Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2012/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.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Vannevar Bush

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Vannevar Bush was an engineer was an American engineer, inventor and science administrator known for his work on analog computers, as the founder of Raytheon, and for the memex, an adjustable microfilm viewer analogous to the structure of the World Wide Web. What brings him here is his role as an initiator and administrator of the Manhattan Project Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments

• "pressed for the creation of the Legislation to create" - repetitive, and why the caps?
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Bush stuck to his guns" is a bit cliched
  • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Don't use contractions
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Publisher for FN82?
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure this is a reliable source.
  • All we have, unfortunately. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments: Sorry, I've only taken a quick look at this. I will try to come back a bit later and read through it more thoroughly. It's quite comprehensive, so may take me a while the get through. I made a couple of minor tweaks and have the following points at this stage:
  • the last part of the fourth paragraph of the Early life and work section might need a citation as it appears to be unreferenced: "Bush found backing from Laurence K. Marshall and Richard S. Aldrich to create the Spencer Thermostat Company, which hired Bush as a consultant. The new company soon had revenues in excess of a million dollars."
    • Ref addeded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • this might need a citation: "Bush remained a member of NACA through 1948".
  • Also, would it work as: "Bush remained a member of NACA until 1948"?
    • Yes. Done that, added a ref. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this is a US English thing or not, but should "antiaircraft guns" be "anti-aircraft guns"?
    • I think that the hyphen is British and that the Americans use one word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • is there something missing here: "He toured the Western Front in October 1944, and spoke to ordnance but no senior commander..."? (specifically "spoke to ordnance"... ordnance what?);
    • Added missing word.
  • (nitpick) in the References this is inconsistent: "Washington, DC" v. "Washington, D.C." I wasn't sure what the convention is, so I left it;
    • Settled on "D.C." Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Carnegie Institution for Science section there are two links (CIW and CIS), one of which links back to the other. It might make sense to cull the redirect link here;
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • the duplicate link checker highlights a few possibilities: General Electric, World War I, Brigadier General (United States), Major General (United States), Rear Admiral (United States), Tufts College, United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Science Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Johns Hopkins University, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "During World War I Bush worked with..." I wonder if, for context, it might be clearer as: "In 1917, following the United States' entry into World War I, Bush went to work with the National Research Council..." (or something similar);
  • "During World War I, AMRAD prospered with military contracts..." --> maybe better as: "During World War I, AMRAD had prospered with military contracts..."
  • "which allowed the organization to hit the ground running" (possibly a little too informal);
  • capitalisation here: "40,000 per day.[51] "if one looks at the proximity fuze program as a whole," historian... ("if one..." looks like it is the start of a new sentence);
  • "Bush briefed Roosevelt on the Tube Alloys, the British atomic bomb project..." Would this work as: "Bush briefed Roosevelt on Tube Alloys, the British atomic bomb project" (removal of the "the"). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
    • These have been addressed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "known for his work on analog computers, his role as an initiator and administrator of the Manhattan Project, as the founder of Raytheon, and for the memex ...": Nonparallel. I'd go with: known for his work on analog computers, for his role as an initiator and administrator of the Manhattan Project, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex
• "an adjustable microfilm viewer analogous to the structure of the World Wide Web. He is credited with inspiring the creation of the New Media.": I don't get a hit on "New Media" below the lead, and this is hard to understand. Importing from the last paragraph of the lead, since it's so prophetic: "an adjustable microfilm viewer that influenced generations of computer scientists. In 1945, Bush published As We May Think in which he predicted that "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified"."
• "six–thousand": six thousand
• "was a driving force behind it receiving the top priority": WP:PLUSING (pronoun plus -ing, in this case)
• "to it being sold": to selling it, or to its sale. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
• Your edits on the above look good.
• "... Dr. Robert H. Goddard, who was regarded as a loner and a crank.": Calling someone a "loner and a crank" needs in-text attribution. If sufficient attribution will be too much of a digression, another option is to tone it down.
  • How does it sound now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. [I stopped listing my edits for a while because the toolserver was lagging for weeks; hopefully it's fixed now.] - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • In the NDRC section, why is Karl Compton the only one without his position identified?
    • Because I already said he was President of MIT in the previous section. Should this be repeated? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, I missed that when I read through. So perhaps don't link his name again, since (at least to me) that seems like you're introducing him again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Sure. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In the National Science Foundation section, it notes that Bush was open to prosecution over conflict of interest issues from the war. Was he ever charged with anything? If not, why mention this?
    • No, he was never charged; but it was the reason for his desire to wind up the organisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • That explains it much better. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The source link for File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG is dead.
    • Link rot. Switched to another location. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I made a couple of tweaks, hopefully they're ok. Parsecboy (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • They're great! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks good to me now, so I'm moving to support. The Compton thing is pretty minor, and you don't have to do anything with it if you don't want to. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

James Bryant Conant

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

James B. Conant was a chemist, educational administrator, government official and diplomat. What brings him here is his role as an administrator of the Manhattan Project Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Page for FN 63?
  • Added URL Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Publisher for FN 47?
  • Added publisher. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• "One of the contributing causes was Conant's faulty test procedures" - can you explain a bit more?
  • All I have is what Conant says: "The account Loomis gave me of what had actually happened showed that the procedure had been formulated erroneously, which was no one's fault except my own." (p. 45)
• "He went to work...where he worked", "OSRD handed over the atomic bomb project...over to the Army" - repetitive
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Do we know why the sons didn't have his surname?
  • Because I left them out. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• "unlike some other Universities" - why the caps?
  • Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• "It diminished further" - why?
  • Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: looks good overall. I made a number of minor tweaks. I have the following suggestions/comments:
  • the duplicate link checker reveals a number of examples of possible overlink: Harvard Medical School, Roger Adams, Columbia University, National Academy of Sciences, Harry S. Truman, United States Atomic Energy Commission,
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Hershberg 1993, pp. 50–43" --> "Hershberg 1993, pp. 50–53"?
    • Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent caps: "awarded honorary degrees" v "an Honorary degree on Conant";
    • Used lower case consistently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "With L. K. Nash, eds. Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science". Is this the title, or should it just be "Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science"? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • The latter. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Support, with minor comments below:

• "The first part, supervised by Richards, was about "The Electrochemical Behavior of Liquid Sodium Amalgams"" - "concerned" vice "about"? Also, the MOS would allow a lower case "The" if you wanted it, to smooth the flow.
  • Changed the wording, but kept "The". Have your say on this important issue here; I'm not touching it because I'm already over my wiki-drama quota for this month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Subtly different parts of the MOS... I'd go out on a limb over Liquid Sodium Amalgams, but no number of barnstars would cause me to venture into the correct use of the definite article with music groups... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Their marriage produced two sons..." To me this felt a little archaic as a formulation; could it run on from the previous sentence instead? "They were married in the Appleton Chapel at Harvard on April 17, 1920, and had two sons..."?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• "He supported the "meatballs" as lower class students were called." I'd have gone for a comma after meatballs.
  • Me too. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
• "Conant did so as member of the Educational Policies Commission..." did what? I wasn't sure if this was his calling for a ban in the previous but one sentence or not.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "A graduate of Harvard, which awarded him his Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1916": Graduating Harvard with a Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1916
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
    • My mistake, Garner's likes "Graduating from Harvard", I'll fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• "James Bryant Conant (March 26, 1893 – February 11, 1978) was a chemist, educational administrator, government official and diplomat. As the President of Harvard University he reformed it as a research institution. A graduate of Harvard ...": I understand you want to get the important stuff in first, but I'm not on board here. How about this? "James Bryant Conant (March 26, 1893 – February 11, 1978) was a chemist, a transformative president of Harvard University, and the first U.S. Ambassador to West Germany. Graduating Harvard ..."
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• "bomb, and, as part of the Interim Committee advised President Harry S. Truman to use atomic bombs on Japan.": needs a second comma after "Committee", but that's a lot of commas. How about this? "bomb, and was on the Interim Committee that advised President Harry S. Truman to use atomic bombs on Japan."
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• "After the war, he served on the influential General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and the Joint Research and Development Board (JRDC), which was established to coordinate defense research.": Here's one way to deal with the problem of "which was" in a compound object (considered redundant by some and necessary by others), namely: "After the war, he served on the Joint Research and Development Board (JRDC), established to coordinate defense research, and on the influential General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)." Does that work here?
  • Sounds good. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• "during which time he oversaw": overseeing
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• "He then became the first United States Ambassador to West Germany, serving until 1957.": If you take my suggestion for the first sentence, you can get away with less here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Sure. I removed "educational administrator, government official", since that's implied by "president of Harvard University, and the first U.S. Ambassador to West Germany". - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at James_Bryant_Conant#Chemistry professor. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [1] (no action required)
  • External links all check out [2] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • Images are all PD and seem appropriate for article.
  • Is there a missing word here: "An incident took place during 1941 Harvard–Navy lacrosse game...", specifically would this work better: "An incident took place during the 1941 Harvard–Navy lacrosse game..." Anotherclown (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Added missing word. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This is an excellent article, an example of our best work. I couldn't find anything to comment on, or any improvements to suggest. Great work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Pavle Đurišić

Nominator(s): ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) and Peacemaker67 (talk)

Peacemaker67 and I are nominating this article for review because we believe it meets the criteria for A-class status. ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Images: File:Pavle Durisic.jpg lacks source information and I request you fill out the FUR somewhat mroe thoroughly: why isn't it replaceable, etc. ?

File:Pavle Đurišić Iron Cross.jpg has a bizarre life+100 tag for an image created in 1944. What is the rationale behind that?

All other files lack a valid US copyright tag, which is a requirement.

Oppose on those grounds. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I will address these concerns. Give me another day. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 22:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. I've expanded the FUR as requested and added what I believe to be the appropriate US licenses after doing a bit of research on the matter. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and have the following comments to make:

Style Generally, OK but I did make changes throughout. Please review these to make sure I haven't changed any meanings - the most significant change was to the second paragraph of the "Italian Occupation of Montenegro 1941-1943" section.

I reviewed your changes and they look fine to me. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

References - I can't spot check the references as I don't have any of the rather specialised books on this subject, but applying good faith, article looks well referenced. Each paragraph has at least one inline citation, with some having several. The main sources are books and the remaining appear to be news websites.

The majority of the references are available on Google books and can be checked when in doubt. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Content - I am not at all familiar with the subject matter, but as a non-specialist, my major concern with the article is that there is no information about Đurišić prior to 1941, schooling, profession, position etc... The article really needs an "Early life" section to lead into the "World War II" section. The article mentions he was a captain, but in what? It is only with very careful reading that it becomes apparent that he was in the Yugoslav army - this needs to be improved. There is also no context for Draža Mihailović - what was his authority for making Đurišić commander of forces in Montenegro?

