Swabians from their positions and controlled the bridgehead on both sides of the Rhine." It might be clearer to say the French already controlled the bridgehead on the western(?) side and now gained the eastern one.
• "the fates of Kehl, a village in Baden-Durlach, and those of the Alsatian city of Strasbourg". Similarly, I would add for clarity Kehl on the east side of the Rhine and Strasbourg on the west.
• "A key to the French success was the army's ability to cross the Rhine at will." This assumes that you have already said the French won. Maybe "The French were victorious in the war, and a key to their success..."
• "in such paces as the former rapids at Laufenburg, it moves in torrents." moved in torrents?
• "When viewed on a map, the Empire resembled a "patchwork carpet")" Stray bracket.
• "Both the Habsburg domains and Hohenzollern Prussia also included territories outside the Empire. There were also territories completely surrounded" Repetition of "also". I do not think the first one is needed.
• "amounted to about 125,000" - presumably 125,000 troops.
• There seems a contradiction saying the Directory did not budget for pay and that pay was in metallic value but in arrears. The first statement implies no provision and the second inadequate provision.
• "In spring 1796..." I am not sure I follow this paragraph. You say it was largely guesswork where troops were placed then apparently contradict this by explaining Charles's reasoning. He expected an attack at Mainz so he put militia at Kehl. He put his weaker forces at Kehl because he did not expect an attack there? If so I think you should spell it out (which you do later).
• "before Charles realized Moreau had left Spire." You have not said Moreau was in Spire in the first place and it is not linked.
• "to align his northern flank in a perpendicular line" What does perpendicular mean in this context?
• "but it was a moot point" - surely moot is understating it as they did not have the weapons - it was pointless.
• "Even though the French still held the crossing at Kehl and Strasbourg, Petrasch's Austrians prevented French access." I do not understand this. Presumably the French still had access to Strasbourg?
• "War of Independence in the British Colonies" Which war? If it is the American war of independence it is an unusual way of describing it.
• Note 9. Why is Military Affairs underlined. There is an error message on n. 17. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dudley, I think I addressed all your comments. Did some rearranging, etc, clarification. auntieruth (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dudley, any more comments? auntieruth (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Support and a couple of niggles. I still think there is a contradiction in saying it was guesswork where Charles place his troops and then explaining his reasoning. Also there is still an error message on n 17 missing url. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I've run the citation thingie and the error message doesn't come up for me. I've checked the citation (clicked it from different computers) and no problems. I just went into the text, though, and it had a cite web template, so I took that out and did it by hand.

Early in the campaign it was largely guess work where he should place the militiamen. He didn't want to use them in any important point, because of their lack of training. Once the French committed to crossing by Mainz (or appeared to do so), he had no qualms about putting the militia at Kehl, because they would be out of the way. I don't understand why you have trouble with this. It was guesswork to start with; he made an educated guess, and stuck them in one position. When the French massed further north, he left the militia there (at Kehl) because they would be out of the way. auntieruth (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So in the spring it was guesswork but by June he thought he knew where to put his troops. I did not realise you were talking about different phases. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• One DAB that needs to be fixed. External links OK.

• the only dab is the one in the header that links to the other dabs. It belongs there.

• Pictures appropriately licensed.
• More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Some of my comments about "which paragraphs should go where" are suggestions only. Djmaschek (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• In the 3rd introduction paragraph the subsequent French victory at Renchen is noted. But in the "Feint and dual-pronged attack" section there is no battle mentioned, only a rendezvous with Sztáray on the 28th. The casualties for Renchen are mentioned in "Aftermath" but since no battle is mentioned, it's a bit confusing.

• yes. took it out.

• "Background": This section mostly discusses events in 1792, while this article is about 1796. The mention of the 1795 campaign is of course appropriate.

• okay, consolidated some of this.

• "Terrain" and "Political complications": These sections are very helpful but they are also included word-for-word in the Rhine Campaign of 1796. They should be full-length in one article and paraphrased and linked in the other article. (Yes, I repeat stuff in my articles too.)

• other commentators have asked for the explanations that are answered in this section. I will eventually expand the section in the Rhine campaign article so that they are not the same.

• "Disposition": This section is excellent and might be used as the background.

• twiddled a bit, and it may work better

• "Disposition": Mainz is linked the second time, not the first.
• "French plans": This section gives the original Austrian deployment Archduke Charles/Wurmser and the switch to Charles being army group commander. The previous section gives the later subordinate army commanders, Latour (Army of Upper Rhine) and Wartensleben (Army of Lower Rhine). The order should be chronological, or explained somehow so the reader does not get crossed up. I know this is tricky with Wurmser suddenly leaving the theater after operations got underway!

• well, yes, I've twiddled it a bit, see if this works better.

• Need links: Lake Constance, Stuttgart ("Aftermath").

• done

• "Feint and dual-pronged attack" (2nd paragraph): The statement, "assaulted the forward posts in Strasbourg", sounds as if the Swabian militia were occupying Strasbourg when in fact the city was securely in French hands.

• the city was, but the Swabians had pickets all along the river on both sides.

• "Feint and dual-pronged attack" (3rd): It should be émigré not è.

• done

• Need links for Charles Mathieu Isidore Decaen and Joseph Montrichard.
• 10,000 skirmishers seems too many for 2 regiments, each of which had a top strength of around 3,000 men.

• see Smith, though. And there were already troops there. And I've fiddled with the grammar a bit, see if that works...

• "Feint and dual-pronged attack" (5th): Sztaray needs his á.

• done

• "Aftermath" (1st paragraph): Typo: position has ss.

• done

• "Aftermath" (3rd): Wolff needs a link to your Wolff de la Marselle article.

• done

• "Aftermath" (4th): It should be Fröhlich, not Michael Fröhlich, since he was already mentioned once.

• done

• "Aftermath" (5th): Battle of Altenkirchen (June) should be Battle of Limburg (September). Limburg is sometimes called 2nd Altenkirchen.

• done

---

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

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

---

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

SMS Königsberg (1905)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Königsberg (1905) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Königsberg (1905)/archive1

Another German light cruiser, I'd like to have this one through FAC in time for the centenary of her sinking in July 2015. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: Great work as usual, Parsec. Well done. I only have a couple of minor suggestions/nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• unless I missed it, I couldn't see mention in the body of the 10 x 3.7 cm MKs that are listed in the infobox

HRS v5 page 138 does not mention these guns. According to HRS the ship was later augmented with 10 x 5.2 cm SKs MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure when those got added to the infobox - I must not have noticed when they slipped in.

Should it not mention the 10 x 3.7 cm MKs? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Neither Gröner or HRS mention these guns, so I don't think they ought to be mentioned. I don't know where they came from. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, my version of HRS mentions 10 x 5.2 cm SKs. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, for some reason I thought I had added those when I took out the 3.7 cm MK line. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• this seems inconsistent: "She was commissioned into the High Seas Fleet for sea trials on 6 April 1907" (in the body - Service history section) v."Commissioned: 4 June 1906" (in the infobox)
  • Fixed.
• there are a couple of overlinked terms: "HMS Hyacinth (1898)", and "Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck"
  • Both fixed now.
• in the lead: "joined Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerrilla campaign". Perhaps add "ashore" after "campaign"...
  • How about "...campaign in East Africa"? That would also be an easy way to pipe the East Africa Campaign link per below.
• perhaps work in a link to East African Campaign (World War I) in the lead or body
  • How about in both places?
• in the lead, I think it might also be a good idea to link Battle of Rufiji Delta in some way given the heading in the body
  • Good idea.
• in the body, I think a link to the Battle of Zanzibar would enhance the article, given it is linked in the lead
  • Also a good suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, indeed another great article. I made a few minor edits, feel free to revert MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MB, they all look good to me! Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR req, suggestion only).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool shows a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
    • Bennett, p. 134 Multiple references contain the same content
    • B134 Multiple references are using the same name
      • Both fixed, good catch on these.
  • MOS issue: The commons box should be moved into the last section of the article per WP:LAYOUT.
    • Fixed.
  • Repetitive prose here: " Looff decided to abandon the normal peacetime training schedule and returned to Dar es Salaam on 24 July to replenish his coal and other stores. Looff also made efforts to organize..." Specifically starting two sentences the same way one after the other (i.e. "Looff"). Perhaps reword one? Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed the second "Looff" to "He" - does that work? Thanks for looking the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes that's fine. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I've cleaned up the infobox a bit, but you need to add the range and provide links for ihp, scuttled, knots, nautical miles, scrapped and torpedo tubes there.
  • Should all be fixed.
• In the text you need to add links for scuttled, ship class, knot, amidships, Cape Station.
  • All fixed.
• What's the proper term for Marine-type boiler?
  • Corrected.
• Add horsepower figure to main body (with link).
  • Done.
• What damage, if any, did she suffer in the collision with Dresden.
  • Added.
• Watch your rounding on the torpedo diameter conversions and for the guns of the monitors.
  • Fixed - good catch.
• ISSN needed for the Patience magazine article.
  • Need to do a bit of digging on this one - several publications in worldcat but none match the publisher info I have.
• Suggest that you spell out the states in the places of publication for the benefit of non-US readers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just removed them all per my latest practice. Thanks for catching all this stuff. Parsecboy (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2015 (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) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

HMS Nairana (1917)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) & Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Nairana (1917) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/HMS Nairana (1917)/archive1

This vessel was designed as a passenger ship but commandeered mid-construction by the Royal Navy for service in World War I. It subsequently saw action during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. After that it reverted to its originally planned format and served for three decades as a Bass Strait ferry in Australia. Its civil career included its fair share of excitement, when it came closer to sinking than at any time during its military service. There was also an amusing incident with a Tasmanian devil, which for me evoked visions of the classic Looney Tunes character. This is my first collaboration on a ship article -- Sturm did most of the work on her design and wartime career, while I helped out mainly on the Tasmanian ferry side. We took the article to GAN some time ago; its belated appearance at ACR is due to my tardiness in getting hold of one last source that we wanted to round out the data. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments I find the concept of an aircraft carrier Bass Strait ferry to be mildly terrifying, and have the following comments:

• "Negotiations between Huddart Parker and the shipbuilders William Denny and Brothers began in December 1913 " - who/what was Huddart Parker? (this para would benefit from an introductory sentence)
  • Firm introduced/linked in lead but I added a bit of context around the purchase in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed" - seems like a significant amount of work still needed to be done! I'd suggest omitting "The ship was nearly complete" as this is a bit confusing.
  • That's pretty much exactly how our source put it so I'm not really comfortable removing it, especially since it ties into how only limited modifications could be made to the ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • OK fair enough. I would have thought that adding this would have required major works, but presumably her engines, etc, were in place. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• "The British Government released Nairana to William Denny and Brothers after the war to be rebuilt to her original plans" - did the government pay for these works?
  • My sources don't say, although I'm fairly certain that they did for some of the other carriers requisitioned during the war. Maybe Plowman has more exact info, but my sources only cover this in vague generalities. I don't know if the RN sold the ship back to Denny and who then sold her back to Huddart Parker or if the RN paid for her to be converted back at Denny before selling her to the Australians or if the latter had to pay for the reconversion after buying the ship back (presumably at a discount). Very annoying, all in all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• You could also note that four other Huddart Parker ships were requisitioned: [42] (this story also appears to say that the British Government returned the ship after she'd been converted back to a passenger ship)
  • I might leave the three above to Sturm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Those other ships aren't listed in Colledge and may have only been leased using their original crews. I'm not inclined to mention them without something more solid as a source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Nairana was not considered for war service, unlike some other Bass Strait ferries. She maintained a heavy schedule through the war years" - did her workload increase? (when researching the Australian Army ship Crusader (AV 2767) article I found quite a few newspaper stories from this era complaining about shortages of shipping on the Bass Strait - which Crusader ended up helping to fix). this story says that she was "Tasmania's sole passenger link with the mainland" during the war, though that would obviously need to be cross-checked!
  • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• "Sold for scrap to Wm Mussell Pty Ltd," - [43] calls this company 'William Mussell Pty Ltd'
  • Tks/done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• I suspect that the Wellington Harbour Maritime Museum is now the Museum of Wellington City & Sea
  • Checking around, I suspect you're right... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• If you had a mind to do so, you can mine Trove for all sorts of entertaining stories about this ship (brought to you via small town Tasmanian newspapers). I've added some material about her unfortunate Captain suddenly dying on New Year's Eve 1947. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Tks, have to admit there was so much in the Plowman book I didn't get into Trove but might do when I get more time. Tks for review/edits, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support: looks good, I only found a couple of minor inconsistencies: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
• £138,119 appears in the infobox, but £138,118 appears in the body
• "speed of 19.5 knots (36.1 km/h; 22.4 mph" (in the body) v. "Speed: 19 kn (35 km/h; 22 mph)" in the infobox
  • Good catches, fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Tks for review, Rupert, and Sturm for actioning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• File:HMS Nairana (1917).jpg - needs a US copyright tag.
  • Don't actually think so as I reviewed the IWM photos used on my FA HMS Vanguard (23) and neither of those have US tags. I think that the British declaration that they're out of copyright worldwide seems to suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That's my understanding also. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• File:Nairana (AWM 303672).jpg - ditto.
  • Done, but the AWM license also seems pretty comprehensive and it may not be necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• File:HMS Nairana during 1918.jpg - can you identify the aircraft on the stern? Might be worth adding to the caption.
  • WWI aircraft really aren't my thing, but lemme see what I can do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • My feeling is that if one of our sources on Nairana's military career has a similar picture identifying the plane that'd be one thing, but hunting around WWI aircraft books for something that looks similar would be a bit ORish (to me anyway, like when editors add decorations to bios on the basis of what they've discerned from a low-res black-and-white image of ribbons on the subject's uniform). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Parsecboy (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to nitpick prose/content-wise - great work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks Nate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 6 March 2015 (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) 00:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Stanley Price Weir