I've found a source detailing his early life and expanded that section accordingly. I'll add a bit of context for Mihailović. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The "early life" section looks good and makes the article much more complete IMO. I've done a bit of a tweak of the text but some the links in the next section (WWII) needs to be moved into the "early life" section, e.g. Italy/Albania. However, it is still not clear which army he joined in 1927. Ideally, the second paragraph would read something like "...commissioned as an infantry lieutenant in the X army...". A link to the specific army should be in the infobox as well. On reviewing the article again, another area I think may need some improvement is the "Commemoration controversy". It seems like it needs a sentence or two about Đurišić's legacy in Berane - presumably he was well thought of, which would explain why a monument was proposed in the first place. Otherwise it seems odd to celebrate his memory given his conduct against the Muslim population. Zawed (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Early life: Clarified it was the Royal Yugoslav Army and added that allegiance to the infobox. Don't know how that slipped my mind.

Commemoration controversy: Added that the town was where he founded his headquarters and that residents consider it the "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" hence the name. That its "odd" is something that any rational outsider would conclude, but this is in the Balkans and such praise of mad men is not uncommon. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I just did another passover of the article, just needs clarification of who Mihailović was, as per my earlier comments, and then I will be happy to support. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 has already modified the sentence about Djurisic's promotion slightly. Legally Mihailovic didn't have any authority, but then again he wasn't bound to as this was done solely on his initiative. The Chetniks were only recognized by the royal Yugoslav government in exile as the new army in January 1942. To be honest I think the previous sentence was fine as no source questions whether or not Djurisic was promoted by him. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Still needs context for Mihailovic and his position within the Chetniks. How about replacing the first sentence of the "Italian Occupation of Montenegro 1941–1943" section with: "In October 1941, Draža Mihailović, a prominent Chetnik leader supported by the Yugoslav government-in-exile, appointed Đurišić as the commander of all regular and reserve troops in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak." There is no need to mention the trial itself, which has no relevance to this article. And reviewing this article again, I think the WWII section needs a sentence just explaining what the Chetniks were. It could be as simple as amending the sentence "The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists..." to read "The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists, who would organise themselves into the Chetniks,..." Your thoughts? Zawed (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added your suggestions. I noted that Mihailovic was "later supported" per above. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

At this stage, I oppose due to my concerns with content. Happy to look at this again once the nominator responds. Zawed (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Support as concerns now addressed. Zawed (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• See WP:MOS#Quotation marks; use double rather than single quotes.
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
• SupportComments: Good work so far, but I think it needs a little more work to make it to A-class. These are my comments/suggestions:
  • wikilinks: I suggest adding links for "platoon" and "company" on first mention to help non-specialist readers understand these units/formations;
    • Done. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent English variation: "organized" and "organise";
    • Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • this sounded a little awkward to me: "killed about 1,200 Muslim fighters and about 8,000 old people, women, and children, and destroyed all property except for livestock, grain and hay, which they seized". Perhaps replace "old people" with "elderly people" and change the order of the list, for example: "about 8,000 women, children and elderly people, and destroyed all property that they had seized except for livestock, grain and hay";
    • Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent use of double or single quotation marks. E.g. you use single here: northern Montenegro and was described as 'a law unto himself'; but you use double here: for "cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina" amongst. As Dank says above, the MOS asks for double;
    • Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Đurišić and his local Chetniks were also impatient to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region". Could some explanation of this be added? Why were they wanting to turn on them? It probably only needs a small clause or sentence to explain this;
    • Appended "due to their animosity towards them" to the sentence. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • capitalisation: per WP:Section caps the capitalisation in the section headers is incorrect in a number of instances (i.e where it isn't a proper noun only the first letter of the first world in the header should be capitalised). For example, "Capture and Release" should be "Capture and release";
    • Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I found this a little awkward: "On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians, and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children". Perhaps reword to: "On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that supported by the Italians, Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported, and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children";
    • The Muslim militia was supported by the Italians. Your version implies the Italians supported the massacre. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • No worries. Apologies, I found it hard to keep it straight in my mind who was fighting who, but that is probably because it appears to be a very complex situation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: ...carry out "cleansing actions" against... and then ...orders for 'cleansing actions' against ...
    • Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "partisan" and "Partisan";
    • Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Corps consisted of some of Đurišić's former soldiers that were released..." This might be smoother as: "The Corps consisted of some of Đurišić's former soldiers who had been released...";
    • Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "By this time, whilst he still formally owed allegiance to..." This might sound smoother as: "By this time, although he still formally owed allegiance to...";
    • Done. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "he also owed some allegiance to the Germans and Nedić..." Perhaps smoother as: "he also owed some allegiance to the Germans and to Nedić..." (emphasis added to highlight the suggested change only);
    • Done. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces had to to withdraw from Montenegro..." Could something be said as to why, so that the reader has a little context? It would probably only need a small clause, e.g. "In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces had to to withdraw from Montenegro, due to Allied advances in the region..." or something similar depending upon the reason;
    • Changed to "With the fall of Grahovo, Partisans from Herzegovina had a way into Montenegro and Đurišić had to withdraw. In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces left, part of the way together, with the Germans going to Austria and Đurišić's forces to northeastern Bosnia to join Mihailović." -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this is grammatically correct: "Đurišić, however, appears to have tried to outsmart the NDH forces and Drljević by sending his sick and wounded across the river, but retained his fit troops south of the river". ("sending" and "retained" don't work together here);
    • Simplified to "Đurišić apparently tried to outsmart them and sent only his sick and wounded across the river, keeping his fit troops south of the river." -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • given that this is a biography, if possible (i.e. the sources say), you should include mention of a wife and children if he had any. If these are mentioned, but not covered in detail, you could probably just add it at the end, in a manner similar to this: "Durisic was survived by his wife, so and so, and their x number of children". No dramas if its not mentioned in the sources, though;
    • Nothing is mentioned about Đurišić having a wife and children in the sources. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Notes 1 and 2 appear to be the same, so they should probably be consolidated as you have done with Note 5;
    • Merged. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
  • locations for publishers in the References. Currently one (Pavlowitch) has it, but the others don't. If you want to take this to FAC, it would be best to make this consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Added. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Good work, your changes look good so I've added my support above. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • italian should be capitalized, "anti-Partisan offensive" should not have the word partisan capitalized;
    • Every instance of "Italian" is capitalized. "anti-Partisan offensive" is stylized as such in the sources and in the rest of the article. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • there are numerous unreferenced sentences, that should be referenced per WP:V. While I am not insisting on all sentences to be referenced (it would be nice, but it is not an official requirement), I see sentences which contain strong claims that are unreferenced. For example: ..."the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered Montenegrin Chetnik units to carry out "cleansing actions" against Muslims". This is an EXAMPLE, not the only instance I'd like to see referenced.
    • Everything in the article is referenced. Having citations after every single sentence is cumbersome and is WP:OVERCITE. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Some historians" - weasel, please list them.
    • Done. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The article seems light on ilinks, both blue and red. I see unliked locations (Ravna Gora), concepts ("Italian troops" should link to the Italian Army, Montenegrin resistance, Operation Weiss), anti-partisan offensive, Chetnik Supreme Command, Second Proletarian Division. This list is not exhaustive, but should clarify what I mean.
    • Expanded wikilinks. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • When foreign sources are used, their exact language should be declared, and it would be nice to see translations for titles and publishers.
    • Distinguished which language they are in. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • What makes Glas javnosti, Večernje novosti and B92 websites reliable (they also should be ilinked in the article)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Those are prominent news providers in Serbia and are reliable for what is being claimed. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support now; but I am still concerned about the rather untypical capitalization of "anti-Partisan" (and the lack of link to anti-partisan operation). Perhaps you could consider this issue further. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• As the co-nominator (who is embarrassed he hasn't done much to make the various improvements - great job, PRODUCER...), am I correct in my interpretation of this page that User:Piotrus, User:AustralianRupert, User:Dank and User:Zawed all now Support this article for A-Class? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I confirm my support. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article describes the acquisition and service history of the Royal Australian Air Force's main fighter aircraft since the 1980s, including the role of one of the three Hornet-equipped squadrons in the Iraq War. I started this article as a bit of an experiment to see how much could be written on the service history of a single aircraft type in a single air force, and have been surprised at just how much there was to cover. The article passed a GA nomination in April, and has since been considerably expanded. As such, I think that it now meets the A class criteria. I'm hopeful of further developing this article so it meets the FA standards, and would appreciate any suggestions on areas which need improvement. Thanks in advance, Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Support -- Heh, I well remember the hoopla surrounding the Mirage replacement as a young teen, having endless discussions with Dad about what we should get, and being a bit disappointed that the one we ended up with wasn't Mach 2 capable...! Once the first deliveries arrived, however, and I saw one doing circuits with a Mirage at Richmond or Schofields, and the Hornet was almost skidding into its turns as opposed to the relatively gentle cornering of the Mirage, my doubts vanished... ;-) Anyway, on to the review proper:

• Refs, images, structure and detail look fine. Re. the latter, I was kind of expecting a very long article, and am glad to see it's in fact quite succinct without appearing to miss major details (I might skim my copy of McPhedran's 2011 book to see if there's anything worth adding).
• Prose-wise, very good, pls check I haven't inadvertently altered any meaning with my copyedit. A few queries came to mind, none of which necessarily require alterations to the article:
  • The Tornado was excluded as it was principally a strike aircraft and had limited air-to-air capability -- When looking at the reasons for pursuing the US aircraft and rejecting the UK and European ones, do any of your sources go into the US designing with air superiority in mind, vs. the air defence philosophy common to the UK and Europe?
    • No, they don't really explain this in detail. The European designs appear to have been regarded as being either too specialised in their various roles, or technologically inferior to the US alternatives. The Tornado was clearly a non-starter given its air-to-air capability was limited to Sidewinder missiles carried for self-defence (the ADV variant didn't come along until later, and not even the RAF seems to have regarded it as being truly satisfactory). The Mirage 2000's avionics were its weak point, though the cockpit design was also regarded as being unsatisfactory (something several sources note was common of European aircraft). Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I think the US planes were always considered superior as dogfighters... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • RAAF pilots tested United States Air Force (USAF) F-16Bs in 1979 and 1980, and reported that the aircraft had excellent performance but could be difficult to control at times -- I recall one of the things that made the F-16 different was a small sidestick control as opposed to the usual central joystick; was this anything to do with that?
    • From memory, the source states that the aircraft were found to be overly unstable in flight. Given that this was one of the first 'fly by wire' designs, I presume that the designers were still in the process of getting the controls right. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, yeah, that was the point -- make the plane deliberately unstable so it could be flung round the sky better, and use computers to keep it stable in normal flight, but perhaps they were indeed still finetuning that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The RAAF's order of 75 Hornets comprised 57 single-seat "A" variant fighters and 18 two-seat "B" variant operational training aircraft -- Do the sources mention the % commonality between the A and B models, and/or the % effectiveness of the B model in combat vs. the A model? I seem to recall this being mentioned at the time...
    • The sources only describe the B variants as being used as operational trainers unfortunately, and don't comment on their combat effectiveness. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Memo: must dig out my old Pacific Defence Reporters from the time and see if they mentioned it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The Government sought to use the Mirage III replacement program as a means to increase the capacity of Australia's manufacturing industry -- Just checking whether "capacity" is precisely what's meant, or is "capability" closer?
    • The latter - I've just tweaked this.
  • These aircraft remained in the United States until May 1985, however -- Was a reason given? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • They were retained for trials purposes. However, that's from McLaughlin (2005) which I don't own, and I'll need to visit the library to add it to the article; hopefully I'll have time to do this over the weekend. Thanks a lot for your copy editing and comments Ian. In regards to your initial comment, when I was about ten I had a brochure from the RAAF which set out the specifications of its aircraft, and I remember being perplexed at why the new F/A-18s were slower than the old F-111s! Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, speed always seems more important when you're young... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Yep! I've just added some material on what the two Hornets were doing in the US (as well as a paragraph on the weapons the Hornets use). Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support: good work with this article, Nick. I'm confident that it meets the A-class criteria and am happy to support its promotion. I have a few observations, though:
  • no dab links, ext links all work;
  • images appear correctly licenced;
  • images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
    • Good point: added
  • is there a date for this: "A21-106 was the fourth aircraft to be lost when it crashed inland from Shoalwater Bay in Queensland – its pilot and a passenger from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation died"?;
    • Yes, added
  • inconsistent: "Davies" (in citation #84), but "Davis" in the References;
    • Well spotted: it's "Davies"
  • inconsistent: "Fawley" and "Frawley";
    • "Frawley"
  • in the References you provide the state/territory location for Weston Creek and Fyshwick, but not Maryborough. Canberra is probably fair enough to leave off ACT, but I think you should add the state to Maryborough;
    • Fixed
  • in the References, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've standardised on no-hyphens. As always, thanks a lot for your careful review and comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet_in_Australian_service#Operational history. These are my edits; please check the edit summaries. (If no edits are showing, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) I'm not sure about how WP:DATED is getting interpreted these days, for instance in the last two paragraphs I covered; does anyone know? - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Dank. While those changes are generally great, I've swapped back a few which removed details which I think are useful. The tweak to the lead resulted in an overly long sentence. Regards Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you feel about "consisted of" rather than "involved"? - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me make that a little stronger. Generally avoid the word "involved"; it has too many different meanings, and it's often taken as a sign of intentionally evasive writing, even when the writing isn't evasive. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I get paid to write evasive wording (don't ask!), but 'involved' isn't too bad - 'included' implies the presence of things which aren't mentioned, while 'involved' is inclusive. 'Consisted of' is a bit awkward in this context, I think, and 'comprised' probably wouldn't be an improvement. The situation here is that this phase of the upgrade program only consisted of minor tweaks to the air frames while they were in the repair hangers for other purposes, so it's not possible to be too precise about what it involved - I presume that it was different for each aircraft depending on how banged up it was. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not following ... you say "consisted of" is awkward, but then when you're explaining it to me, you say "this phase of the upgrade program only consisted of minor tweaks ...". Why is that word awkward in this context? - Dank (push to talk) 10:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Consisted of" is basically the same as "involved", but involves an extra word - I'm a fan of the third of Orwell's six rules for good writing ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Garner's doesn't have an entry for "involved". Orwell is actually exactly the guy who might have an opinion on the word ... I saw the Orwell quote on your userpage. If you have access to any of his articles or books on language, you may want to check to see if he weighed in on this word or related phrases such as "related to", "concerned", etc. I'll think about what I've read and get back to you after Wikimania. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just looked it up in Don Watson's book Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, and his complaint about the word's misuse when its being used to imply that things or people might be dodgy (eg, "I don't want to suggest that he was involved in a series of bank robberies"), which isn't the usage here. That said, I'm sure not going to die in a ditch over this ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, just to do some hand-waving (before I get subjected to an entire weekend of it ... this is my little attempt at revenge, or sanity :) ... Milhist gets more professional all the time. I don't have any opinion on what that means, or how fast we expand, or what we expand into; it just seems inevitable that we will continue to get noticed for the quality of our work, and continue to expand. At the point off in the future where we're producing the definitive multi-volume encyclopedia of military history, then we'll have to deal with professional copyeditors, and then it's harder to make the rules. Good professional copyeditors do what they do very quickly; they can glance at a page, and if something needs attention, it jumps out at them. "Involved" is one of those words that their eye will always stop on, because it's so symptomatic of a media culture that tries to say less and less about more and more, and one of the obfuscatory goals is never to claim that a person actually did anything, only that they were "involved", and never to say that a project accomplished or was supposed to accomplish X, only that it was related to, or concerned, or involved X. The problem is, the word "involved" has been so popular for so long among media types that it's widely assumed to be a perfectly good synonym for "consisted of" ... and there's a chance that it is now, in some contexts ... but if so, it didn't used to be, and it still raises eyebrows with the old-school copyeditors that (I hope) we're going to be dealing with some day. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I do take your point, but I think that it's pretty clear English in this context. As noted above, I do get paid to write badly though, so my judgments on the finer points of grammar and usage may be suspect ;) Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - a couple of minor points:
  • Are the classic Hornets still going to use ASRAAM given the Super Hornets are armed with AIM-9X?
    • Yes. From memory, the RAAF regards ASRAAM as being the superior missile, but isn't fitting them to the Super Hornet as this would require a costly program of modifications and trials and the AIM-9X is a good missile in its own right anyway. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • AIM-9M still used as late as 2012 - see article on recent air-to-air LFX in current Airforce News [4] (admittedly these missiles had reached their life of type and were used to dispose of them).
  • Same article talks about the withdrawal from service of the AIM 7 in 2004 not 2002 (admittedly probably when the last one was disposed of though, not when AIM-120 was initially introduced). Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll have a go at working that in. It seems that AMRAAMs and ASRAAMs are the standard air to air weapons, but the RAAF still retained its stocks of the older missiles (the F-111s carried Sidewinders until they were retired, and were never fitted to operate ASRAAMs). Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Too easy. The article is already highly developed so I couldn't find much to comment on - my points are just uninformed nitpicks anyway (I'm mostly a terrestrial organism... although I fell out of a Caribou once at 1,000ft which was kind of fun, then went for a swim with the sharks in Jervis Bay which wasn't). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
        • That makes you more qualified than me! (the highest performance aircraft I've been in is probably an A380, and I sure wasn't flying the thing!). Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Central Flying School RAAF

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

For a slight change of pace, my first unit A-Class nom... CFS has had two incarnations, firstly as Australia's original military aviation unit in 1913–19, when it trained cadet pilots to "wings" standard, and secondly from 1940 to the present day, when its focus changed to training flying instructors. During World War II it was a key part of the Empire Air Training Scheme; afterwards it became, in official RAAF historian Alan Stephens' words, "the Air Force's most important peacetime unit", not just for instructor training but as the service's arbiter of pure flying standards. On the public relations front, the "Roulettes" aerobatic team is made up of CFS instructors. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Nice work Ian. I have a few comments through

• Is "training facility" the right phrase? I'd suggest "training unit" or equivalent
  • "Facility" sounds more like infrastructure? Fair enough...
• "Williams, who became the first to graduate, recalled the school as "a ragtime show"... from memory, Molkentin notes that CFS was quite well set up by the end of the war, and you should note this.
  • Heh, I should charge you rent for the amount of time you spend loitering in my brain... ;-) I was considering doing just that at one stage and didn't bother in the end -- now I shall.
• Do we know what the problem with Tamworth was? It's meant to have some of the best weather for flying anywhere in Australia (which is why the ADF initial pilot training school is currently located there). I think that other RAAF units were located at Tamworth, which is presumably what the issue was. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Could be, but I can only go by what Units says -- haven't seen any other reason given for the move. I could try another trawl of Trove (now that's not bad alliteration!) but I think I caught about everything that was useful last time I did that... Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Searched specifically for everything referring to CFS and Tamworth and/or Parkes (which was where it relocated from Tamworth) but none even mention the move, let alone the reason... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comment: excellent standard as per usual Ian. I couldn't find much to pick fault with and only made a couple of very minor tweaks. I have one concern, though:

Image discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Overall, the images seem to be appropriately licenced to me, except "File:P00448.086VampireT35.jpg". The licence on this might be an issue, unfortunately. It appears to be listed as copyrighted on the AWM site, here: [5]. Is there some way around this issue? Could it be replaced with a fair use rationale, maybe, or some other image not within copyright? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Hmm, not the first time that's happened. It was marked out of copyright when I uploaded it years ago, now they've obviously had another look at it. This affects other RAAF articles, including at least one FA -- let me consider solutions... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Okay, I've gone through AWM and found a few other shots of Vampire trainers. There's another T35 marked PD (intriguingly, also from 1956!) so I don't think we can get away with fair use for P00448.086. It's static, however, so I don't like it as much even though the T35 was the main training model. There's also a T33 trainer marked PD in almost exactly the same style as P00448.086, so I'm inclined to use it instead. It's undated though, so the licensing may have to be PD-Author rather than PD-Australia. Comments welcome -- think I'll ping Nikki for a reality check as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I've just created a [De Havilland Vampire in Australian service on Commons which has quite a few clearly free photos. [6] and [7] for instance. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Tks Nick, I don't think the Mk30 was a training model so not the best for this article. The T33 fits the category so that's a possibility although, like the other T35 one I found at AWM, it's a more prosaic shot than the one in flight that AWM has. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Original image doesn't appear to qualify for PD-Australia, especially as AWM claims otherwise. I'm not sure about the possible replacement you link, Ian, as far as PD-author - AWM isn't the author, these images are donated, so was copyright donated or just the images? Not sure how that works in Australia. Given that it's tagged as a WWII image, you still might be able to claim PD-Australia for those based on age, but without an exact date it's not guaranteed. There might be some possibilities in the category Nick links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Heh, I think that WWII category AWM has used is simply not right, tempting as it to use it as evidence of a pre-1955 date for the image. I'll email them and see if they can add an approximate date to the shot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Hi all, received the following communique from AWM: "128863 is in the public domain because it was taken more than 50 years ago by, or commissioned by a government organisation" -- which of course makes sense. They haven't been able to offer the precise date it was taken but have narrowed it down to the 1950s, and altered the date range on the image accordingly. My intention at this stage is to upload to WP as PD-Australia since we now have a date range and statement of authorship that clearly puts it under the pre-1969 government clause (E) of that licence, then use it in place of the image that started this whole thread. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Done per prev post -- if/when this is resolved to everyone's satisfaction I might collapse the thread. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, my concern has been addressed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tks mate, appreciated. I agree with your edits, they've definitely improved the expression. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent work as usual, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks for looking it over, Nate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Yep, that's right, this day has finally come. It's been a few years in the making, and involved at least a half-dozen editors, but the battlecruiser project is nearing completion. The format of the list differs somewhat from the national battlecruiser lists, in that it does not have textual sections with each class, as I feel it would cause too much duplication of content. In any case, I look forward in working with reviewers to ensure this article meets MILHIST standards. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Do list class articles get reviewed for A class? (Not really a regular at this project). I'd expect this to go to FL eventually, not FA, and for lists I have generally only considered two classes: L and FL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, lists are assessed for A-class - see the diagram here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright, interesting. Expect a review from me sometime today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• The lede should mention the only post-war BC class, the Stalingrads.
  • Good call, I knew I was forgetting something.
• More pics would be nice, perhaps between each national section?
  • I'm not sure what you mean on placement. Like a gallery at the end of each section?
    • I was thinking that one picture at the beginning of each national section should suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
• Many conversions are redundant and should probably be removed. Generally, I prefer conversions to 3 significant digits, so 406 mm for 16-inch guns, not 410. This is really only an issue for those countries that use metric like the Germans and the French, but still...
• Make sure that the links for terms like steam turbine and knots are in the first entry.
• You might add a section on roles to the lede if you don't think that it's redundant with the type article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the lead is rather long as it is, I'd prefer to keep it where it's at. The conversions should all be fixed, let me know if there's anything I missed. Thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Conversions for the Soviet and American ships are redundant. Don't forget to link steam turbine and knot in the first entry. There are links later down, so just move them around.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Alright, should be all taken care of now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Crisco 1492