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Stanley Price Weir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Stanley Price Weir/archive1

A long-serving militia officer, Weir was the first South Australian to be commissioned in the AIF, and led the 10th Battalion onto the beach at Gallipoli, as well as commanding it in its first battles in France in 1916. Being a 50 year old commanding officer, he requested relief and returned to Australia, serving as SA's first Public Service Commissioner. He retired as a honorary brigadier general. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: G'day, I made a couple of tweaks - please check you are happy with those changes. In addition, I have a couple of minor suggestions regarding the image licencing, but otherwise it looks like it meets the A-class criteria to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• "File:Stanley Price Weir.jpg": probably should have both a "PD-Australia" and "PD-US-1996" licence
• "File:Stanley Price Weir receiving his DSO.jpg": same as the above
• "File:Grave of Stanley Price Weir.jpg": probably also needs a "FoP-Australia" licence in addition to what is there already
  • Thanks for the review, Rupert, licenses fixed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Have to admit I didn't feel the writing was up to usual standards so gave it quite a going over (apologies for the mix-up with service dates in the infobox!) and hope I haven't misinterpreted anything.
• Not overly detailed by any means but probably sufficient given his career.
• Structurally I'm used to A-Class bios with at least two paras in the lead -- what's your feeling? I guess I'm also used to seeing details of decorations and promotions as they happened worked into the main body rather than in lists at the end, although I wouldn't oppose promotion on those grounds -- at least there are no ribbon or rank icons... ;-) While we're at it, why are the good conduct and volunteer medals linked both inline and under Awards, but the DSO, MiD and Order of St Anne only inline?
• I checked image licensing before I realised Rupert had already done so, so clean bill there!
• Sources look reliable and correctly formatted. Related to the decorations comment earlier, I'd tend to expect London Gazette references where available, but I guess the AWM covers similar ground.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the c/e and review, Ian. I've split the lead into war and post-war, added the main decorations into the lead, and removed the links from the awards section. I much prefer to have a separate awards and promotions section, even though it may repeat content, as it allows the reader to see them (and rank progression) in one spot in the article. Given Weir actually has his own page on the AWM site, and the decorations aren't likely to be challenged, it seems an ok source to me for them and their dates. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough, switching to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ian! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:17, 17 February 2015 (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) 22:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

SMS Dresden (1907)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Dresden (1907) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/SMS Dresden (1907)/archive1

Another German cruiser article - this one was the one German ship to escape destruction at the Falkland Islands. I'd like to get the article to FA to run on the centenary of her scuttling at the Battle of Mas a Tierra in March this year. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments - I did the GA review for this article but that was nearly 18 months ago. Taking the opportunity to review this article again with fresh eyes, I only have the following comments to make:

• Lead: "...but was prevented from doing so by the outbreak of World War I. Just a suggestion
  • I think that sounds good.
• "Mediterranean Division (Mittelmeer-Division)": The English-langauge of this term is introduced first rather than the German, in contrast to the other translations provided.
  • A good point.
• "...with only 160 t (160 long tons; 180 short tons)": should that be "with only 160 metric tons (160 long tons; 180 short tons)", for sake of consistency? There are a couple of others later in this section as well that may need similar treatment.
  • Hmm, the template looks like it should be formatted to MT, but for some reason it isn't producing it. I suppose I can just write it out directly.
• Some duplicate links: Kiel, Hamburg, SMS Bremen, SMS Karlsruhe, armoured cruiser, battlecruiser, Punta Arenas, barque.
  • Ahh, I knew I'd have to check for dupe links once I finished the rewrite, but then I forgot. Thanks for catching these.

And that is it from me. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Zawed! Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Have added my support. Zawed (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support - I had a first look, again a job well done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The Oberbürgermeister of her namesake city christened the ship", his name was de:Otto Beutler

• Thanks for the tip - added his name. Parsecboy (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Suggest converting metric lengths into feet and inches, which would help to standardize measurements between the infobox and main body.
  • Done
• Link commerce raider, christening.
  • The link goes to Ceremonial ship launching, so I linked "launched" instead. Linked commerce raider in the lead.
• Move boilers to the ship power line in the infobox and suggest adding a link to shp there.
  • Good idea
• Convert gun range to yards rather than feet.
  • Fixed
• A Swedish galleass? In 1908? You sure you've got the right type of ship?
  • Forgot about the galeas - ADA corrected the link per below.
• Any details about what was actually damaged in her collisions?
  • Working on that with ADA below, at least for the collision with Caecilie.
• There's a pretty good article on the search for Dresden after the Falkland Islands and the subsequent battle in Warship International that might have some additional details. Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can get ahold of it before the FAC. Thanks for reviewing the article, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• the secondary battery is missing: According to Gröner I (1982), Dresden had the same armament as Nürnberg, that HRS concur; that there were 8 × 5.2 cm SK L/55 with 4000 rounds.
  • And be sure to add the secondary armament to the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Good point. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• neither Gröner (sourced) nor HRS mention mines, where is this information coming from?
• the torpedo tubes were 45cm, rather than 50cm (Gröner, HRS)
  • Don't know how these three issues happened - must have been looking at the wrong section.
• the Mediterranean Division should be linked
  • Done.
• I took the liberty to correct the link to the type of sailing vessel Dresden rammed and sank in 1908. Koop, Schmolke (2004): Kleine Kreuzer 1903-1918, p104 gives details on the damage, mainly to the starbord shaft (if you try google books for a snippet enter CÄCILIE). That's it from me for now. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Added a bit on the shaft damage, thanks for suggesting that. And thanks for fixing the ship type. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick image review -- Generally looks okay but you should give File:Dresden class cruiser diagrams Janes 1914.jpg a US licence tag. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2015 (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) 02:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Bill Denny (Australian politician)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Bill Denny (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Bill Denny (Australian politician)/archive1

Denny was a South Australian Attorney-General who enlisted as a soldier in the AIF aged 43, rose to the rank of captain and was awarded the Military Cross. Returned to SA after the war, and was twice more appointed as state A-G. Article created and brought to GA since early January. An Australian for a change... Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• SupportComments - a remarkable fellow, very surprised we didn't have an article until recently so great to see this gap filled.
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text (no action req'd).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd - although I added PD US tags, I believe this is correct but pls revert if I got this wrong).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • Possible MOS issue with date range format. You use "1910–1912", I believe it should be "1910–12" per WP:DATERANGE
  • Some minor inconsistency with presentation of percentages, see "80 percent" vs "9.9 per cent".
  • Inconsistency with both "World War I" and "First World War" used in the article.
  • In the lead you say he was "he was severely wounded", however in the body of the article only that "he was wounded".
  • This is a little repetitive (and might be confusing to some readers): "returned first of three in Adelaide with 30.2 per cent of the ballots cast.[20] He returned to Australia via the United States of America on 2 August 1919,[2] returning to his seat..." Specifically repeated use of the word "returned" or variations of it, used to mean different things. Perhaps reword or clarify? (suggestion only - I know what you mean and its not very unclear I agree)
  • Some inconsistency in how you refer to his brother. Specifically at first you refer to him as " Reverend R.P. Denny", then "Rev. Richard Power Denny" and then just "Rev. Denny". I would suggest at first use he should be introduced as "Reverend Richard Power Denny" using full name and title per WP:SURNAME and then subsequently as "Reverend Denny" (expanding the abbrevs).
  • I made a couple of minor changes and tweaks - here [44].
  • These fairly minor issues aside this article looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
    • All done, these are my edits. Thanks for the review! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Cheers. Changes look good, I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments This is a very strong article, and I have only a few comments:

• "William Joseph Denny was born in Adelaide, South Australia on 6 December 1872, one of three children of Thomas Joseph Denny, a publican, and his wife Annie (née Dwyer)" - this sentence seems bit overly complex (lots of commas), and might work best as two sentences
• Do we know what the duties of a "weather clerk" in the post office were? It sounds like a strange job!
• "and unsuccessfully contested the two-member seat of West Adelaide in the 1899 South Australian state election" - did he stand as an independent? (no party is mentioned here) Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed points 1 and 3 (he was ULP), but there isn't any more info on what that job entailed. The Post-Master-General's Department (as it was in SA) did a lot of stuff, including telegraphic, weather and normal postal stuff, so the answer may be there, but I'm buggered if I could find anything that explained what he did... Thanks for the review, Nick! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2015 (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) 11:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)/archive2

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. The article has been improved considerably since it passed GAN, using detail mainly drawn from Yugoslav sources. I believe it is comprehensive and meets or is close to meeting all the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Images all have Alt Text (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 link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
    • Slatina
  • 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 [45] (no action req'd)
  • This is a little repetitive: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the post-coup government of Dušan Simović until 3 April 1941, out of fear that such orders...", consider perhaps: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the post-coup government of Dušan Simović until 3 April 1941, out of fear that they..." (suggestion only)
  • This doesn't sound quite right to me: "...the Yugoslav 601st Independent Battalion on the border in the Prekmurje region forward of Detachment Ormozki were attacked...", should this be "...was attacked..."?
  • Also a little repetitive: "...orders to parts of the 104th Infantry Regiment ordering...", perhaps consider: "...orders to parts of the 104th Infantry Regiment instructing'..." (suggestion only).
  • Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Ac. All addressed. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries, those changes look fine. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support: G'day, great article. I believe it meets A-class requirements. I have a couple of suggestions below for you to consider, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "On 6 April, the mobilisation of the 4th Army as a whole was only considered partial". Who considered it 'partial'?
    • Terzić, I've attributed in-line and removed "considered"
  • "and had to deploy on foot as infantry, and the division". Run on sentence; perhaps start a new sentence after "infantry".
    • Good point. Done.
  • "all but two battalions revolted and refused to deploy into their allocated positions". Do we know why they revolted?
    • the same reason as all the others, Ustasha propaganda. I've clarified.
  • "By late on 7 April, Petrović's" --> "By late evening on 7 April"?
    • Good point, typo. Fixed.
  • "the line Slovenska Bistrica—Ptuj exposed…" I think that this should be an endash, not an emdash;
    • Indeed. Not sure what happened there.
  • Unless I missed them, there do not appear to be any consolidated figures regarding the unit’s casualties. Do these exist? Do we know how many became prisoners of war in total?
    • Due to the confused nature of the fighting, the fact that the Army disintegrated, and the Germans didn't hang around in enough numbers to round up and disarm all the former soldiers (or count them against individual formations), casualty figures for the Yugoslavs are just not available. Same with numbers captured, as the Germans almost immediately released Croat soldiers to prop up their political treatment of the Ustashas.
  • Is there an inline citation that could be added for Note a? AustralianRupert (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Not to my knowledge, I've treated it as WP:BLUE because it isn't controversial, IMO. Several divisions make a corps, several corps make an army. The Yugoslavs just skipped a level, I've never been able to establish the reason they decided to do it.
      • Thanks for the review, Rupert! Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

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

• "Armijski đeneral": Give the translation; in the first sentence of the article, don't even give the foreign term. Give your readers a chance to trust that reading effort will be rewarded before you give them tough things to chew on.
• Judging from the first few sections, the prose looks good enough to head to FAC. I got down to Deployment plan. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Dan. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• Got a little bit farther, down to 42nd Infantry Division Murska. Now I'm not so sure about FAC; this article is list-y, and sometimes reviewers frown on that. Not sure what to tell you; I think other A-class reviewers will have a better sense than I do about this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Dan. Do you mean that because it includes the order of battle of the Army, or because of the chronological organisation of the content? I'm not sure this will ever go to FAC under my watch, and if it did and that was an issue, it could potentially go to FLC instead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, if it's not going to FAC, don't worry about it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I don't love using "Reich" to refer to Germany - I'm guessing the idea is to refer to the state that incorporated Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland? In that case, "Greater Germany" (or even Nazi Germany) would probably be better.
  • There isn't an easy alternative in my view, especially when we are dealing with the border with what had been Austria. Greater Germany is Germano-centric, Nazi Germany is worse. Reich is pretty common in sources, and I use it consistently to refer to this border throughout articles on Yugoslavia in WWII (and pipe the link to Austria in the time of National Socialism rather than to Nazi Germany). The complexities of the "Austrian" involvement in Yugoslavia (ie use of Austrian-born divisional commanders, Austrian conscripted units, and the general issues that Austrians had with Serbs, lends itself to a more nuanced treatment.
    • Fair enough.
• I'm somewhat confused by what foreign terms are italicized and what are not - "Luftwaffe" and "Stuka" (both fairly common in English) are italicized, but "Ustaše" and "Sturzkampfgeschwader" (less common in English) are not.
  • Good point, I didn't go through this one and check. Will ping when I'm done.
    • All done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Across two regiments of the 42nd Infantry Division Murska, Ustaše propaganda meant all but two battalions revolted and refused to deploy into their allocated positions." - this is awkwardly worded - I'd probably say something along the lines of "Ustaše propaganda led the bulk of two regiments from the 42nd div. to revolt; only two battalions from the units deployed to their allocated positions."
  • Good suggestion, done.
• "About 10:30..." - I'd say "At about 10:30..."
  • A pet hate of mine. IMO, it is either "At (that time)", or "About (that time)".
• I might split that paragraph (the one on the Gyékényes bridgehead), probably after the abortive counterattack.
  • Done.
• Actually a lot of paragraphs are rather long and could be split. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Have gone through and split a few more. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Parsecboy: all done now. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Great work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2015 (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) 11:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Kehl (1796–97)

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

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

• Featured article candidates/Siege of Kehl (1796–97)/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the format and content of other similar articles. I look forward to some constructive critique. Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Ruth, I've done some copy editing. Please check my changes and adjust as you see fit. I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria, but I have a couple of suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• please check your time format, I think per WP:MOSTIME "1000" should be "10:00" etc.

• fixed

• should the article be re-titled as "Siege of Kehl (1796–97)" given that it spanned the two years, and also given how the lead starts?

• sure, but my wikimagic didn't allow me to name a page with an – in it. Or to rename it. If you can do it, please .,...

• Done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks! And when I find the info below, if I find it, I'll add it in. auntieruth (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• "General Clark..." do we know this officer's full name? If so, can this please be added.

• If you know it, please add it, but I've not found it.

• Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Found in the course of tweaking my manuscript. Added! auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• inconsistent presentation: "21st century" v. "twenty-first century";

• fixed

• this sounds a little repetitious: "Charles advised his brother...refused by his brother".

• fixed.auntieruth (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Based on comments received on Siege of Hüningen I added some text to explain the "German states" phrase. (see comment by Dudley). auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I copyedited down to Background. That section looked a little rough: "an event between the French king and his subjects", "the situation surrounding his sister", "in consultation with French émigré nobles and Frederick William II of Prussia, he issued the Declaration of Pilnitz, in which they declared" (the nobles declared?) - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

tweaked. Thanks.  :) auntieruth (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I can do more if this is headed to FAC ... is it? - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Dank, yes probably. I'd like to get the whole set of Rhine campaign 1796 at FAC, DJ's done a lot on those articles also. auntieruth (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "The fortunes of Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach, and those of the Alsatian city of Strasbourg were united by the presence of bridges and a series of gates, fortifications and barrage dams." I do not understand this. Fortification covered both so if one fell the other would?

• exactly

• How about something like "Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach, was connected by bridges to the Alsatian city of Strasbourg on the other side of the Rhine, and the fortifications covered both towns so that the loss of one was likely to lead to the loss of the other." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Twiddled with it, and the related part in the article. Hope it's clearer now. auntieruth (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can you take another look - your revision has gone wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Jean Victor Marie Moreau, almost upset the siege" Perhaps almost broke the siege?

• fixed

• "The defeat of Jourdan's army at the Amberg, Würzburg and Altenkirchen" "at the battles of Amberg..." would be clearer.
• "Even though the French still held the crossing at Kehl and Strasbourg" crossing or crossings?

• yes. several.

• "maintaining control of them had been critical in relative ease of the French crossing to the German side of the Rhine." This does not seem grammatical - had been critical to the relative ease with which the French had crossed?
• "Clarke, their envoy" I would give his first name.

• it's linked, but I added his full name.

• "Most commonly, armies established positions around a city and waited for the surrender of those inside. Quite commonly," Repetition of commonly.

• fixed.

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• "Their control of these provided essential positions from which the French established their operations." A bit clumsy.

• Fixed.

• "This allowed Austrian marksmen close access to the bridge works, where they could, ostensibly, pick off French defenders." What does ostensibly mean in this context?

• fixed

• "The arrival of General Desaix earlier in the month had strengthened the French garrison" Just the general or him and troops?

• thanks for looking.

• lol. yes both. fixed.

• A first rate article. Of course revert any of my copy edits you are not happy with. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Would you take another look-see and offer an opinion? Also have added material on political terrain to an article you previously reviewed (Siege_of_Hüningen_(1796–97)) auntieruth (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments - close to a support, but some concerns over the lead.

• I'm not at all sure about the way the lead is structured. The first paragraph ends in a sentence which is hard to place chronologically - is it a statement that comes before the siege or after it? The second paragraph is primarily background, and doesn't actually get to the siege until the very last sentence, and isn't written in a way that focuses on the siege in question. It then ends in a paragraph with a couple of brief sentences on the actual siege itself. I'd recommend trimming the background back, and then expanding it with the details of the events in the siege itself (e.g. it would be good get phrases like "action of 22 November" in there, as it forms a section heading, or information on the expansion of the siege).

• fixed

"The Siege of Kehl lasted from October 1796 to 9 January 1797, during the War of the First Coalition (part of the French Revolutionary Wars)." - starting the first sentence of the article with parenthesizes looked a bit ugly to me; there's probably an easier way to express it.

• fixed

• " Habsburg and Württemberg regulars, numbering 40,000," - as it's the lead, would suggest "regular forces" to make for easier reading.
• "Initially, the rulers of Europe viewed the revolution in France..." As this is the first section, it isn't clear which revolution the article is referring to (there have been several).

• fixed

• "He and his fellow monarchs threatened ambiguous, but quite serious, consequences if anything should happen to the royal family. " - "quite" isn't needed here to carry the meaning

• fixed

• "The Coalition's Army of the Lower Rhine counted 90,000 troops. " - suggest "comprised"
  • fixed
• "observing the French bridgehead at Düsseldorf. " - the verb gave me images of the whole 20,000 men observing it; there might be a better verb.
• "The garrisons of Mainz Fortress and Ehrenbreitstein Fortress counted 10,000 more. " - again, the "counted" verb felt out of place in this construct.
  • Ok.  :) fixed
• "At this point, the inherent jealousies and competition between the French generals came into play." - "inherent" in what way? I'm not sure you need the adjective here, and it does raise questions about its meaning which aren't answered.
  • fixed
• "a position scarcely less impregnable than that which it had abandoned" - if the French were forced to abandon their previous position (see the beginning of the paragraph), then it wasn't an impregnable position.
  • It was nearly impregnable, except that Charles was about to encircle him.
• "The Austrian army occupied a line which passed obliquely across the extremity of his right, and another line which passed along his left; they both intersected in front of him, where the main force of Charles' army blocked any movement forward. " - I found this description a little bit difficult to follow.
  • probably not necessary for this article.
• Worth checking the wikilinking of the Imperial locations - some aren't linked I think.
  • some really cannot be linked, unless I go to the German wiki....?
• It takes a long time before the article explains what Kehl is - you have to wait until "diplomacy and politics" before it is explained that it is a village, and even then it's thinly described. Is it possible to get a sentence or two on the location of the siege earlier on?

put it lead

• "The process of laying siege was complicated." - I'd suggest "The process of laying siege in this period was complicated." would make it clear that the statement is about sieges in general, rather than this particular siege. Were many fortifications betrayed during this period though?

• The fortress by Stockach was (at least by local repute), but not sure of many others.

• "Until the invention of gunpowder-based weapons (and the resulting higher-velocity projectiles), the balance of power and logistics definitely favored the defender. With the introduction of gunpowder, cannon and mortars and howitzers (in modern times), the traditional methods of defense became less effective against a determined siege." - very true, but I couldn't see the relevance to this siege, as gunpowder had been around for many centuries by now.
  • fixed
• "Schutter" - I wasn't sure what this; I'd suggest "the River Schutter"?
  • fixed
• "16,000" "3000" - "1,000" - check the consistency over how thousands are expressed
  • I think I've got them all.
• "3000–4000 " - typo in the formatting
• " twelve Imperial battalions " - I think the MOS would have this as 12.
  • fixed
• "and following 50 days of open trenches," - I don't think you've explained what an open trench day is. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I've rebalanced it somewhat, removed wht might be extraneous stuff and put in a section on an earlier attack at Kehl. auntieruth (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Hchc2009: did you want to revisit before we list for promotion at the Coords' page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support I did a minor CE, removing some unnecessary whitespaces. You may want to check into the use of vague terms. - "some", "several", "a few", "many" ... MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• reviewed once more and removed a few extra words.  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Image review -- all licensing looks satisfactory.
• Source review -- references appear reliable; formatting-wise I'm not sure everything is consistent given the lack of templates, so suggest you revisit before nominating at FAC if that's the next step, but shouldn't hold up promotion here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• thanks Ian. auntieruth (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (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) 11:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

British contribution to the Manhattan Project

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British contribution to the Manhattan Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/British contribution to the Manhattan Project/archive1

Originally, the Manhattan Project group of articles included Tube Alloys, but this is about the British efforts independent of the American Manhattan project. (I may fix it up one day.) So I created a new article about the British involvement in the Manhattan Project. The name comes from a number of articles with titles like "Australian contribution to..." Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: great work as usual. I have a couple of nitpicks/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Major-General" or "Major General"...both are currently used (also see below);
• inconsistent presentation: some ranks appear hyphenated (e.g. Brigadier-General), but others do not (e.g. Vice Admiral);

  I had thought that BrEng uses hyphens, but the British Army website does not. (Debretts is annoyingly inconsistent.) So removed the hyphens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Tube Alloys were..." or "Tube Alloys was"? I think it should be "was"...but currently both constructions are used;

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• overlink: Imperial Chemical Industries, German nuclear energy project;

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• is there a place of publication for the Priestley work?

  Auckland. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed at GA and have checked over the changes made since then and believe it now meets the A-class criteria. I made a few minor edits whilst proof reading, pls see here [46]. Anotherclown (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• All fine. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• I'm sorry, but I have to be tougher on lead sections these days. Per WP:LEAD, "Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence", and "simply describe the subject in normal English". The first sentence said "The British contribution to the Manhattan Project involved participation in most aspects of the project", and that's not going to fly; details on request. I took a stab at it, but you might want to mention other types of contributions to make it work. LEAD recommends against bolding in these cases, but some people like to put the most important proper noun in bold, and I have no objection if you want to ... that would be Manhattan Project. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  I don't understand. MOS:BOLDTITLE says: include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English.. I've tried re-wording the first sentence.

  Not a problem, I'll throw this into the pile of TFA issues to sort out. Whether it's okay at FAC will be up to the FAC reviewers.

  A class criterion A4: The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  (NB: I removed a false title; British reviewers regard this as an Americanism.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  That's not a false title in the sense that that article defines it, though it may well be regarded as a false title by some. I have no problem with your edit.