• The #Great Britain table is jutting out about 90 pixels for me (on 1024x600). The others are fine

• Hmm, it looks fine to me, but I did find one bit of code that was missing from the end of the template - see if that did it.

• That's all... I added some non-breaking spaces, but I couldn't find anything that jumps out at me prose-wise. Images look fine too, although I wonder: Do File:Haruna 1934.jpg and File:HMS Hood March 17 1924.jpg need US PD tags, or do both the PD-Japan and PD-Australia tags apply universally? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm guessing they're ok, since both images made it through FACs for their respective articles without comment. Thanks for the nbsp-es, I'm surprised we didn't trip each other up! Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'll take a look when I get home; my work computer is a lot bigger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Still not working. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the markup of the tables and just removed a lot of nbsp from the GB table, and now it plays better on narrow displays. Some should prolly go back, but this sort of table is rather designed for large displays, which is an accessibility issue. There are a lot of netbook and mobile devices out there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I had checked the refs from the German list when you identified the problem there, and confirmed that everything was correct on the 55/57 issue (I probably didn't tell you at the time), so the refs should be fine here as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On the German list, it seemed reasonable to tweak it as I did; thanks for the check. On this page, I just fixed the obvious one, but the others here don't seem obvious. The five p55 should be reviewed and possibly a few nudged to p57. I'll have another looksee when I'm less tired. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There are currently two definitions of a named ref:

• <ref name="G55">Gröner, p. 55</ref>
• <ref name="G55">Gröner, p. 57</ref>

Fixing the second is pretty obvious. What's not so, are the five uses of

• <ref name="G55" />

They are scattered above and below the definitions in the Germany section. As things are, they are all showing as p. 55 and p. 57 is not showing at all. This problem seems to have originated in List of battlecruisers of Germany, which I've worked on, fixing it here. These pages should both be checked against the source. Once tweaked, I'll do the {sfn}-thing on this page, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, that got the table to work here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Supported above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (782)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

The twin article of the 806 campaign, this expedition was Harun al-Rashid's first major military undertaking and likewise one of the most well-known campaigns of the entire Byzantine-Arab conflict. The article passed GA without major problems a couple of weeks ago, and I think it meets A-class criteria. Constantine ✍ 09:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have had a quick look at the article in "editing". There are a couple of things that are very minor and I'm possibly picking at it. (1) Article infobox can be expanded to include the strength, units, casualties and losses. Image in infobox increased by 20px (to 300px) (2) In the "Background" section pargraph two, after Caliph Umar (r. 634–644) there is a space between the closing of the bracket and the fullstop. (3) Sources changed to Bibiolography. Mind you this is my first attempt at trying to help with an article for ACR assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time for reviewing this! Don't worry, I am grateful for any help you an give. I'll fix these issues, but, in addition, how do you perceive the article as a text? Is it understandable and complete? Would you like something elaborated upon? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comments - I'm well outside my lane here but since few of us seem to be reviewing at the moment so I'll give it a go:
  • No dab links [8] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [9] (no action required).
  • Image lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it [10] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The map (very impressive BTW) is licensed and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • This sentence seems a little awkward to me: "Taking advantage of the internal difficulties of the Caliphate, resulting from the Umayyad civil wars in the 740s and the subsequent Abbasid Revolution, the Byzantines under Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) were able to regain the initiative in their eastern borders and pursue an aggressive strategy." Perhaps consider something like: "Taking advantage of the internal difficulties of the Caliphate that had resulted from the Umayyad civil wars in the 740s and the subsequent Abbasid Revolution, the Byzantines under Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) were able to regain the initiative in their eastern borders and pursue an aggressive strategy.
  • "but the Byzantines were still capable of major counterstrikes...", → "although the Byzantines were still capable of major counterstrikes..." (suggestion only)
  • "Hasan led over 30,000 troops into an invasion of Byzantine territory, but the Byzantines offered no opposition and withdrew to well-fortified towns and refuges, until a lack of supplies forced Hasan to return home without achieving much...", → "Hasan led over 30,000 troops in an invasion of Byzantine territory, yet the Byzantines offered no opposition and withdrew to well-fortified towns and refuges, until a lack of supplies forced Hasan to return home without achieving much..." (suggestions only)
  • This seems like it is missing a word: "Thumama was entrusted with the other half, invaded Anatolia proper and marched west as far as the Thracesian Theme, but was heavily defeated there by Lachanodrakon...", perhaps "Thumama, who had been entrusted with the other half, invaded Anatolia proper and marched west as far as the Thracesian Theme, but was heavily defeated there by Lachanodrakon..."
  • Hadath is linked twice, the second instance should be delinked per WP:REPEATLINK.
  • Overall, this article looks quite good to me and there are only a few issues to deal with / discuss. It reads well, is well cited, appears to cover the topic sufficiently (although I'm not an expert) and is succint. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • One other point. Harun al-Rashid is mentioned in full in the lead (correctly); however, he is not formally introduced in the text of the article until the aftermath section. His full name should be used in the first instance (with a wikilink) in the "Background" section, then he should be referred to as "Harun" there after per WP:SURNAME. Anotherclown (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time for the review! I've implemented your suggestions and made some minor tweaks elsewhere. Please have a look and tell me if there's anything else. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good. Happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting, but there wasn't much to do. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support:
  • I've read through the article a couple of times and I agree with the endorsements above regarding prose (no action required);
  • article is well referenced and IMO meets the A-class requirements in this required (no action required);
  • the sole image used in the article appears correctly licenced to me (no action required);
  • no duplicate links could be found (no action required);
  • copyright: I checked the online sources using the Duplication Detector, searching for strings of 5 words or more: nothing popped out as concerning (no action required);
  • (nitpick) there is a slight inconsistency in your dash useage. For example you use a spaced endash here: "His son and heir Harun – better known by his laqab, or descriptive name, al-Rashid – was left". But you use an unspaced emdash here: "heavy annual tribute—the Arab sources mention various amounts between". As these are doing the same thing, they should be consistent. Either style is fine, IMO, but consistency the key;
  • in the infobox: "spring-summer 782". I'm not sure, but I wonder if this should be "Spring–Summer 782";
  • in the References: The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume IV: The Eastern Roman Empire (717–1453) has an editor listed on Worldcat - "John Bagnell Bury". I'm not sure if you want to list them or not. I've added an OCLC number for the work, though, as it doesn't appear to have an ISBN due to its age. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesian military involvement in the Malayan Emergency

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk)

Zimbabwe-Rhodesians of all races were involved in the Malayan Emergency of the 1950s, which proved the birthing ground for the Rhodesian SAS, which was there between 1951 and 1953, as well as a key location in the pre-histories of the Rhodesian Light Infantry and the Selous Scouts. The Rhodesian African Rifles were there between 1956 and 1958. These were four of the most important units in the Rhodesian Security Forces during the Bush War of the 1970s. Several of the Rhodesians' top-ranking officers in the Bush War were Malaya vets: Jakkie Cilliers refers to them in his study of the Bush War as the "Malaya clique".

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it meets, or is at least close to, meeting the criteria. It just passed a GA review by Anotherclown (talk · contribs). I look forward to seeing your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Great work again Cliftonian. Here are my comments:

• "The conflict had its roots in the Second World War, in which local ethnic Chinese fought alongside the British in Malaya against occupying Imperial Japanese forces; these Malayan Chinese subscribed to communist political thinking, and called themselves the Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Army." - I see what you're getting at here, but this wording is too broad. Only a small sub-set of Malayan Chinese were involved in the Communist resistance units, and these units didn't do a great deal of fighting. The British forces operating in occupied Malaya were also quite limited.

• Thanks for the compliment at the top. I'm sorry if the wording here was too broad, I was just paraphrasing the source material. I have altered to "in which groups of local ethnic Chinese fought alongside Britain's limited forces in the country against the occupying Imperial Japanese". Is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Some background on the state of the SAS would be helpful - I believe that it had been disbanded at the end of World War II, and was re-formed to fight in Malaya. It didn't have the same kind of reputation, or role, that it does today.

• That is indeed correct. I've put something. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "They achieved a 100% success rate on operations in southern Pahang province in 1951" - what did this involve? Most of the Commonwealth operations of the war involved wandering around in the jungle without ever encountering Communist forces (who were quite small in number and tended to operate in small groups).

• The source doesn't say. I must say it confused me a tad too. That paraphrased sentence is more or less all it said. I guess it means they accomplished all their objectives, though as you say that is hard to define specifically. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful here. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'd suggest removing this sentence then: it seems unlikely that the unit really achieved all the goals it was ever set (I don't think that any military unit engaged in active operations for a prolonged period could claim this), and strong evidence is needed to support a claim that it did. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Were the men who volunteered to fight in Malaya (and especially those selected for the SAS) World War II veterans?

• The source doesn't say specifically; it says there were some WW2 vets, but doesn't give anything more specific. I've noted this in the prose. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "In March 1953, after two years in Malaya, the men of "C" Squadron returned home, having completed their required two-year tour of duty" - this is a little bit repetitive

• Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "The black Southern Rhodesian soldiers were reportedly naturals when it came to tracking." - were they? If so, why? (had they been trained in this in their youth or after joining the army?) Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Good call here. I've put something about this; many of them came from rural areas and so knew a lot about this from their youth. Thanks for the comments and the kind words; I must apologise for some of my responses, which I fear are not really adequate. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support My comments are now addressed. Once again, this article is great work Cliftonian, and your positive responses to other editors' comments is to be commended. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support and the very kind words, Nick! —Cliftonian (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
• Surely this should be at 'Military involvement of Southern Rhodesia in the Malayan Emergency' - it has nothing on the military history of S. Rhodesia in Africa during the period.