  Apart from the issue I mentioned, which may or may not be a problem at TFA, the lead looks great. Stopping there per WT:MHC#New job. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  On second thought, maybe I'm being a little harsh. I'll finish up, revert your edit to the first sentence, and support. Whether the coords want to promote this if you revert back is up to them. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• " The two ten-stage machines were delivered in August and November 1943, but by this time it had been overtaken by events.": I don't know what that means.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• "As a result, Chadwick and Oliphant were able to persuade Groves to reduce K-25's enrichment target": Sorry, as a result of what? What persuaded Groves? - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Taking a guess it's "this opinion" that persuaded him, so maybe change "1944. As a result, Chadwick" to "1944, but Chadwick". - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• " Chadwick and Groves reached an agreement by which ore would be shared equally.": I went with " Chadwick and Groves had reached ..."; fix that if it's wrong.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Note that this is the version I'm supporting; whether future versions should be promoted will be up to other reviewers and the coords. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Your edits have dealt with all of my concerns, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review -- I daresay AC checked during his GA review but I gave licenses the once-over anyway and found no issues. Also tweaked a phrase or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2015 (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) 00:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Josef Wurmheller

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Josef Wurmheller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another German World War II fighter pilot I am nominating this article for A-Class. It covers the major aspects of his life but it is a bit thin on his personal life which I am unable to address further. Nevertheless I think it might qualify for A-Class. Thanks in adavance for your feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• "at least 18–20": Does this mean one source says 18 and another says 20? Which number seems more believable, and why? - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• "were four-engined bombers and 56 were against Supermarine Spitfire fighters.": were and were against are non-parallel; that is, if one of these fits grammatically in the sentence, then the other one doesn't.
• "8 June 1944 ... 6 June 1944 ... 16 June 1944": It's better not to repeat the year when it's obvious.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: I did a little copy editing. Please check you are happy with my changes. I also have some comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• "encountered a formation of five Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairey Battle single-engined bombers in the vicinity of Saarbrücken..." Do we know what they were doing there, i.e. "...carrying out a raid on blah" ? If so, I think it would add a little more context to this point
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• the Phoney War appears to be mentioned in the lead, but not in the body;
  • added MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Squadron Leader Macdonald" ... do we know this person's first name or initial?
  • added MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Macdonald" or "MacDonald"?
  • sources are inconclusive MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "His opponent K9283..." was his opponent the aircraft, or the pilot?
  • reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "...received the Iron Cross 2nd Class...on 19 October 1939" was this specifically for shooting down Macdonald?
  • yes, reworded MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• "Messerschmitt Bf 109 E-4 (Werknummer 5242—factory number) at approximately 5:10 pm" --> is this level of detail really necessary?
• "Wurmheller, whose right foot was plastered in an orthopedic cast..." --> do we know why?
  • no, nothing which can be cited, it seems it was due to a domestic accident MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I've added my support as most of my comments have been addressed. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support

• Copyedited so pls let me know if any issues, happy with prose otherwise.
• Structure and level of detail seem fine.
• Fully cited to what appear reliable references, and my quick source review revealed no obvious formatting errors (not sure I'd bother linking Osprey Publishing four times though, if at all since no other publishers are linked).
• Image licensing looks okay; I suppose for context you could include a shot or two of the types of aircraft he flew but up to you.

Well done as usual, MB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2015 (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) 00:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No. 450 Squadron RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) & AustralianRupert (talk)

No. 450 Squadron RAAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/No. 450 Squadron RAAF/archive1

This was the first of the Article XV squadrons raised by Australia under the Empire Air Training Scheme during World War II, and we hope to make it the first such article in WP to achieve A-Class (and perhaps FA). Operating P-40 Kittyhawk fighter-bombers, No. 450 Squadron saw action in North Africa and Italy before its disbandment at war's end. In the former theatre it earned its nickname of The Desert Harassers thanks to none other than Lord Haw-Haw. This is a co-nomination with AustralianRupert, but the article history and talk page speak to the number of people who've helped get it to this stage, and we thank them all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • One of the images lacks Alt Text (File:450 Sqn (AWM 024694).jpg) so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • One external link reports as dead (Kierath, Reginald Victor (info) [ww2roll.gov.au])
  • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information, with one minor exception:
    • File:450 Squadron RAAF Kittyhawks in Malta 1943 AWM SUK11288.jpg - probably needs a PD US tag
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
  • No duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd)
  • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • "...Sergeant Shaw, who had been responsible for the unit's first aerial victory...", Shaw claiming the unit's first victory is already covered.
    • Yeah, to be honest the repetition was deliberate so people wouldn't have to try and recall why this short, unremarkable name (apologies to all the Shaws out there!) was important but hopefully we can expect them to remember back to the previous paragraph... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of some airfield names. Consider "LG.207/LG 'Y' (Qassassin" vs "LG.142\143/Gambut Satellite") i.e. back and forward slashes. Also lowercase "g" here: "Lg.148/Sidi Azeiz Airfield".
    • Although I didn't put these in, I think there was method in the backward/forward slash madness given the arrangement of Gambut Main, so going all forward slashes may be too simple. I'll double-check things and see how we might better present it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Other than these very few cmts from me, this article is in very good shape in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day, thanks for the review. I think I've dealt with all of these. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Tks AC, and AR for actions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments I reviewed this article at GAN, and the subsequent changes look good. Just a few points:

• "all Kittyhawk units began to operate in the fighter-bomber role" - given that earlier in the paragraph it's stated that No. 450 Squadron and the other units in its wing's role was "escorting daylight raids by Douglas Boston bombers, and ground-attack missions in support of the Eighth Army", this seems unnecessary repetition (especially the "began" - were the squadrons tasked exclusively with ground attack missions during this period?)
  • Tks, tweaked. The point was supposed to be that ground attack became their prime -- though not exclusive -- focus and fighter duties secondary, rather than the reverse as had previously been the case.
• In regards to "In mid-1945, the squadron became the second RAAF unit, after No. 3 Squadron, to receive North American P-51 Mustangs, albeit too late to see action during the war", does this mean that the squadron was off the front line converting to the new aircraft at the end of the war? Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, Units of the RAAF doesn't mention 450 Sqn receiving Mustangs so pending any further info from Barnes I've tweaked using info from the sqn page at AWM. I'm happy with it now if you and Rupert are. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the AWM's collection database has lots of photos of 3 Sqn with P-51B Mustangs from 1944, but none of 450 Sqn with the type Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed - nice work with this article Nick-D (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks again, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

G'day, thanks for the review, Nick, and the tweaks, Ian. I've moved the Barnes ref because it doesn't cover the point about the Mustangs...unfortunately neither of my sources mention whether the unit was off the front line or not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Rupert, I think then that no source we have supports the 'second unit to re-equip with Mustangs' claim (even though it's probably correct) so removed it. The AWM ref says it was only 'preparing' to convert to Mustangs when the war ended, so I think we can say the question of being taken out of the front line to re-equip doesn't arise, because the war had ended before the conversion happened. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2015 (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) 00:06, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

New Zealand Division

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk)

New Zealand Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the necessary criteria. I have worked on the bulk of the article (on my userpages) for well over a year as an on-and-off project for me and since adding my additions to the artilce, it has been through a thorough GA review which has taken the rough edges off it. I like to think it is a major step forward in improving Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand's contribution to WWI. My thanks, firstly to all those chipped in and fixed my typos etc over the past week or two since I incorporated my expansions into the article, and secondly to those who take on the task of reviewing. I am looking forward to your feedback. Zawed (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see this article developed to such a high standard. I have the following comments:

• "the New Zealand Division, with its 20,000 personnel, was the strongest infantry division on the Western Front" - I'm not sure if this is accurate: according to [47] (page 122) and [48] the US Army divisions had over 28,000 men at full strength by November 1918!

•  Done I have revised the lead, Hawkeye7 has made a similar comment below. Zawed (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• The statement that "the New Zealand Division was one of the strongest infantry divisions on the Western Front" still seems to be too strong: the US Army had several dozen divisions in France by the end of the war. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• This fact is cited and I could add more if needed (although all would be attributed NZ historians so maybe there is a bias there!). If it will progress things, I could amend that statement to refer to being one of the strongest Dominion divisions? Zawed (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems sensible (there seems to be a low awareness of the US contribution among Commonwealth historians, presumably as it mainly operated with the French Army) Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Have done, both in lead and body of article. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• The lead says that the NZ and Australian Division was "disbanded", but the 'Formation' section says that this unit was renamed when its Australian components were transferred out: which is correct?

•  Done I have revised the lead. Zawed (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• "the tanks suffered reliability problems" - could this be tweaked to "the tanks suffered mechanical problems"?

•  Done Zawed (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The Battle of Poelcappelle proved to be a failure, with no significant advancement of the frontlines" - a bit of context or lead in would be beneficial here

•  Done Have expanded a little more on the battle; how does it read now?

• Adding an order of battle box to the 'Winter 1917–18' setting out the division's final organisation would be helpful

•  Done Have done, also expanded the earlier OOB bearing in mind Hawkeye7's comments below. Zawed (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Were the 'entrenching' battalions holding units for reinforcement personnel, or did members of the battalions remain permanently in them? Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Done Yes, holding units for reinforcements. Have clarified this. Zawed (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support My comments have now been addressed Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Us Aussies just love New Zealand. That's not the comment though.

Will you still love us after the Cricket World Cup though? Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. That's what New Zealand is for. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

1. These two formations formed the main body of the NZEF and, together with the Australian 4th Infantry Brigade, were the basis of the New Zealand and Australian Division Actually, there was another brigade, the Australian 1st Light Horse Brigade.

    Done Yes, a booboo on my part, overlooked them. Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

2. When the NZ&A Division was broken up, the units went to form three new divisions: the Australian 4th Division, the New Zealand Division, and the Anzac Mounted Division. The mounted division included the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Light Horse Brigades and the NZMR. So note 1 is wrong.

    Done Indeed, as part of my oversight above. Have fixed. Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Along with the Australian 2nd Division, the New Zealand Division was to form part of I ANZAC Corps, under the command of Godley Actually, I Anzac Corps also included the 1st Division.

    Done Yep, another oversight. Fixed. Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

4. A number of facilities established in Egypt for New Zealand personnel were transferred to England. Yes, but this belongs in the article on the NZEF; the base units were never part of the NZ Division

    Done Fair enough, have removed. Zawed (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

5. Armentieres. Yeah, the problem was that based on experience at Gallipoli, the front line was initially held too strongly.
6. in September 1916 the New Zealand Division was attached to XV Corps Should be assigned.

    Done

7. The artillery brigades were reduced to three, one of which came under the direct control of II ANZAC Corps To economise on battery commanders, the size of the batteries was increased from 4 to 6 guns. A brigade was broken up to facilitate this

    Done Have expanded a little here

8. Order of Battle: There were three NZ field ambulances, one per brigade. Also three engineer field companies and a signals company. Each brigade had a machine gun company and a light trench mortar battery. In 1917, the division acquired another machine gun company (I think from the 4th Brigade), and the division artillery two medium and one heavy trench mortar battery. In 1918, the four machine gun companies were combined into a battalion. There were also four Army Service Corps companies RNZASC. And the Otago Mounted Rifles left the division before the move to France. With B and D Squadrons of the 4th Light Horse it formed the II Anzac Corps Mounted Regiment. This became the XXII Corps Mounted Regiment in 1918.

    Done I will expand the OOB and add one for 1918 as well, as per NickD's suggestion above. PS My sources (Stewart) indicate the Otagos did go to France with the division and didn't join the mounted regiment (Stewart says 1st ANZAC not II ANZAC, initially at least) until then. I have left them in the OOB but added some clarifying text to the body to explain that they were soon gone. Zawed (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

   Originally, each infantry division had a mounted regiment, so the 4th Light Horse was assigned to the 1st Division when it was formed in 1914. Those for the new Australian divisions formed in 1916 were obtained by breaking up the 4th Light Horse Brigade. So we had: 1st Division - 4th LHR; 2nd Division - 13th LHR; 3rd Division - 14th LHR (raised in Australia); 4th Division - 11th LHR; 5th Division - 12th LHR; NZ Division - Otago Regt. But before they left for France, the establishment was changed. The BEF had found mounted troops of limited use in France, so each division was to have only one squadron. Therefore, the arrangement became: So we had: 1st Division - one squadron of 4th LHR; 2nd Division - one squadron of 13th LHR; 3rd Division - one squadron of 14th LHR (raised in Australia); 4th Division - one squadron of 13th LHR; 5th Division - one squadron of 13th LHR; NZ Division - one squadron of Otago Regt. So only one squadron of the Otago went to France. On arrival in France, it was found that the establishment had changed again; instead of each division having a squadron, each corps had a regiment. Since I Anzac Corps consisted of the three "old" divisions (the 1st, 2nd and NZ) at this time, I Anzac Mounted Regiment consisted of one squadron each of the 4th and 13th LHR, and the Otago. (Other changes at this time were the addition of the TM batteries, and reorganising the artillery so as to break up the howitzer brigade, giving each brigade three gun and one howitzer battery) (Bean III:91) When II Anzac Corps arrived, it brought with it the rest of the mounted troops, and the mounted organisation was fixed up. The I Anzac Mounted Regiment was broken up, and the 13th Light Horse became the I Anzac Mounted Regiment. When the Australian Corps was formed in 1917, it was transferred to it, but was henceforth only known as the 13th Light Horse. The Otago squadron joined the II Anzac Mounted Regiment; along with B and D Squadrons and the machine gun and headquarters troops of the 4th Light Horse it formed the II Anzac Corps Mounted Regiment. This became the XXII Corps Mounted Regiment in 1917. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

9. The New Zealanders would follow in due course but in the meantime, General Douglas Haig, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), Sir Douglas Haig

    Done

10. Why is note 6 in a footnote? Move it into the main text.

     Done

11. On 1 November 1917, the Australian contingent of II ANZAC Corps was transferred to the newly formed Australian Corps, Well, the 3rd Division was transferred, but the two light horse squadrons and the cyclists companies remained. (And should there be a hyphen in there?)

     Done Clarified that it was the 3rd Division being transferred.

12. As this left the New Zealand Division as the sole representative of the ANZAC divisions in the corps, this warranted its renaming to XXI Corps. No, it was XXII Corps.

     Done Typo, the wl went to the right place though. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

13. A popular commander, many in the division viewed this as a punishment for his refusal to carry on with the 12 October attack at Passchendaele. Possibly, but nobody else was removed over that one, and it was in accord with GHQ policy of manning the division with New Zealanders.

     Done Have revised to emphasise that this was a rumour. Zawed (talk) 06:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

14. a divisional machine gun battalion was formed to replace the previously independent companies attached to each brigade Suggest a divisional machine gun battalion was formed from the companies belonging to each brigade

     Done

15. I might add here that in other armies on the Western Front, the entrenching battalions were just reinforcements that were kept near the front where they could become accustomed to the conditions before joining their battalions.

     Done NickD has also queried this so have revised a little to make this clear.

16. The ready availability of reinforcements prevented it from suffering the reduction in the number of battalions that affected the British and Australian divisions as their manpower reserves dried up. That was because New Zealand had conscription, right? (Mind you, when we asked New Zealand to reform the Otago Mounted Rifles to provide the third regiment of the 5th Light Horse Brigade, they baulked, so the reinforcement situation seems to have still been tight.)

     Done Added a short sentence about conscription.

17. At this stage of the war, the New Zealand Division was the strongest infantry division on the Western Front. Nick mentions the Americans. The Canadian divisions were also stronger. Also, TO strength was over 15,000.

     Done Nick raised this as well so have revised slightly to be one of the strongest. That said, the main source here (Harper) does say the NZ Division was the strongest and mentions the Canadian divisions having around 10,000 men on average. Zawed (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

18. Demobilisation began towards the end of December, with those who had enlisted in 1914 or 1915 leaving for New Zealand. No Anzac leave in the New Zealand Army?

    Sorry, don't get you here? Or do you mean furlough? Zawed (talk) 07:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

    In 1918 the AIF instituted Anzac Leave. Those who had enlisted in 1914 were sent home on furlough. This was extended to those who had enlisted in the first half of 1915 in late 1918. Only a few officers returned, because the war ended before their leave was up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

    Gotcha; unlike the 2NZEF in WWII, there doesn't seem to have been a furlough system in place for WWI. Zawed (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Very well done. Say hi to Glyn Harper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Nick-D and Hawkeye7: Gents, thanks for the feedback which I have incorporated into the article. Hawkeye7, there are a couple of comments above for you (I figured out how to better format my responses without buggering up the numbering of your comments). Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport - an excellent article in my opinion and great to see an important NZ First World War topic dealt with to this standard during the centenary.
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Some images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).  Done
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
  • Some minor inconsistency in presentation, consider "Messines Sector" vs "Ypres sector" (caps)  Done
  • " which was its most costliest day of the war" - seems a little tautological to say "most costliest", consider either "mostly costly" or just "costliest".  Done
  • "...the commander of the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force in Egypt, Sir Archibald Murray, proposed..." shouldn't this be "Lieutenant General Sir Archibald Murray..."? His rank should be included at first use per WP:SURNAME  Done
  • "and seized it within an hour of going over the top..." - language here seems a little informal (i.e. "going over the top"), perhaps reword?  Done
  • Prose here is a little repeative and could be tightened: "In the weeks leading up to the battle, the division repeatedly practiced the tactics it would employ during the battle." Consider instead: "In the weeks leading up to the battle, the division repeatedly practiced the tactics it would employ during its conduct." Or something along those lines.  Done
  • Some minor inconsistency in presentation of timings, consider "6:00 am" vs "8:10am" (i.e. spaced and unspaced) - MOS:TIME says it should be spaced.  Done
  • some inconsistency re "machine-gun" vs "machine gun"  Done
  • Terminology nitpick here: "...New Zealand Pioneer Battalion divested itself of its squadron of Otago Mounted Rifles to leave, apart from its senior officers, a formation with solely Māori personnel." Specifically use of the term "formation" - technically a formation is brigade size or greater, "unit" would be more appropriate for a battalion.  Done Didn't know this.
  • I made a few edits as well, pls see here [49]. Pls check I didn't screw anything up. Anotherclown (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Anotherclown, I have made changes in response to your comments and your edits looked fine to me. Thanks for taking the time to review this one! Cheers. Zawed (talk) 05:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Some fine work. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

• I'm down to Battle of Messines so far. Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• FWIW, British dictionaries still say "front line" (noun), but "frontline" is acceptable in AmEng and is gaining ground. You use both spellings in this article, about equally.
• "were warned to avoid being captured in case they were eaten": Did you mean "because they might be eaten"?
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Dank, I have revised frontlines to front line as the rest of the article is British English. Also revised the section about being eaten. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. It's a readable and detailed account. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 22 January 2015 (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) 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk)

Ulysses S. Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Ulysses S. Grant/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Ulysses S. Grant/archive2

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. After it failed at FA, I believe I fixed all of the issues raised there. The closing delegate suggested an A-Class review, and I agree. I think the military portions of Grant's biography, especially, could be benefited by the knowledge of the reviewers at this project. Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, great work in bringing this one up to scratch. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I am having trouble loading the article fully on my machine so I can review in too much depth, but I will try to offer some comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• the first paragraph of the Memorials and Presidential library section appears to be unreferenced, for A-class I think we would want at least one citation at the end of the paragraph;
  • I added some citations. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• are there citations/references that could be added for the information in Notes C and D? I notice that you have citations for all other notes;
  • Done.
• "89 of the nation's 364 railroads went bankrupt", according to WP:NUMNOTES we shouldn't start sentences with numerals;
  • I wasn't aware of the rule. I rewrote the sentence to fix it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
• is there a reference for this: "In the election of 1876, the remaining three Republican governments in the South fell to Redeemers, and the ensuing Compromise of 1877 marked the end of Reconstruction."?
  • Done.
• according to the MOS year ranges such as "1869–1877" should be presented as "1869–77". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Didn't know that one either. I prefer the other way, but no one is above the MoS, I suppose. Fixed.
    • G'day, yes it seems a bit strange, apparently though there are a couple of exceptions to the rule also. For instance, date of birth and death parenteticals, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the thorough review! If there's anything else you think is lacking, please let me know! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • G'day, I had another quick look and made a couple of minor adjustments. I'm still having trouble loading the page - I think my old cluncker of a computer is on its way out. One thing I wonder about is the size of the lead: I got pinged by another user who must have seen the ACR announcement I posted on the Milhist or US Wikiproject pages and they suggested that it might be too long. What are your thoughts about that? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I think the lede is about right, but that may be because I know it used to be much longer. It's been a constant battle to keep out new tangential additions to the article. If you see something irrelevant or unnecessary, by all means strike it out. I'll give it another look today and see what can be trimmed. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I trimmed it a bit yesterday. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

• Really don't care for the lead image. Awkward pose, downsampled, heavily damaged. Can you please go through, say, http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=Ulysses%20Grant%20brady and find something better for a very photographed person? If you don't want me doing it, could you at least do it yourself?
  • I actually like the picture, but I'll look for a better version. If you find something you think is more appropriate, by all means go for it.--Coemgenus (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Brevet Second Lieutenant Ulysses S. Grant in 1843.jpg - it would be nice to replace this, but 1843 was a bit of a nadir for the engraving art, so I guess it passes.
• File:Hardscrabble.jpg is a downsample. Replace from TIFF ( http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/cph/3c10000/3c10000/3c10700/3c10714u.tif )
  • Upgraded to File:Hardscrabble.tiff. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Battle of Jackson (MS).jpg Meh. A higher-res copy exists, but it's pretty heavily damaged, and may not be that worth it. http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.02196/ - that said, the yellowed copy would probably be more visually interesting.
  • I think you're right, I upgraded it to File:Battle of Jackson (cropped).tif. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Battle of Missionary Ridge McCormick Harvesting.jpg Something terrible has happened to this image. The original is here and lacks the garish colours. It looks like it was taken from a previous, low-quality scan. Replace.
  • Done, at File:Battle of Mission Ridge.jpg. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:GenUSGrant.jpg Extremely downscaled. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/cwpbh/01000/01058a.tif is the full-size.
  • Done, at File:General U.S. Grant.tif. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Lee_Surrenders_to_Grant_at_Appomattox.jpg Acceptable, I guess. There really aren't many good Appomattox images.
• File:Johnsonbanquet.jpg Documentation nil. Needs documented.
  • I removed it. It's pretty bad-looking and with no documentation, I can't argue we should keep it. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-Trials.jpg Not a great copy, but acceptable given alternatives.
• File:President Ulysses S. Grant seated portrait Brady.jpg scaled down a bit. is full size.
  • Done, at File:Ulysses S. Grant seated by Brady (cropped).tif. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:President Grant Thwarting Gold Ring 1869 Currier & Ives.jpg A higher-resolution, better scan is available from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/ppmsca/11700/11784u.tif
  • Done, at File:Grant Thwarting the Gold Ring 1869.tif. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Ward_Hunt_-_Brady-Handy.jpg http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cwpbh.03892/ might be better.
  • Done, at File:Ward Hunt (Brady).tif. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:USGrant-standing-postbellum.jpg This is badly cropped. http://loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.30680/ has more headroom.
  • Done, at File:Grant standing postwar.tif. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:50 USD Series 2004 Note Front.jpg - wouldn't an older edition of the note be better, given the caption?
  • User:Godot recently added a bunch of featured images of banknotes, including File:US-$50-GC-1928-Fr-2404.jpg, so I used that one. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• File:Ulysses S. Grant Trapeze Cartoon Keppler Puck 1880.tif bit oversaturated.
  • I uploaded a more natural version. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. File:Johnsonbanquet.jpg is the big blocker. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Mostly done now (enough to Support, anyway) - the one thing to note is the JPEGs on the Library of Congress are smaller than the TIFFs, so File:Battle_of_Mission_Ridge.jpg is smaller than it needs to be, but I can fix that. =) Ward Hunt could be cropped better, but that needs a bit of knowledge of restoration, so I'll do that too. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review and the support. I downloaded Mission Ridge as a tiff, but it was too big to upload. I don't know enough about these things to shrink it, but if you do I'm sure it will be the better for it. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Probably the easiest solution if you don't want to have to worry too much about things is to use Commons' Upload Wizard: It uses chunked uploads^{[technical term, ignore if desired]} allows uploading files something like ten times the size of non-chunked^{[technical term, ignore if desired]} uploads. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. This looks a lot better than when it was at FAC. I got down to Civilian life; so far so good. I'm not supporting, but I think the prose will be good enough to put it up at FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank, your copyedits are always welcome and appreciated. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Continuing. "Stanton and Grant quickly surmised that the terms were much too lenient": Why did they have to guess? Did they not know Sherman's terms?
  • No! Sherman came up with the terms on his own. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Reference 325 (National Park Service) is now a strange redirect. I looked at it because it because this is hard to read: "From 1890 to 1940, the Department of Interior and the National Park Service called part of what is now Kings Canyon National Park, General Grant National Park, named for the General Grant sequoia.". It would probably work better in passive voice.
  • I'm a passive voice hater, but you're right, it works better here. I'll change it, and look into that ref. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Fantastic writing, especially compared to earlier trips to FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and for your copyedits. Much appreciated! --Coemgenus (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It would be great to get this on the Main Page on one of the 150-year anniversaries coming up in March or April, if the nominators are up for it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree! After this review, I'd like to give it a good looking-over before nominating it for FA. With luck, we could be finished in time for the anniversary of Appomattox. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt Starting ...