• I'll defer on this to other reviewers, but I would be comfortable with this. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• "Southern Rhodesian military involvement in the Malayan Emergency" is another alternative. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that either of those options would be an improvement over the current name (though I need to plead guilty to creating the Military history of Australia during the Indonesia–Malaysia Confrontation article here!). I prefer the second suggestion, but either works. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I have moved it to the second option. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Could you clarify - the RhAR element deployed was actually 1st Battalion, Rhodesian African Rifles?

• Yes. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Also it would be good to have a couple of summary paragraphs covering this added to Rhodesian Security Forces

Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a bad idea. I'll look into doing this at some point. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article for GA and I am satisfied that it now meets the ACR criteria fol recent improvements. A couple of minor points though:
  • The Citation Error tool reports one error:
    • "shorttmcbride1920" (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "The SAS already had "A" and "B" Squadrons", perhaps consider rewording to something like "The SAS already had an "A" and "B" Squadron so the Southern Rhodesians became "C" Squadron..." (suggestion only)
  • This seems a little repetitive to me (on reconsideration of my previous comments at GA): "Engaged largely in counter-insurgency warfare, the Southern Rhodesians acquitted themselves well in the eyes of their superiors, becoming skilled in counter-insurgency's basic principles and doctrines...", specifically use of "counter-insurgency" twice in the same sentence. (suggestion only) Anotherclown (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the support and the comments Anotherclown, I've attempted to resolve the issues raised, hopefully to your approval. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes those changes look fine. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose (A1,A2)
  • I've watched this one for a while and I can't get a handle on why this whole article isn't WP:OR, which by itself probably isn't a insurmountable problem although none of your sources use the title of the article (which has changed a few times already) as far as I can tell and it seems like you are telling a story with bias, so its not really NPOV either. I also don't know how anyone would actually find this article - the what links here is all user pages. Maybe ping one of the admins to look this over? Kirk (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    • How is the article OR? I think it would be helpful if you could also explain how the article is 'biased', which is a rather serious claim to make. Your claim about the article not being linked from any other article is outright wrong - did you check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Southern_Rhodesian_military_involvement_in_the_Malayan_Emergency? Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I must say I'm rather mystified by Kirk's comments and opposition, but I'm more than happy to look into any specific issues he has, if he will note them. I must say I don't see how this is OR or biased, and his claim about this not being linked from any other is quite simply false; I know because I added links to countless mainspace articles. And even if this last allegation were true, I don't really see what it has to do with anything. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I've never read an article about this subject before, and I have a hard putting the article in a category; the OR parts are the article title, and the synthesis of two unit histories, a narrative of a conflict, and a historian's opinion about the effect of the Malayan Insurgency on the politics of (Southern) Rhodesia and its civil war.

Is the article title an actual "thing" written about by secondary sources - if you can point me to source(s) that use this phrase I'd be happy to review them but they look hard to find to me at first glance.

I have not yet seen any book or article which attempts to tell the whole story of the Rhodesian experience in Malaya, and so far as I know this is the first. However, I don't think the article title is OR; as the article explains, Rhodesians were involved in the Malayan Emergency in a military capacity and all this article does is explain how. After all, the material you can easily find in other sources about either the SAS or RAR in Malaya implicitly requires you to come to the conclusion that there was Rhodesian military involvement in the conflict. Combining the SAS and RAR material into this article is required by the scope (there were two tours of duty, each by a different Rhodesian unit, and this is the most logical way to organise the article). I don't believe this is synthesis of sources as anybody can clearly read the sources given and see that the conflict referred to in each case is the same one. I don't see how the narrative of the conflict is OR either, as all of this is sourced and given as background. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV/Bias might be the wrong terms but this article reads to me like its telling a story about the Rhodesian Bush War not just facts about the Malay involvement. Also, it only has a single citation for "Malaya clique", which I gather is a nickname for something which deserves a link and I got the feeling while reading the article that the previous prose leads up to this section. That is, the article should be "Malaya clique" and most of this prose is its 'Background' section.

I'm not so sure this is true. The previous sections tell the story of the SAS in Malaya, then of the RAR in Malaya, and the last section, which is what I think you are referring to, was actually only added later. The original intention was certainly not to tell a story about the Bush War, but to relate what happened to those Rhodesians who served in Malaya (which it does in detail, particularly in the RAR's case). It is very relevant to this subject to explain its links to the Bush War. I don't think relocating the article to "Malaya clique" would be a good idea (this is, as is made clear in the text, only what the particular historian, Jakkie Cilliers, refers to them as, but I thought it was a nice turn of phrase). The focus of the article would have to be strongly shifted, and the relabelling of the previous sections as "background" would make it remarkably lopsided. Moreover, having the article be about the "Malaya clique" would make all of the material on the RAR irrelevant, as all of the Malaya clique figures were former SAS men. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Are there other FA/A-level MilHist articles written about COUNTRY military involvement in the CONFLICT I can compare? The few I found are not high quality.

Military history of Australia during World War II is an FA, though admittedly on a topic far larger in scale than this article. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D/Cliftonian, I went to the What Links here on the left, chose "article" as the name space and there are zero article links. Am I doing something wrong? Kirk (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I just chose "article" as the name space and it shows a few dozen articles (I didn't count exactly). I can only think you must have made a mistake here. I hope my responses are to your satisfaction and look forward to hearing more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I struck my oppose since I noticed all the articles showed up all of a sudden yesterday, perhaps the renaming process must have taken a while? I still don't like the last section but if you remove that section rest of the article could just be put into the blank spaces in the parent article(s). Kirk (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that must be what happened. Regarding the other comment, I think a better course of action is to keep this article as it is and to summarise Malaya in the parent articles (SAS and RAR). I feel the material we have here summarises Rhodesia's involvement in Malaya well, with context and background, and this would be lost by cut-and-pasting the various sections into separate articles. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• Ugh. Before I get started, please look at every occurrence of "involve" (and others forms of the word), "sense", "terms", and other words that tend not to mean anything, and see if you can reword without them. It's generally difficult for copyeditors to fix this problem. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

• I hope I've resolved this? —Cliftonian (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• The first sentence says that "Southern Rhodesia (renamed Zimbabwe in 1980) became involved in the Malayan Emergency ...". That's a string of words with no meaning; getting involved in something might mean writing a paper about it or hosting negotiations. The reader has to read on to find out that troops were sent. The problem, roughly speaking, is that the press constantly seeks to say less and less about more and more, so our brains are awash in contentless, featureless language. Kill it; kill it with fire. - Dank (push to talk) 08:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, that's nice and clear. Better now I hope? —Cliftonian (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• The lead is much, much better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Lekker stuff —Cliftonian (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Not too much to do; nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Dank —Cliftonian (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS Agincourt (1913)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk), The ed17 (talk)

This ship had an interesting history; ordered by Brazil, sold to Turkey and seized by the British upon the outbreak of World War I. Her only real combat was the Battle of Jutland and she was scrapped after the end of the war when the Brazilians refused to buy her back. Her seven twin-gun turrets remains the largest number of main gun turrets ever afloat. This is a co-nomination with The ed17 (talk)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a style/presentation review from me at this stage (I've also made a few tweaks for English variation, etc.; please check that you are happy with these):

• no dab links, ext links all worked;
• images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in: [11];
• this seems inconsistent: "She was placed in reserve at Rosyth in March 1919" (in body of article) v. "Decommissioned: April 1921" (infobox);
  • Reworded.
• the duplicate link checker tool reports a number of duplicate links: caliber (artillery), Grand Fleet, Armstrong Whitworth, Battle of Jutland,
  • Deleted.
• in the Bibliography: "The Brazilian Dreadnoughts, 1904-1914". I wonder if the date should have an endash for consistency;
  • I'll let Ed sweat that one.
    • I changed it. It makes sense to be internally consistent. The only weird thing is I just realized copy/pasting that title with the endash vs. hyphen into Google brings up different results. Not so good, but I don't know if I should say that's our fault or theirs. Hmm. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• the format of the External links might possibly be tidied up slightly. Compare the first link with the third, they are slightly inconsistent. I'd suggest also replacing the hyphen with an endash or a colon. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry, I missed this one last time: citation # 33 "Vanterpool, p. 140": I couldn’t seem to find the full bibliographic details for this in the Bibliography. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • Added- that's my bad. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• I can't vouch for the content, sorry as it is not an area that I'm familiar with. I will leave it to SMEs to determine if it is comprehensive (no action required);
• looks well referenced and prose seemed okay to me (no action required);
• I believe that the images are correctly licenced, but who knows these days (no action required);
• spot checks of the online sources didn’t reveal any issues with close paraphrasing that I could see (no action required);
• possible issue: the infobox appears to contain some information that isn’t included elsewhere in the article (sorry if I missed it), e.g. the size of the ship’s crew and the estimated cost. As such, these figures should probably have citations placed beside them in the infobox or, ideally, worked into the prose. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added my support based upon what I've reviewed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Just having a look through now, but this caught my eye in the lead:

• "Agincourt held the distinction of mounting more heavy guns (fourteen) and more turrets (seven) than any other battleship ever constructed, which was a response to the Brazilians' requirement for an especially impressive design." The distinctions, dare I say it, don't appear to be referenced, nor for that matter, appear elsewhere in the article. Superb had sixteen 10-inch guns and as Parkes says (p. 272.) "Had the largest battery of one-calibre big guns ever mounted in any British battleship."