Lede

• I'm a bit wondering at the leading the Radical Republicans bit. The Republicans were already starting to be in retreat on Reconstruction, and Grant's policies continued that trend.

• Do you mean just to remove the word "radical"? If so, done. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• "In his second term, the Republican coalitions in the South fell apart and conservative Democrats regained control of each Southern state." This sounds like a cause and effect. I'd make the argument that the Democrats bore some responsibility. Certainly in South Carolina, the Democrats basically won on terror and fraud. And why is this mentioned two separate places in one paragraph? And can't the two Indian war references in that paragraph be consolidated?

• Changed the redeemer sentence to "In his second term, the Republican coalitions in the South fell apart as conservative white Democrats regained control of Southern states through terror and disenfranchisement of black Southerners." And I consolidated that whole last sentence, which was just repetitive.

• "Alabama Claims" Alabama should be italicized.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Their consensus remains below average." I know what you are trying to say here, but some rephrasing is needed.

• Yes, I wasn't happy with that, either. Should be better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Military career

• "Mexicans agreed to peace" probably should be a pipe to Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo. You need a source.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• "divided his army" I would say "divided his forces" to avoid a repetition of army later in sentence.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Grant chose to remain in the U.S. military after his mandatory service had expired in 1847.". This feels awkward, and I think it's the "after" in combination with the past perfect. What about "Grant's mandatory service had expired during the war; he chose to remain in the Army."

• Changed to "Grant's mandatory service had expired during the war, but he chose to remain in the Army." --Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• "That same year," maybe "Later that year",

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• "repeal the resignation" probably better, "refuse the resignation". I think I commented on this on my earlier run through the article.

• Done. Sorry, I thought I'd fixed all of the problems from the failed FA.--Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Civilian life

• "By August 1863, " I think this sentence should be in the Civil War section, it's where people would look for this information

• Moved and shortened. --Coemgenus (talk)

Civil War

• " inexperienced volunteers" I would cut "inexperienced", I'm not sure it adds anything. Besides, they weren't inexperienced for long.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Shiloh

• "had grown" Why "had"? Have we gone back in time? When are we speaking of here, anyway?

• Changed to "now numbered"

• "the Confederate army of roughly equal strength " probably should be "a Confederate army ..." I note you use "Confederate Army" with caps later in the paragraph.

• Done both. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Pittsburg Landing near Shiloh . [57] " spacing problem here. I'd fix it but am doing this offline.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "having lacked reinforcements " lack of reinforcements

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"stopped fighting" this reads oddly, like they went on strike or something. Is there a more military phrasing that can be made?

• Changed to "halted".

• "to date, " this is unclear in meaning. You probably mean "to that point". More died at Antietam, as I recall, but that was later.

• Yes, you're right. Changed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• You are not consistent re-election vs. reelection

• Should all be unhyphenated now. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Vicksburg

• I'd mention what state it is in at some point. Better yet, a map.

• I added the state. I'm not sure there's room for a map without cutting a picture. I'll think about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "did support" perhaps, "showed his support for"

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't like the way this gives the setting for Vicksburg, then goes back and discusses Gen. Order 11. I would move the info on the order and other 1862 material into the previous section. Go from the setting of Vicksburg to the Vicksburg campaign.

• Moved and tightened prose. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Grant then made a series water movements and diggings attempting to bypass Vicksburg guns" missing "of" before "water" and probably an 's after "Vicksburg". Also, what "water movements and diggings" are is not clear to me.

• I changed that whole awkward sentence to "Grant then attempted a series of maneuvers through the water-logged terrain to bypass Vicksburg's guns; these proved ineffective."

Chattanooga

• Two consecutive sentences begin "On November 2x,"

• Thanks for noticing. I hate that lazy form of prose that runs rampant across the encyclopedia. Changed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "blow up part of the enemy ..." pipe to Battle of the Crater.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "the city's bluffs" Which city? Was Petersburg a city in 1864?

• Yes, this was confusing. Changed to "in the James River". --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln's assassination

• "army intelligence sources were able to narrow the existing threats in Washington " Huh?

I cut the two sentences there -- too much information in an already over-large article. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Commanding general

• "At the war's end, Grant remained commander of the army, with duties that included enforcement of Congressional Reconstruction of the former Confederate states" Congressional Reconstruction could not have started before Congress convened in December 1865 and didn't get started in earnest until the following year. Before that, it was Presidential Reconstruction.

• I don't know how the word "Congressional" got in there Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Johnson argued for a moderate approach to Reconstruction," Hm. Perhaps rather than the conclusion, put in the specifics here as you have them in the sentence beginning "Johnson advocated". I think the way you have it might be disagreed with, with the key word being "moderate"

• Yes. I reworked he section to state the facts of what Johnson wanted, instead of a lazy characterization. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Johnson was about to attempt to unilaterally seat Southern Congressmen" I don't see how he could do this, and more than that, why what you relate regarding weapons would prevent or otherwise him from doing it.

• Yes, that misunderstands the source material (here. I corrected it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• " lest he be rendered politically irrelevant" Short of being found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, I don't see how Grant becomes politically irrelevant here. He's still General of the Army and a huge hero and the favorite in the next election.

• Yes. Deleted that clause. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• "This public humiliation" humiliation seems a bit strong.

• Changed to "public insult". --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

1868 campaign

• "Grant at the age of forty-six was the youngest nineteenth century presidential candidate to take office." Unless I'm missing someone, he was the youngest president to that point, period.

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Johnson declined to ride in Grant's carriage or attend the inauguration at the Capitol." The Johnson article says Grant would not ride with Johnson. If I recall correctly, my Seward sources say the same thing. Also that Grant refused to appoint a liaison to the outgoing administration, as was customary.

• There was snubbing on both sides, but it looks like most of it was on Grant. Changed it, with citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Presidency

• "Secretary of Navy" "of the Navy". Similarly, "of the Treasury". Used in subsequent sections as well. Also "of Interior", later.

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• What's the 1789 statute all about?

• Explained and reworded, with citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Fifteenth Amendment" is not linked on first use.

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Indian peace

• Your capitalization of "army" seems inconsistent (check lede for examples, but I just noticed it in this section)

• Fixed for this section. I'll keep an eye out in for it as I go. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Grant's Peace Policy" why the caps? (used twice)

• Not quite sure. I don't think it's well-known enough to be considered a proper name. Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I find it surprising the article lacks a mention of the transcontinental railroad, completed under Grant, and that certainly affected his Indian policy, among other policies.

Just flipping through some of the sources now, I see that the railroads opposed Indian citizenship, but I see little mention of Indians and the transcontinental. If I come across more, I'll add it where appropriate. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Foreign policy

• I don't recall Seward trying to buy any more of the Dominican Republic than Samana Bay, and don't recall Haiti

• Two concepts got conflated there. Seward recommended the Danish Virgin Islands, Johnson (and the DR goverment) wanted all of Hispaniola. Fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Lincoln" and Johnson

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "it would decrease the number of autonomous nations run by Africans in the western hemisphere" to zero, unless I'm wrong. If I'm right, Sumner's objection, to eliminating the only nation outside Africa run by Africans, could be stated more clearly.

• Yes, that makes sense.

• Is there a reason for a second link to Hamilton Fish?

• No, it's close enough to the first that we don't need it linked again. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Sumner opposed the third-party negotiated Johnson-Clarendon Convention settlement, that was rejected by the Senate," You might want to mention this was under Johnson's presidency and that the Johnson of the settlement's name is a different Johnson.

• I removed the "Johnson-Clarendon" name, and hopefully clarified it a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I am not sure that the stated reason for the Alabama claims makes it clear to the reader why the US considered Britain liable. Though Seward most stridently did object to the declaration of belligerency.

Better now (?) --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Gold standard

• The description of Gould and Fisk's maneuvers seems overly detailed.

• I condensed it a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• The tale of Grant trying to get the nation back on the gold standard is presented very approvingly. I doubt a Keynesian would agree. Just saying.

• I'm not sure I agree, either, but it was the economic consensus at the time, I think.

• "Since his first election Grant sided with both capital and civil rights interests that alienated some party leaders." This could be written more clearly.

• I think it's clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "enforce its recommendations" implement its recommendations, perhaps.

• Done. --16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Many of such men bolted" ahem

• "Many of that faction split from the party in 1872..." Better? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Horace Greeley" did I mention he's at PR?

• I did not know that. Glad to hear it! I'll take a look if I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• The meaning of the cartoon used to illustrate the 1872 campaign is probably incomprehensible to the reader, who probably can't tell which Greeley is without a scorecard. I would find a more illustrative Nast cartoon. There are plenty on the web and at Commons.

• I'm not sure. File:Schurz Defeat of Liberal Republicans.jpg and File:Nast Greeley Grant.jpg could work, but they're all inscrutable to someone not familiar with the period. Is there a particular one you'd suggest? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "gold dollar as the monetary standard" I would insert "sole" before "monetary". The dollar had always been defined in terms of gold, the change was it was no longer defined in terms of silver.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Critics who wanted more money in circulation to raise prices" well ... I think the point was easier credit, though they certainly, taking the debtor's standpoint, didn't mind inflation.

• "Critics who wanted more money in circulation to facilitate easier credit..." might be better? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "failing to fully sell bonds" this reads a bit foggily.

• Might be better now: "...a New York brokerage house collapsed it failed to sell all of the bonds issued by Cooke's railroad, the Northern Pacific Railway..." --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "After the Panic, " since it really wasn't over yet, I would omit this phrase. The end of the sentence dates it.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would make it clear what specie is in the text.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "the number of greenbacks " amount, not number.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Grant's first endorsement" perhaps, "Grant's endorsement in advance"

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• ""Interior Department" is not consistently capitalized.

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "increased qualified candidates" increased the number of qualified candidates, perhaps.

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• "to schools that have any religious affiliation" reads oddly, (the "any"), perhaps "to schools with religious affiliation"

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• The caption on the BEP portrait of Grant should not end in a period as it is not a complete sentence.

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

More anon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Even with your change, you are still italicizing and capitalizing Alabama claims three different ways.

• Should be all capitalized and italicized now. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• "That case, which was unpopular with business interests, held that the federal debt incurred before 1862 be paid in gold, not greenbacks" I don't understand this. Business preferred to be paid in greenbacks?

I'm not sure what that means either. Changed to "In that ruing, which was unpopular with business interests, the court held that the federal government did not have the power to make greenbacks legal tender for payment of debts contracted in gold dollars." --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Conking. Conking ... Cushing. Cushing" back to back names are disfavored

• Fixed --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Election of 1876

• You have three consecutive sentences that start "Grant".

• Fixed --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

World tour

• "Travelling to London, the Grants dined with Queen Victoria at Windsor Castle, and Grant gave several speeches in the city" The "Windsor Castle" is causing a problem with "city" as of course Windsor Castle is not in London.

• Quite right! Fixed --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• " Siam (where Grant met King Chulalongkorn,) Singapore, and Vietnam" so you're using the old name for Thailand but the current name for Vietnam?

• Changed it to "Cochinchina (present-day Vietnam)". --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Third term

• " Electoral College-214 to 155" hyphen trouble

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Business ventures

• The machinations of Mr. Ward are given in too much detail.

• I trimmed the detail a bit, but I think it's important to know why the firm went broke -- that it was criminality, not bad luck or a bad economy. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Memoirs

• "After private services, the military in New York placed Grant's body on a special funeral train and traveled via West Point to New York City," So the military went via West Point?

• I cut "via West Point". I actually hate using the word "via" in most situations. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'd shorten Grand Army of the Republic to GAR instead of saying "Grand Army" for short.
• Fixed. -Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Historical reputation

• I'd split that first paragraph somewhere

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Dictionary of American Biography probably should be italicized

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Grant's reputation, for the most part, remained popular" are reputations popular?

• Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• Why is Grant & Ward italicized?

• I have no idea. Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• I would more clearly separate his military reputation from his political one if possible. You seem to jump around a bit, and there are some questions of chronological order as well. Saying that Grant was savaged by the Dunning School in the early 20th century near the end, when you've mentioned more recent and more favorable comments, seems a bit out of order.