Will continue reading through as I understand you need more reviewers to pass this. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 14:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Always happy to have more reviewers! Yes, we do need to cite it somewhere in the main body and clarify that the distinction applies to dreadnought battleships, not ironclads.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• This meant that the crew would be operating in 3 feet. By this I assume you mean just the crew working in the torpedo section of the ship?
• A high-angle rangefinder was added to the spotting top in 1918. Suggest - A high-angle rangefinder was also added to the spotting top in 1918.
• Navy had been pro-Britain—the Army having been pro-German. Was their any reason as too why the navy was pro British whilst the army was pro German?
• opened fire on a German battlecruiser. I'm assuming the sources don't say which battlecruiser?
• Rosyth. Suggest - a wiki-link. Thurgate (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarified, added, deleting that bit, no BC specified, and linked. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Prose-wise, completed my usual copyedit -- it could probably do with another going-over before FAC, but I think it's fine for A-Class. N.B. I wouldn't be linking countries unless you're speaking of them in historical forms, but that's a fairly minor point.
• Structure and level of detail look okay, images and references likewise -- no spotcheck of sources, I'm trusting you... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • There's a big problem in the lead: it makes no reference to the fact that the ship was built in the UK. The average reader is going to say "wait, it's a Brazilian ship purchased by the Ottomans - how exactly is Britain involved?"
    • Done.
  • You might also consider summarizing her actions at Jutland briefly, considering it was her only engagement.
    • I'll have to piece it together.
  • This caught my eye: "the Reshadiye in the seizure section - it doesn't seem as though you've used the definite article for other ships' names.
    • Fixed.
  • Is the pro-German leanings of the Army really relevant? It doesn't corroborate the sentence its in (which is to say that there was significant pro-British sentiment in the Ottoman Empire) - it seems to contradict it.
    • Agreed and deleted.
  • In the sentence about Agincourt evading two torpedoes, you might want to include that Marlborough was hit, as the current reference to torpedo damage is not explained.
    • Excellent idea.
  • The attempted German raid on the Scandinavian convoy was on 23 April, not March.
  • Link Washington Naval Treaty in the Service section. Parsecboy (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Alright, looks good from here. Nice work as usual, guys. Parsecboy (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Other events probably influenced them as well, such as the November 1910 Revolt of the Lash, payments on loans taken out for the dreadnoughts, and a worsening economy had led to high government debt compounded by budget deficits.": A word is missing somewhere.
• "4crh": Is there another description that works?
• 'Monday', 'Thursday', etc.: "Monday", "Thursday", etc.
• "1917–18": "1917 or 1918", or "1917 and 1918".
• "Modifications for the Royal Navy": The section title seems to be relevant only to the first two sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 02:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

One of the biggest and most celebrated (by the Arabs) campaigns of the entire Byzantine-Arab conflict, and yet a sort of swan song for the sustained Abbasid offensive against Byzantium under Harun al-Rashid. The article passed GA without major problems a couple of weeks ago, and I think it meets A-class criteria. Constantine ✍ 14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Some comments below, most of them on the prose. As usual, a well researched article!
• In the infobox, should the "summer..." and "central..." be capitalised?
• "Following the deposition of Empress Irene of Athens in October 802 and the accession of Nikephoros I, a more violent phase in the long history of the Byzantine-Arab Wars began." - it may be worth explaining in the main text here (as well as in the lead) who these two are (it assumes the reader knows they are Byzantine, rather than Arab, and that they are the rulers etc.).
• "a truce with Harun al-Rashid" - ditto
• "Nikephoros, on the other hand, was both more warlike—a Syriac source records that when he learned of Nikephoros's accession, a Byzantine renegade warned the Arab governor of Upper Mesopotamia to "throw away his silk and put on his armour"—and determined to refill the imperial treasury by, among other measures, ceasing the tribute." - the last clause is quite a way from the noun at the start of the sentence; I'd recommend splitting after armour.
• "an ultimately unsuccessful revolt of the Asian army under its commander-in-chief, Bardanes Tourkos." - what is the Asian army?
• "a second, larger invasion under the Caliph himself. " was the first technically an invasion, since the Asian army was already (I'm assuming) in the empire?
• "In the next year, a force under Ibrahim ibn Jibril" - "an Arab force" would make clear which side this was on
• "he launched the first Byzantine raid in two decades into the Arab frontier district (thughur) in Cilicia." - the first raid for two years into this district, or the first Byzantine raid more generally?
• "The city, which had only been refortified and repopulated on Harun's orders in 786 to strengthen the Muslim hold on Cilicia, fell " - "only" could mean that it was recently done, or that Harun had done this primarily to strengthen the Muslim hold etc. Unclear which one is meant here.
• "garrisoning Tarsus and Melitene..." missing a matching second speech mark
• " Altough they are certainly exaggerated..." spelling of although
• "numbering 135,000 regular troops and even more volunteers and freebooters." taken literally, this would mean that there were another 135,000+ volunteers and freebooters (i.e. 270,000+ overall). Or did it mean "and additional volunteers and freebooters"?
• "The huge invasion army departed Harun's residence..." Do you really mean that the whole army left his house?
• More generally, I wasn't sure from the article on a couple of broader points. What sort of terrain was the invasion fought over? Was it mountainous, hot, etc.? I also wasn't sure what sort of military technology was employed - was this a war fought with lots of cavalry, or foot soldiers, etc.? A few sentences early on could help place the conflict for the new reader. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Hello and thanks for the sharp-eyed review! I've dealt with most points, except for the last, AFAIK "residence" can be used for a favourite residing place, and not strictly about a house or palace located therein. On the general remarks, I'll dig the sources and see what I can find. Wait a couple of days. Constantine ✍ 08:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've had a look in my sources. There isn't much to say concerning your points: the composition of the Abbasid army is unknown, although from its size alone it was probably largely infantry. On the terrain, I've added a map of the frontier region, which should show the mountainous nature of the frontier region. I could add more info on the respective armies, but it would be too generic and not particular to this article's subject. If you have any particular points that you would like me to examine, however, please tell me and I'll see what I can do. Constantine ✍ 14:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• The chronology of the first section seems a little confusing to the reader. "In the next year, an Abbasid force under Ibrahim ibn Jibril crossed the Taurus Mountains into Asia Minor." Is this 803? If so, then it seems that Harun al-Rashid's offensive was meant to preempt "similar attacks for the next year" which would be 804? But Harun al-Rashid doesn't send forces until 806. This seems a bit confusing.
• The humiliating poll-tax paid by Nicephorus of 3 gold pieces for both his son and himself seems relevant. See Ostrogosky (1957) pg. 173 or books.google.com/books?id=Igp8hxsHV_AC&pg=PA1016. Also, the second source (which uses Theophanes) seem to suggest a different amount than specified in the article.
• Overall, this was pretty excellent though.
• Support pending the above points DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time and reviewing this! I've clarified the chronology in the firs section, but I can't understand what you mean in your second observation. Do you think I should include Ostrogorsky or the other source in the article? As to the amounts of the tribute and the poll tax, both versions, of Theophanes and Tabari, are included and cited straight from the standard translations of their work. Please clarify. Constantine ✍ 21:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I like the clearer chronology in the first part. Sorry, I'm stupid and failed to read how you already quoted Theophanes and Tabari because I assumed that would be in the aftermath. Support DemonicInfluence (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. For things that I've pointed to in reviews of your previous articles, see the previous reviews for the explanation. - Dank (push to talk)

• "reportedly"
• "deposition": deposing
• "Byzantine-Arab" - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with "deposition"? There's even an article: Deposition (politics). And with "Byzantine-Arab" I assume you mean an endash is required? If so, that's done. I also rephrased the first "reportedly" in the lede, which was out of context, but I think the second fits well. As always, thanks for taking the time and your edits! Constantine ✍ 07:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Google ngrams won't help since "deposition" is used in so many senses. If someone knows a way to check a corpus for how often "deposition" is used in this sense, that would be great. Until then, I'll be happy to ask at WT:FAC if you'd like a second opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There's another "reportedly" in The campaign. Again ... it's not that the word is never acceptable, it's that the word casts doubt on what you're reporting, so the reader needs a clue about why you doubt the information; it's not up to the reader to guess. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

• Once you've said "in Arabic", don't keep repeating it, just give the translations in italics.
• "August/September"
• "As soon, however, as the Arabs had withdrawn, the Emperor again restored ...": I went with and recommend: "But as soon as the Arabs had withdrawn, the Emperor again restored ...". If you prefer "however", then go with "As soon as the Arabs had withdrawn, however, the Emperor again restored ..."
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support:
  • external links all work;
  • suggestion only: images could have alt text added to them, but as they are both maps it might be of little value: [12]
  • the images themselves appear correctly and suitably licenced to me;
  • the article is well referenced and the coverage seems complete (to me as a non-expert);
  • I'm happy to accept Dank's endorsement of the prose. I read it through for completeness and didn't see anything major to draw my attention;
  • I checked the online refs for copyright violations with the Duplication Detector but nothing stood out as being problematic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

List of protected cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another one of my warship lists, this summarizes all of the protected cruisers built by the German Navy, before the type was superseded by the armored cruiser at the turn of the 20th century. Most of these ships served extensively overseas, and some were involved in major incidents, including the seizure of Tsingtao and punitive attacks on Venezuela. None saw much service during World War I, and all were soon dismantled after the end of the war. This list completes this topic, which hopefully will one day form one component of a massive "Cruisers of Germany" topic that includes all types of cruisers. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Support, with two minor comments:

• "The protected cruiser designs generally followed developments in foreign navies" - could be unclear if this means that the designs resembled developments in foreign navies, or that they came after them in terms of timing, or both.
  • Changed to "copied" - should be clear now.
• "Most of the German protected cruisers served on overseas stations..." - this read oddly to me; I'd have expected "at overseas stations" or "from overseas stations" for ships, but I might well be wrong (being a land-environment man myself...!) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I generally see "on station" in these contexts - see for instance here, here, and here. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments This is a very solid article - great work. My comments are mainly queries about whether extra material can be added:

• "The protected cruiser designs generally followed developments in foreign navies, and the Victoria Louise design resembled contemporary German battleships, which favored smaller-caliber main guns and a greater number of secondary guns" - I think that there's too much going on in this sentence, and it's tricky to follow. What the number of guns are "smaller" and "greater" than is unclear (foreign designs I presume)
  • See how it reads now.
• Is it possible to include a summary of why the Germans built these ships? Were they specifically intended to serve on distant stations?
  • Yes, they were designed primarily for overseas service.
• What were the Irene class used for for the 14 years they were in service in European waters?
  • Apart from refits after returning from China, I haven't been able to find anything on their service in Germany. Presumably training with the fleet, but that's just a guess. This is a major problem I've been running into - there's decent literature on the Imperial Navy in the 1870s through 1890s, and then again in the years leading up to World War I, but the period between the 1890s and about 1910 is pretty sparse. Unless something notable happened (like participation in a diplomatic incident or a major collision), the service records weren't recorded.
• Given her brief career (most of which was spent under refit), was Kaiserin Augusta considered a bad design? Can you also add material on why only one ship of this design was constructed?
  • I haven't seen anything explicit, but it seems to have been an unsatisfactory design (serious stability issues and such), and budgets were tight in the pre-Tirpitz era. I've added a bit on this.
• "Problems with the Niclausse boilers installed on Vineta prompted the Navy to standardize boiler types in future warships." - this is a bit unclear. I presume that the Navy standarised on a different boiler type to avoid this problem? Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Should be clear now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed: nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support Just some thoughts.