• I rearranged it and tightened the language, but the military and political reputations are still combined. It's kind of hard to separate it without becoming repetitive. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• That's it. It's much improved from last time I saw it. I especially like the historical section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Support

I'd just like to focus on the Historical reputation section. It starts off fine, but becomes muddled, with comments appearing out of chronological order. Here is the order of events:

1. After the war, Grant was seen as a national hero
2. As the Lost Cause myth took hold in the 1890s and early 1900s, Grant became a drunken bumbler and butcher as a general, and a corrupt and incompetent president
3. After World War II, his military reputation was salvaged, and he became seen as a grandfather of the kind of total war that was associated with America's victory in World War II (Most bios of the period omitted his time as president largely or entirely)
4. In the 1970s, the World War II military legacy became attainted as a result of the war in Vietnam, and he became an incompetent butcher again
5. A reassessment of the Reconstruction in the 1980s saw a revival of interest in Grant as president, and a corresponding reevaluation
6. Leading to where we are today, which is somewhat mixed

Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've tweaked the order and wording to be more in line with this. The 1970s reassessment sounds familiar to me, but I'm coming up short on sources. Is there anything you can recommend? I'll keep looking in the meantime. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do:

Rafuse, Ethan Sepp (July 2007). "Still a Mystery? General Grant and the Historians, 1981–2006". The Journal of Military History. 71 (3): 849–874. doi:10.1353/jmh.2007.0230.

Email me if you don't have JSTOR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks for finding that. I'll read it and incorporate it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Some images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).
  • No duplicate links (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 few wikimirrors etc. [50] (no action req'd)
  • In the lead: "In July 1863, after a series of coordinated battles, Grant defeated Confederate armies ...", is there a missing word here before "Confederate armies"?
    • Maybe. I added a "the", but I'm not sure it's necessary. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "...and destroyed the Ku Klux Klan..." - I'm no expert on US history but this seems to be an overstatement, doesn't this organisation still exist (albeit in a different form)? I wonder if a less equivocal term might be used than "destroyed", perhaps "reduced the power of" or "prosecuted" etc.
    • The KKK was pretty well smashed, although other white supremacist groups took its place. More to the point, after Reconstruction ended, there was less "need" for terror, in the mind of white Democrats, since they by then controlled the apparatus of the state. I'll change to "prosecuted," unless I come up with something better. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Some inconsistency in name of Grant's daughter - in one place referred to as Ellen and another as Nellie (if her name was Nellie but she was known as Ellen this should be made clear)
    • It's the reverse: christened "Ellen," called "Nellie." Should be clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "...meeting with Lincoln to devise strategies of total war against the Confederacy...", should this be "strategies for total war"? Perhaps also wikilink "total war".
    • I changed it to "a strategy of total war" and linked it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Typo here I think: "Grant was initially skeptical, but at the urging of the Admiral Porter...", specifically "the Admiral Porter".
    • Yes, removed the "the". --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "... believing that England should directly pay $2 billion in gold...", probably should be Britain nor England.
    • Right. Changed to "Britain." --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "...and the defeat of Colonel Custer...", should just be Custer, removing rank following formal introduction at first use per WP:SURNAME.
    • Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "In 1884, Grant's personal reputation came under suspicion after the collapse of Grant & Ward, but rebounded after the immense popularity of his 1885 Memoirs." Is there a reference to support this?
    • No, strangely. I've reworked the sentence, with citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) I ended up cutting that line when I rewrote some of the historical reputation section. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • A few of the references are missing isbns / oclcs / issns. These can be found through WorldCat.org so you might consider adding them for consistency.
    • I didn't even know ISSNs were a thing! I've added them, and the OCLCs that were missing. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Gday - I've had another look now. Happy that you have addressed all my comments and can see quite a lot of work has occurred making other improvements as well. My only remaining concern is the amount of uncited material that there is in the article. Indeed there are quite a few paragraphs with sentences at the end that do not have a citation, which makes it unclear what the source is (at least to me). With the exception of the information about Grant appearing on the 50 dollar bill and possibly the stamps, the majority do not appear to be WP:BLUE so they will need citations. If these can be added I'd be most happy to support. If you need me to point out the places I'm talking about pls let me know and I'll add citation needed tags. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I've added these tags now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
          • I think all of the tags are replaced by proper citations now. As to the rest, I'm not sure citations are needed. WP:CITE says "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." I can't see any of these being challenged. Maybe I'm wrong, but the idea that there's a statue in a park seems non-controversial. If you disagree, I'll see what I can do about getting some sort of citations for them. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Yes I agree, happy with the citations now. I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comments
• "At Monterrey, he demonstrated his equestrian ability, carrying a dispatch through sniper-lined streets while mounted in one stirrup." I couldn't really envisage in my mind how he would look "while mounted in one stirrup"; I'm not a horseman myself, and I couldn't quite see why he wouldn't have just put his other foot in his other stirrup. Is there any way of making it clearer why he did this?
  • Yeah, that didn't make much sense. I looked it up in Smith and rewrote it, with a new citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• "He grew unhappy separated from his family, and rumors circulated that he was drinking to excess." - have historians formed a judgement about his likely drinking during this period?
  • There's a note to that effect, which I moved up from later in the section. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• "He was responsible for issuing supplies and horses to the Corps of Engineers headed by Captain George B. McClellan who became upset when Grant was rumored to have been on a drunken spree.[30] The commanding officer at Fort Humboldt, brevet Lieutenant Colonel Robert C. Buchanan, received reports that Grant became intoxicated off-duty while seated at the pay officer's table. " This was a little unclear as to whether the "drunken spree" is the same as the off-duty incident, or if these are different issues/incidents.
  • The McClellan sentence was added after the rest of the paragraph was written. It's just repetitive, so I cut it altogether. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Some of the numbers as words are compliant with the MOS, I think; "forty-six", "sixteen", "thirty-seven" etc. should normally be 46, 16, 37 etc.
  • Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• A lot of the names of other people in the article are given complete with middle names - e.g. "several non-politicians to his cabinet, including Adolph E. Borie and Alexander Turney Stewart". My personal advice would to normally express these in the simplest form possible, e.g. "Adolph Borie and Alexander Stewart", as it would make some of the paragraphs easier to read. In most cases, they're not going to be confused with anyone else I think.
  • I thought a bit about that as I wrote. In the end, I opted to use the most common form of the person's name, usually based on the sources and how their articles are titled. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Not an ACR requirement, but if it was going to FAC, I'd be recommending making the paragraphs shorter; some of them are very long, and particularly hard to read on a screen as a result.
  • Good point. I split a few, but feel free to do more if you think it's better. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• There seems to be a body of literature quite critical of Grant's Indian policy, and giving a very different slant on his approach - some Google books links with examples of this are https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Uyh8kdcuA1kC&pg=PA146&dq=president+grant+indian+policy+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TvOnVMyQEojOaJKFgMAP&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=president%20grant%20indian%20policy%20genocide&f=false; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GWkCCAN17HcC&pg=PA213&dq=president+grant+indian+policy+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fvOnVMXKLILVar6igIgI&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=president%20grant%20indian%20policy%20genocide&f=false; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sDdKrwiDZq8C&pg=PA576&dq=president+grant+indian+policy+genocide&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0fOnVJzuHJXzaprOgKAI&ved=0CB8Q6AEwADgU#v=onepage&q=president%20grant%20indian%20policy%20genocide&f=false. I'm not an expert on Grant or the Indian policies of the period, but should this be reflected somewhere, even if as a minority opinion?
  • I'll take a look there, and re-examine the main sources for more nuance. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Should the charges of drunkeness, which seem to have dogged his career and have been brought up by later historians, be mentioned in the lead? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's one of the main things people know about Grant, unfortunately, but maybe having it in the lede is a bit much. I'll cut it. I misunderstood. I thought you were saying it was in there, and shouldn't be. You're saying maybe it should be in the lede? I'm reluctant to add it, both because it's a pretty minor (if well-known) part of Grant's life, and because the lede is already longer than I'd like. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wehwalt:, @Anotherclown:, @Hawkeye7:, and @Hchc2009:: I think I've addressed all of your comments. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll give it another read through.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm doing some hands on copyediting, but there are still a few issues I see:

• "army" and "academy" are inconsistently capitalized.

• Should be fixed. Army is now only capitalized as part of a proper name, like "Army of the Potomac"

• "The failures confirmed Jesse Grant's belief that his son had no head for business, frustrating both father and son." Technically you are saying that the confirmation of JG's belief frustrated both father and son. In a way, that's true, but I think it should be rephrased to make the failures directly responsible for the frustration.

• I deleted the whole clause. It's kind of repetitive.

• Something could be said about the strategic significance of the capture of Henry and Donelson, which controlled the river traffic in central Tennessee.

• Good point. Done.

• " nine miles south at Pittsburg Landing near Shiloh" nine miles south of what? Also you probably should use a convert template there.

• I think that's a relic of editing and overediting. I took out "nine miles south" --Coemgenus (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• How could Grant remain at home in Galena during the '68 campaign? Wasn't he still in the army(Army)?

• I added some detail to clarify it. According to McFeely, Grant remained in Washington until July, then went to Galena until at least election day. There was a telegraph connection, but it seems to have been used for campaign business. He didn't return to his office in the War Department until after the election. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• " or attend the inauguration at the Capitol" I'm not sure this is 100% correct. According to my Seward refs, there were negotiations and the proposal (which Johnson declined) was that they ride in carriages side by side, with Johnson (after all, still president) on the right, in the position of honor. And Seward still hoped to persuade Johnson to go even on the morning of March 4.

• I changed it to "Grant's presidency began with a break from tradition, as Johnson did not attend Grant's inauguration at the Capitol or ride with him as he departed the White House for the last time.{{sfn|McFeely 1981|p=287}}" There's a lot of note-sending and protocol issues that I left out for brevity. Briefly, as I understand it, both men wanted to look like they wanted to go together, but neither actually did.

• "federal laws would be enforced in the South when state courts and prosecutors were reluctant to do so. " is this the job of state courts and prosecutors, to enforce federal laws?

• Clearly not! I cut everything after "in the South," since it was nonsense.

• If that Grant BEP portrait is the one on the $50 bill, that's worth a mention in the caption. You might want to consult with Godot13 (whom I'm pinging all over the place today).

• It's not. I have never seen this portrait used on U.S. currency. I suspect it was engraved by G.F.C. Smillie, BEP Chief Engraver (1894 – 1922). The $50 portrait was engraved by John Eissler and the $5 silver certificate was engraved by Lorenzo Hatch.--Godot13 (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• The saga of replacing Chase as Chief Justice could probably be shortened.

• Done.

• "and South Carolina to keep the peace" I suppose, though it really had more to do with the Hampton-Chamberlain disputed election than Hayes-Tilden. There's an unreferenced sentence at the end of the section.

• You're right, it did. Don't know when that bit got added, but I took it out and reworked the whole paragraph. I should keep a closer eye on things!

• "Returning to the continent," I'm thinking that in this context, "continent" should be capitalized. After all, whether they like it or not, Britain's in Europe (at least until UKIP gets in!)

• Done. Maybe we'll revise it in May after the election!

• "I'm not sure that your pipe of securities to security interest is correct. Surely what they were buying was stocks and bonds? Security interests are ... well, kinda like a lien.

• I should probably have taken secured transactions in law school. Changed to Security (finance).

That's it, again. Well done. I saw your nomination of Weaver, I will get to it but it may take me several days as I have several other reviews promised and I'm trying to finish up Tillman.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Pitchfork Ben! Looking forward to it. Thanks for the review. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I see everyone who might have had further questions was pinged on the 13th. Reading quickly, I don't see evidence of questions that haven't been addressed. I'll report this at the coord's talk page for closing, but I'll keep an eye here in case last-minute questions pop up. Anotherclown, are you happy with the referencing? - Dank (push to talk) 14:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2015 (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, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

SMS Cormoran (1892)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Cormoran (1892) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another German warship up for your delectation, this one was one of a handful of unprotected cruisers built for policing Germany's overseas colonies in the 1890s. Cormoran ended her career by being scuttled in Tsingtao at the outbreak of World War I, with her guns going to arm another Cormoran. Thanks for all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: not much for me to comment on really. Great work as always:

• there are no dab links (no action required)
• there are a couple of duplicate links: armored cruiser, Hong Kong, SMS Condor, gunboat, SMS Iltis
  • Should be taken care of now.
• the images seemed appropriately licenced, although there may be a requirement to add a US licence to the SLQ items prior to FAC
  • Added to the two that were missing them, thanks for catching this.
• the information in the infobox appears to match the body of the article (no action required)
• the article seems fully referenced (no action required)
• the citation style seems consistent (no action required)
• there were no major grammatical errors that I could find, although it may benefit from a quick copy edit before FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks as always for your thorough review, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Support with minor query

• Greta work as ever.
• "The gun armament was rounded out by five revolver cannon." - I've normally seen these referred to as "revolving" cannon, rather than "revolver cannon", but that may be a land environment thing! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like revolver cannon might be confined more to naval/aerial usage - our article is at revolver cannon, and it only covers types used on ships or in aircraft (while the Hotchkiss gun article refers to one land variant as a revolving cannon). Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comments - a few minor points:Support
  • The Citation Check tool reveals the following errors with reference consolidation:
    • Gardiner, p. 253 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • G253 (Multiple references are using the same name)
      • Fixed both of the above
  • Not sure about the date on File:StateLibQld_1_55044_Cormoran_(ship).jpg - it states "by 1917" however the ship was obviously sunk in 1914.
    • Yeah, it's a wee unlikely that the photo was taken after 1914 ;)
  • "...where she paid an official visit to the sultan...", should sultan be capitalised here?
    • My sense is that titles are only capitalized when they're used in conjunction with a person's name (so, for instance, "President Obama" but "the American president"). But I could well be wrong.
  • "...under the command of Rear Admiral Hoffmann..." - do we know Hoffmann's full name? If so it should be added per WP:SURNAME
    • The Liste deutscher Admirale has not failed me yet - if only there were equivalent lists for other national navies.
  • Suggest wikilinking Sydney at first use.
    • Done.
  • Are there some words missing here: "...During this period, she and the protected cruiser7,000 ihp (5,200 kW) Hansa..."
    • Huh, I have no idea how the hp figure got pasted there.
  • Wikilink Toma (see Toma, Papua New Guinea)
    • Done.
  • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Those changes look good. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 16 January 2015 (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) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Rudolf Frank

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Rudolf Frank (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 of similar articles gone to A-class. Unfortunately it is rather thin on his personal life so the reviewers may feel that the article is not quite up to A-class standards. I am thankful for any constructive feedback. I hope you enjoy the read. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Very interesting article, and nicely done, as usual. Yes, it is thin on his personal life, but he's notable for things beyond that. And he was so young!

• I've made some minor tweaks throughout: verbs, a few spelling glitches (usually betwixt between American and British English) and smoothed out a few phrases. Feel free to revert or discuss.
• I did not do a photo check, but leaving that to someone who is a master of those things.
• I thought article met A class review requirements. auntieruth (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• c/e'd a few minor things, feel free to revert.
• suggest deleting Note 1, which disrupts the flow of the lead, and adding a "See also" section

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• suggest Bomber Command of the Royal Air Force (RAF)

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

more to come

• waiting, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Early life and career

• The use of Mittlere Reife without providing a translation is problematic, a reader has to follow the link to even get an idea what we are talking about, I suggest inserting (school leaving certificate) after the link.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• 2nd squadron and 1st squadron further down appear to be a proper title of a unit, suggest 2nd Squadron etc

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• drop "the" from at the Nachtjagdschule 1

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

World War II

• for consistency with use of German ranks, private should be Gefreiter

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Night fighter pilot

• "Mk V" doesn't need scare quotes

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• do we know when he qualified on the Do217J night fighter?

• Not mentioned by Schumann, do you know? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• it is probably worth pointing out that the Do217J was a night fighter variant of the Do217 bomber

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• suggest flew further missions in

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• suggest Frank avoided an official reprimand

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Frank and his crew? Wasn't it just Frank and Schierholz? If so, I'd say that.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• one of the instances of "night fighter" is hyphenated, I don't see the need

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• suggest crew were again, or Frank and Schierholz

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• suggest 14th victory overall

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• suggest TheHis unit

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• this might sound a little better his aircraft was hit in the right engine by enemy fire

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• no idea what model the British intruder was?

• I checked again, not mentioned in my reference MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross

• suggest Frank managed to bring the aircraft down at Gießen.

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• do we know when he got married?

• Unfortunately I don't, my sources only show his wedding picture without a date. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• shot down in the early morning at 02:11 is tautological, suggest shot down at 02:11

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Death and posthumous honors

• suggest Debris from the Lancaster

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Geschwaderkommodore Oberstleutnant Lent should just be Lent per WP:SURNAME

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• suggest moving on 27 April to the beginning of the sentence

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Generalleutnant Schmid, commander of the I. Jagdkorps should just be Schmid per WP:SURNAME

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• suggest Frank was also posthumously promoted to Leutnant

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• the image licensing seems fine to me.
• all images have alt text
• all toolchecks are ok
• no overlinking

So, largely prose-related comments, the article is in great shape. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

• " a secondary school built on the mid-level Realschule": I don't know what that means.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments: just a couple of quick comments from me at this stage:

• "1st night fighter school" --> I think this should be captialised as "1st Night Fighter School" as it would appear to be a proper noun (for instance compare it to "3rd Night Fighter Wing");

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• same as above for "1st destroyer school" and "1st supplemental training squadron";

• done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• in the notes section is it necessary for "List of German World War II night fighter aces" to be presented in italics? It seems inconsistent with other links. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• done, thanks for the review MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comment -- Sorry it's taken me so long to show up, MB... For the benefit of other reviewers, I copyedited, commented upon, and passed the article at GAN. The only caveat I raised there for higher-level assessments was the website references Aircrew Remembered, Royal Air Force Commands, and Airwar Over Denmark. Not having come across them before, they look to me like the work of quite serious enthusiasts, and I would've thought we could do better than these at ACR (or FAC). Alternatively, perhaps the info cited to these sources is not so vital that it couldn't be dropped if no other sources can be found. So I can't see myself supporting for A-Class at the moment, but happy to discuss... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this reference other than this was the only source I found whichs links these claim to an explicit aircraft. Regarding Aircrew Remembered you find a reference to the book, which I don't have access to, in the further reading section of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

G'day Ian Rose, just to clarify, are you opposing here? Otherwise, I'm going to put it up for closure on the basis of a consensus to promote. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Tks very much for checking, PM. Yeah, I guess I need to declare an oppose here for now. Sorry to be a hard-arse on this but I'm yet to be convinced that we should be treating these particular websites as having the same reliability as the book sources. Having examined each instance in which the websites are used, it seems to me that they are just providing a little extra detail on the aircraft shot down, but not on the fact of the shootdowns themselves from Frank's perspective. IOW, as far as I can see we could remove the sources and any extra info they provide without hurting the key facts in the article, and be left with a more robust set of references in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledge. I understand Ian's position here. However I am going to leave the article as is. When the review period expires I suggest to not promoting the article. I believe leaving the information in is in better interest of our readers, even if it means that the article does not get promoted. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise? How about putting the material about which Ian has a question into a note? After all, just because a group that put out the source material are "enthusiasts" doesn't mean they are wrong. Most of us aren't trained military historians, right, but we can still get our facts right? Just a thought. I found this a very interesting article, actually, and was not concerned about that particular reference. auntieruth (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no concerns with the use of those websites in this case, they comprise additional information about the callsign/number of the aircraft involved, but that is pretty minor detail added to that reliably sourced information from Schumann, I don't think they represent material likely to be challenged. With respect to Ian's oppose, the ACR requirement is consensus for promotion, not whether there are any opposes. Given we have three supports, and Ian's oppose is very specific, perhaps if all three supports reconsider the contentious websites and still believe it meets the A-class criteria, we have a consensus to promote anyway? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tks for commenting, Ruth. Moving the web-sourced info to footnotes might be help a bit but doesn’t really allay my concerns about maintaining high referencing standards at ACR (and FAC, if that’s the next destination after this). Of course enthusiastic amateurs can get their facts right. The thing is that here on WP, we enthusiastic amateurs are required to cite those facts to reliable sources, and the people who produce these sites are not. I’d be interested in getting Nikkimaria here for a dedicated source review given her experience at it here and at FAC. Her thoughts might well help us achieve consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The detail from RAFCommands appears to be supported by this source, which could be used instead - I wouldn't support continuing to use the current source in that case. The Flensted site generally has previously been cited by more reliable source (eg), so I would consider that one to be an allowable SPS. The Aircrew Remembered site I'm on the fence about: one author, Wingham, is a published author on this topic, but then we're citing him regarding his own work, which isn't generally a good practice; the other author, Mole, I can't find much about. Do we have any more details on him? In any event, I would definitely prefer to see a truly independent source to cite the sentence on the Wingham book. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for looking into this. I cited what I found in Chorley's books (online search). I left the former reference in for now. I was unable to verify two aircraft details in Chorley's online books. Does someone have access to the printed books? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

What do the reviewers think of this source, or this one, or this? MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the second one looks like it might be ok, I don't know much about Pen and Sword publishers. The first one just seems like a personal blog, the link to the last one is not working for me at present. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:22, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

By popular demand, I removed the links MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose can you reconsider your oppose? If you are happy, I think we can go ahead and promote. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, tks very much MB and everyone else. I just tweaked text a tiny bit following changes since I last read it, supporting now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2015 (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, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Egon Mayer

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Egon Mayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am asking for another A-Class review, thanks to all contributing. I am pushing the envelope on this one with respect to my own expectations regarding the coverage of this article. The article is really pretty thin on his personal life. However, I don't think that there are more sources available to consult, if there are, please let me know. Thanks again and I hope you at least enjoyed the read. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Comment: G'day, MisterBee, I only took a quick look, sorry. I think there is a little inconsistency between the lead and the body. In the lead we have "volunteered for military service in the Luftwaffe of the Third Reich in 1936" but in the Early life section we have "Following his graduation, Mayer volunteered for military service in Luftwaffe on 1 November 1937". Should the "1936" in the lead be changed to "1937"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

good spot! 1937 is correct, must have been a typo. Thanks for the catch MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

• there is some English variation inconsistency: "organisation" (British) but "Defense" (US)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• is there are citation that could be provided for Note 1?
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• "Recent research suggests that..." perhaps say who carried out this research. For instance, "Recent research by historian John Smith suggests..."
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• do we know the names of his parents? If the sources don't say, no worries...
  • sorry no MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• are there any details about a wife/fiancee? If the sources don't mention anything, that is fine...
  • none to my knowledge MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
• "File:Rsjhnson.jpg": the source on this is Wikipedia...is there a better source that could be used, i.e. what is the original source before upload to Wikipedia? Additionally, is there a date that could be provided? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I found multiple versions of this image on the internet, example Carolinas Aviation Museum, what do we need to make it work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I removed the image until the issue is sorted out MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I've added my support now, as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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

• " a secondary school built on the mid-level Realschule": I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• " Hegau-Gymnasium": Not for A-class. If sources (English sources preferably, but in German if that's all you can find) support an article on the English WP, create an article and link to it. If the article is deleted for lack of notability (unlikely), then we shouldn't be linking to it even in the German WP, because a link to any article implies that it's linkworthy per en.wp standards; in that case, go with "He went to school at the Langemarck-Realgymnasium (now the Hegau-Gymnasium) ...".

• Thanks, I created a stub MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Copyedited so happy with prose but let me know any issues; one outstanding point:
  • Seems the first thing that happens to him in WWII is the award of the Iron Cross 2nd Class on 25 October 1939 -- is there no info on why exactly, or at least what he did between 1 Sep and 25 Oct?
    • Thanks for the ce, so far I was unable to identify what happened in this timeframe MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Just a thought, have you been able to get hold of this book? Only snippet view on GoogleBooks but appears to have an overview of his career... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for looking into this. No I don't have access to this book. Although I don't know for sure, I have my doubts that another generic German aces book would cover a very specific timeframe of Mayer's career, a timeframe which had little relevance in comparison those periods which made him excel above others. Since the book was written in 1982, I would assume that Stockert would have incorporated this info into his book. I believe this is a gap of 2 months in his career which we can't addess at this moment. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Sure. Just to be clear, it wasn't the two-month gap in his career in itself that interested me, it was what he might have done in that period to warrant the award of the Iron Cross 2nd Class -- so I take it that, as well as Stockert not mentioning how he earned it, there's no equivalent of The London Gazette that might include the citation for the award? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
            • I understand what you are asking, and I asked this question myself. I have to admit that none of my sources say what he did in this timeframe. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
              • Okay, tks for trying -- can't be helped. I expect I'll support once the File:Rsjhnson.jpg thingie is sorted (maybe ping Nikki for an opinion?). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
                • I removed the image until the issue is sorted out MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
                  • Okay, works for me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Aside from the above, detail seems fine; at MilHist ACR level, I'm not too fussed about personal life being a bit thin, though it may be considered more of a concern at FAC.
• Structure is straightforward.
• No image issues from me except I echo Rupert's query re. File:Rsjhnson.jpg.
• No sourcing issues from me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 21 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.