• I'm disappointed there isn't any detail about any lessons learned from the cruisers of the first two classes and if their design strengths and weaknesses affected the final class, which was built five years later. Where, if anywhere, did the Germans base their designs for the ships?
• At the same time, there could also be a little more information about why so few ships of this class were built by Germany. It would be easy to sub in some info from Victoria Louise class cruiser about the stability and maneuvering problems, to explain for the layman why this class of ship was built only briefly.
• Sondhaus reference isn't used in the footnotes. —Ed!^(talk) 22:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, these ships are fairly obscure, and not much has been written about them. There are a couple of reasons for why Germany only built these eight protected cruisers, the first being tight budgets, and the second being the rise of the armored cruiser by the turn of the century. The rise of Tirpitz in 1897 probably played a role as well. As I said to Nick above, however, these are my impressions from the evidence - no one has come out and said specifically why they stopped building protected cruisers. Parsecboy (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I understand. In that case, changing my vote to Support. —Ed!^(talk) 18:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Support just one comment: the abbreviation SMS should be explained in a footnote and one question: "pre-Tirpitz era" I wonder if everyone understands what you mean by this. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Eliminate duplicate conversions.
• Link engine types and standardize use of the hyphen for triple-expansion engines.
• Images are all OK. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Both should be fixed - let me know if there's something I missed. Thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Link engine types for the ordinary steam engine and the triple expansion engines. And shouldn't it be "gold mark" (plural)?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, should be plural - must have been a copy-paste error. Links added too. Parsecboy (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Narrowed reciprocating engine to marine steam engine to be a bit more specific. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Thanks Dan, all looks good to me. Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Melville Island (Nova Scotia)

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk)

This "island" interned POWs from at least four different conflicts as well as peacetime military prisoners. It and its adjacent burial ground of Deadman's Island (which is also not an island) have been the subject of two scholarly books. I believe this to be a comprehensive and well-sourced account of the site, and welcome any and all comments. Cheers Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed it; nicely written. Some minor bits below:

• "in the Northwest Arm, a inlet" - "an inlet"
• "a fracture zone trending northwest–southeast" - I'm not quite sure I understood this; worth explaining or wikilinking
• "There is evidence of glacial scouring in the area" - now this I understood, but I might be in a minority
• " ranges from gravel to "muddy gravel"" - unclear why speechmarks were needed here
• "and is considered heavily contaminated." - is considered, or just is?
  • Well, I would say is, but "officially" it's considered. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Water depth around Melville Island..." - might just be me, but I'd have said "The water depth..."
• "tamarack" - I recognised the other trees, but not this one; worth wikilinking?
• " However, given the development..." I'd normally advise against starting a sentence with "However..." when its being used with this meaning.
• "Though the Halifax era was settled by aboriginals, " - "area", vice "era"
• "However, the commander of the Halifax garrison..." - as above
• Is it worth giving comparisons for the financial figures (either modern equivalents, or some other contemporary cost to give a sense of whether these were large or small sums?)
• "A parole break by four officers in late 1805..." What's a parole break? Did they escape while out on parole? If so, might be worth expanding out. (It would also make it more understandable why the response of restricting purchases would have an impact on the problem.)
• " were daily given 0.45 kilograms (1 lb) each of bread and beef " I'm not sure that "daily" is in the most natural place here - might be worth moving it to the end of the sentence
• "500 tons of granite" - presumably needs the alternative figure as well
• "When VE Day caused riots in downtown Halifax..." - I'm fascinated, why did it cause riots?!
  • Apparently a group of sailors went on a rampage, though the reasons are somewhat complicated. I've now linked to our article on the subject
• Armdale Yacht Club is linked later on, but not on its first use at the beginning
• Having read through it, the lead looks quite short - there's lots of good material here, and I reckon the intro could safely be a little bit longer. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Except where noted I've addressed these issues. Thanks for your review! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers - support. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: supported below Interesting article, looks pretty well written, I only have a few small comments thus far.
• First three paragraphs start with "Melville Island", might want to introduce some variation.
• I see Canada linked in the lead, that may be overlinking.
• I'm not sure the mention of the marina in the first paragraph of the body flows well here.
• There's a little inconsistency with the serial comma.
• "More serious punishments included flogging or being confined to a barred hole in the prison cellar, known as the "Black Hole," with only bread and water." Do you know what sort of crimes would cause this type of punishment?
  • Source doesn't specify, unfortunately
• Some of the reference numbers are out of order. ([34][18])
• The Measuring Worth citation is missing a title.
• "All but 120 had left by mid-April; most of these" What does "these" refer to here, the people who left or stayed behind?
• Ref#121 is missing a page number. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It and ref#122 are both citing the existence of these books, so individual page numbers aren't needed. Other than that and the point noted above, these should be addressed. Thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point, I should have seen that. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Overall the recruitment project enlisted between 500 and 700 men, mostly Germans and Irish." These were German and Irish citizens living in the U.S., right? Might want to note that in this sentence.
• "though its historicity is limited by the land's current use as a marina." Is "historicity" being used correctly here?
  • I think so, yes
• "The prison also housed a schoolroom and chapel, staffed by army personnel." Just checking, but they were both staffed by the army, not just the chapel, right?
• Support Alright, this is an interesting, well written article, I'm glad I reviewed it. All I could find were minor issues, I trust it meets the A-class criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments This is a very comprehensive and nicely written article. Here are my comments:

• "The site was first discovered by Europeans in the 1600s, though it was likely earlier explored by aboriginals" - surely it's a certainty that there would have been a pre-European presence of some sort (for instance, passing visits) on the island

• Almost certainly, but without archaeological evidence of same I didn't want to say so. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough. I presume that you don't have a source which says "nothing is known of the ways in which aboriginal Canadians used the island" or similar? Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any source that deals with either their presence or absence. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• The paragraph which begins with "Melville Island now hosts a yachting marina" probably best belongs in the post-1945 section

• Not sure I agree with this. The only part of that paragraph that is strongly "history" is the first sentence; the rest deals with the current "cityscape". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Should 'Entry Book' be capitalised?
• "frequented by British officers and citizens of Halifax" - I think that you mean 'residents of Halifax' here (citizens is normally used in the context of nationality)

• My thinking was to distinguish them from the British soldiers stationed in the city, but your solution works too. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• The article says both "the number of prisoners reached over 1500" (which suggests that this was the maximum number at any point in time) and "Approximately 1535 French prisoners were incarcerated at Melville between 1803 and 1813" (which suggests that the peak would have been well below 1500). This seems to be contradictory.
• "Nine Spanish prisoners who had fought for Napoleon" are you sure that these Spaniards were captured while serving with the French military? Spain was an independent ally of France for the early part of the Napoleonic Wars.
• "the Admiralty sold the land to the British military" - given that the Admiralty is a key part of the British military, this is a bit confusing. I suspect that your source might be using the old-fashioned use of 'military' to refer to just the Army.
• Can more categories be added? (categories relating to the peninsula's geographical location, for instance)
• Not surprisingly, all the images are PD Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

All done except where noted, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article Nikki. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

• "... resold it in 1784 to James Kavanagh, the head of a prosperous family fishery, for £65 (£6202 as of 2010)": The argument has been made more often than not that 1784 is too early to allow a reasonable inflated figure in pounds, but I'm open to other arguments. I wouldn't object to some comparison along the lines of "about the cost of an X at that time", but we generally don't require any conversion. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "story": I need to learn more about Canadian-English dictionaries; I admit that I don't trust much of what I read about Canadian English, and I'm looking for better authorities. Having said that ... consider "storey" (for a building level).
• "to gratify their eyes...with sight of what they called 'rebels'": spaces around the ellipses, and {{' "}} at the end for kerning. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "in a state of neglect and decay.": There are differing interpretations of WP:LQ; the most common at FAC is that even if there's a period after "decay" in the source, you should keep it outside the quote marks here, because the presence or absence of a period couldn't affect the meaning of this snippet. In an attempt to follow the preferences at FAC, I'll move a period or comma outside the quote marks if we've got a phrase rather than a clause (i.e. no verb), but personally, I think this is too small an issue to warrant the time invested in an edit (or talking about it). Same goes for "detention barracks,". - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

All done, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Iraq War in Anbar Province

Nominator(s): Palm_Dogg (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently withdrawn from a Featured Article Nomination, primarily over sourcing issues. It achieved Good Article status in February and I would very much like to renominate it for Featured Article as soon as possible. Comments and criticisms are always welcome! Fire away. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I had a good look at this at the FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: I'm happy to accept Dank's endorsement of prose and what I read (I couldn't get through all of it) looked quite good. Obviously a lot of work has gone into this. I have the following comments:

• images: my current download plan is very limited, so I was only able to check the licences of some of the images in the article, but what I checked seemed appropriate to me;
• I used the duplication detector tool to search for possible copyright violations. I set the tool to look for strings of five or more words that matched and discounted phrases that seem common. Due to download limitations I only looked at ten sources chosen randomly throughout the article. Over all it seemed fine, but I found one phrase that might need to be reworded:
  • "rounded up dozens of local police officers and publicly executed them in a soccer stadium" seems to be directly from here [13];

• Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• not sure about this: "Iraq that would give immunity to American servicemen". Surely they were trying to negotiate something that would protect both male and female service personnel. Perhaps it would be best just to say "immunity to American service personnel"?

• Fixed. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• overall the article is very well referenced, but I wonder if the Footnotes themselves need to be referenced. Footnote 1, 4 and 6 probably need citations, IMO, although 2, 3, 5 and 7 are probably OK as they are. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd be down with referencing the footnotes; I just couldn't figure out how. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• G'day, it depends upon the mark up coding that is being used. As much as I hate pointing to my own work, an example of where it is done is here: 2nd Battalion (Australia). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done! Thanks! Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Very readable account of operations in Anbar. Very well referenced. I could see no obvious problems. Good use of images and graphics. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

HMS Bellerophon (1786)

Nominator(s): Benea (talk)

One of the most storied ships of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the Billy Ruffian served in three of the major fleet engagements of the period, the Glorious First of June, the Nile and Trafalgar, with important service elsewhere. She became associated with the end of the fighting when Napoleon surrendered to Bellerophon's captain, ending nearly 20 years of continuous warfare, and immortalising the ship in art, songs and stories. One of only two Napoleonic-era ships (apart from of course the eternal HMS Victory) to have received a full book-length treatment of their career (the other being my previous FA HMS Temeraire). I believe this article fully reflects her service and strikes the right balance between completeness and encyclopaedic value, and thus I am nominating it for A class. Benea (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Image review: some work needed here:

• Life+70 tags require a separate tag for the US (which will be {{PD-US}} or similar), eg. File:HMS Bellerophon and Napoleon-cropped.jpg and several others
• Where we have the originator of the work, it's best to give his date of death; where we don't have it, or you can't find his date of death, then I think a declaration that the timescales are too long would be sufficient.
• Files such as File:Eastlake - Napoleon on the Bellerophon.jpg need a PD-ART "wrapper" since they are photographic representations of art. Some images used in the article already do.

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed up the first two points, can you explain your third a little more, or otherwise provide an example? Benea (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The question is over whether the person whotook the photograph of the work has any copyright over it, such as the National Maritime Museum. That one's been argued over, and Wikimedia has made it clear that it's doesn't think so, but to show this, use the {{PD-Art|1=}} format where "1=" is followed by the image's licences, certainly including any non-US licences and it wouldn't hurt for the US either. (Checked a few of the other images – your changes look good.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 09:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

All images should be suitably tagged now. Benea (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, I won't support because I haven't assessed the other criteria, but it's clear for this one, which I'm sure other commenters will bear in mind. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:OVERLINKing - Glorious First of June and Battle of the Nile both linked twice in the lead, HMS Elephant and Vanguard twice in one paragraph, etc
  • Fixed
• "At 6 am on 28 May" - time zone?
  • None of the sources give any clarification. Nor does our featured article Glorious First of June. Any attempt to do so would be original research.
• "1.40 pm" vs "5:30 pm" - use consistent notation
  • Fixed
• Don't need ellipses at the beginning of quotations
  • Fixed
• Be consistent in whether artworks are italicized or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Where it is the title of the artwork, it's been italicised (Cadiz June 1797. The inshore blockading squadron coming to an anchor, Lord Howe engaging the French Fleet under Adm Villaret on the 29th May, etc), where it's not the title, the description has been left unitalicised. I can't see anywhere where this rule hasn't been followed, can you give an example? Benea (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Support with comments:

• A nice article.
• "Bellerophon was initially laid up in ordinary, briefly being commissioned" - although its linked, as part of the lead I think it might be worth explaining a little, as I don't think most non-specialists would know what this meant.
• "£30,232.14.4d" - is there any way of comparing this figure to anything else in the footnote? As it stands, its hard to know if this was expensive or cheap for the time.
• Ref the time zones - probably worth adding a footnote explaining that it isn't given in the sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Probably worth adding
  Main article: Glorious First of June
  , etc., to each of the sections on those battles.
  • Done
• By MOS numbers ten and above should use digits.
  • I've had a look and can't see where you're thinking of in the article?
• Should First-Lieutenant, etc., be hyphenated?
  • It seems to be a style issue, some sources hyphenate, others don't. I've de-hyphenated them.
• HMS Bellerophon, HMS Cumberland, HMS Hercule, HMS Elephant, and HMS Vanguard The repeated HMS prefix here is annoyingly redundant.
  • I've removed all but the first.
• Were the surviving ship's officers recognized in any way for their conduct in the Battle of the Nile? And who commanded the ship immediately after the battle? Was the 3rd Lieutenant left in command until relieved by a post captain?
  • Cathcart was promoted to commander at St Vincent's recommendation. Unusual since only the first lieutenant of a ship usually received a promotion. St Vincent made a point of observing this, but noted since the more senior lieutenants had been killed and that Cathcart had acquitted himself well, he felt an exception could be made. The Admiralty agreed and advanced him to commander. Darby was in command officially throughout, Cathcart becoming de facto commander when Darby was taken below. Darby was well enough to return to the deck at some point as the damaged Bellerophon drifted away, and resumed command from this point. I've clarified this in the text and added it to the note.
• Overlinking to HMS Mars (1794), Check for other ships as well.
  • I think a link here is perhaps appropriate given that ten years chronologically has elapsed between the two mentions, and a large part of the article. It confirms which ship the Mars is, and that it is not some other ship that has entered service in the meantime.
    • I'm not persuaded by your argument and I think that the FAC reviewers will agree as they've been pretty stringent on overlinks with me. If it was a new ship, you should inform the reader with a new link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• As he approached, the 74-gun Superb, flying Vice-Admiral Hotham's flag, was sighted approaching. We already know that Hotham's flagship is Superb.
  • Again I feel the mention is appropriate, since it also gives the information that Hotham has been promoted in the meantime, and confirms that Hotham had not transferred his flag to another ship. And the emphasis is on the sudden arrival of a more senior officer to Maitland, it was not just another warship sighted arriving, it was the fact that Hotham's flag was seen flying from her. This explains his actions to quickly get Napoleon on board in order to present Hotham with a de-facto situation, in the hopes that Hotham would not attempt to interpose himself on the situation.
    • I'll buy this one though you could perhaps reword it to something like "VA Hortham approached aboard Superb..." with de-emphasizes that it's still his flagship while simultaneouly confirming that he's kept his flag aboard her.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• Link keel and gundeck in the infobox and fix the tons burthen entry by adding a space between the whole number and the fraction
  • Linked
• Strongly prefer that you add a descriptive paragraph covering the ship's general characteristics. Otherwise links to obscure terms like tons burthen, etc., cannot be made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added a description of dimensions, measurements, armament, etc. Benea (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Excellent. My preference would be that you continue to do so for all of your ship articles, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support: the article is well referenced, seems comprehensive, is well structured, appears to be sufficiently MOS compliant and is well illustrated. As such, I support its promotion, however, for the purpose of the review, I have the following comments:
  • there are no dab links;
  • images have alt text;
  • spot check searches of the article using Google did not reveal any instances of copyright violation (I did a random selection at ten places throughout the text, using strings of five words);
  • "She was one of ten ships built". This should possibly be "She was one of 10 ships built" (I mention this to amplify the comment above by another reviewer, although I don't see it to be a bar to promotion. I believe that there is actually some leeway on this point in the MOS);
    • WP:MOSNUM states "numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred)". My preference in these instances is generally to use words for numbers less than 20.
  • "rescuing twelve men". As above "rescuing 12 men";
  • "his surgeon, and twelve servants". As above "his surgeon, and 12 servants";
    • As my comment above, but also MOSNUM - 'Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures' and the full sentence reads 'three officers, his surgeon, and twelve servants'
  • "consisting of thirteen", as above.
  • "For the next eighteen months", as above.
  • in the lead, "Napoleon" is probably overlinked (first paragraph and third);
    • Fixed
  • other examples of potential overlink include (identified by the duplicate link checker tool): quarterdeck, HMS Majestic (1785), Commodore (Royal Navy), Toulon, Mediterranean Fleet, HMS Mars (1794), HMS Tonnant (1798), HMS Swiftsure (1787), HMS Implacable (1805), Admiralty, Navy Board;
  • I'm not sure about the comma here: "There was no British fleet in the vicinity, the topsails were those of a convoy of British merchantmen." It might be best to replace it with either a semi-colon or a full stop;
  • in the Prison hulk section, there is some repetition in sentence structure here: "She was taken into Sheerness Dockyard in April 1826, and was fitted out for the journey to Plymouth.[132] She arrived there in June ..." (consecutive sentences starting with "She");
  • in the References, you might be able to find an OCLC number for the work by John Marshall on Worldcat.org.
  • Overall, very good work, IMO. Thanks for your contribution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support Magnificently done; no major issues spotted by me, looking through it, both the original work and the cleanup per the above comments have been exquisitly done. My one concern is that some of the images are positioned such that they cause odd indenting (i.e. headers shifted to the right for left-aligned pictures) on wide (1440x900) screens, but that's just a quibble. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• SupportI combed the article looking for anything to say, but it all seems to be tightly put together. Well done. Definitely has FAC potential. —Ed!^(talk) 14:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments. There's a bit more to be done here:

• "Arrogant class design": Arrogant-class design
• "recently-ordered": recently ordered, per WP:HYPHEN
• "£30,232.14.4d": Not sure how much allowance you want to make for Americans, but most won't be able to read that. I suggest a link to £sd. - Dank (push to talk) 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "With war with Spain": The "withs" jangle.
• "Bellerophon's first commander, Captain Thomas Pasley": comma after
• "Howe's flagship, the 100-gun HMS Queen Charlotte": comma after
• "Despite Howe isolating several French ships in the rear and pounding them with broadsides, Villaret ...": Howe isolated several French ships in the rear and pounded them with broadsides, but Villaret ...
• "to support the Mars": to support Mars
• "There was no British fleet in the vicinity, the topsails were those of a convoy of British merchantmen.": semicolon
• "The remainder of the year was spent on continued blockade duty. This changed in early January 1797 ...": Blockade duty continued until early January 1797
• "By then the French expedition had been dispersed by bad weather and": comma before "and" - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
• "The French commander, Vice-Admiral François-Paul Brueys d'Aigalliers": comma after
• "Possibly due to some error on the part of the crew or the anchor dragging,": I don't recommend "due to (noun phrase) (gerund)", at least in Wikipedia's history articles. "Possibly due to some error on the part of the crew or because the anchor was dragging"
• "who sustained a head wounded that rendered him unconscious": who was rendered unconscious by a head wound
• "Daniel, and the ship's second lieutenant, Lander were both wounded, but were able to direct the fighting, until Daniel received a second wound, shooting away his left leg.": Perversely, the only thing technically wrong with this sentence is that it needs another comma, after "Lander". But see if you can rewrite this one to flow more smoothly, so that it doesn't need all those commas.
• "It was by now about 9 pm and": Needs a comma separating the independent clauses, but since this sentence is so long, a semicolon instead of "and" would probably be better.
• "Swiftsure's captain, Benjamin Hallowell": Needs a comma after. I'll stop mentioning these individually; please check throughout. I got the rest.
• "with 212 members of Bellerophon's crew falling ill": Avoid with + noun + ing.
• "Brine's commanded lasted": ?
• "newly-appointed": newly appointed - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gone through and addressed these I think. Benea (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Java War (1741–1743)

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is a good summary of a nearly forgotten war.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Support:

• Really interesting. Some minor comments below:
• "The Java War (also called Chinese War)" - "the Chinese war"?

• Changed

• " head of the Dutch East Indies Company's military" - "the head"

• Changed

• Background: the article assumes that the reader knows who the groups in the region are; it might be worth explaining who the colonial ruler, the ethnic Chinese etc. are in this section; e.g. where the ethnic Chinese in the majority, or were they only a small % of the local population? How many Dutch lived there? etc. Also worth dropping in that this is happening on an island.

• Thanks for pointing this out. I've added a sentence covering three of the four, with the fact that it was Dutch colonial rule added to the first sentence. I'll try to hunt down population figures for the Dutch.

• "2,000 real" - worth linking the currency here

• Fixed.

• " a tribute of rice that was to their liking" - unclear if the issue was the tribute had to be their liking, or if it is the kind of rice that was important, or both.

• The kind. How's the current phrasing?

• "Several days afterwards, four regents (Suradiningrat from Tuban, Martapura from Grobogan, Suradimenggala from Kaliwungu, and Awangga from Kendal) " - I'd advise against the brackets here, as it forms a natural part of the main sentence.

• Endashes?

• "an artillery squad," - is squad the right word here?

• Unit.

• " live weapons and ammunition " - what is a live weapon in this context? Do you mean that they were loaded guns? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Working, clearer

• Thanks for the review and support! I've addressed most of your comments.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• No population figures for the Dutch in Java at the time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• This sentence reads awkwardly: "Visscher, who had heavily invested in Yonko and had left a large amount of money on him, to take out his carriage..."

• Reworded. Wow, you're right.

• "Although the Dutch resident and five others escaped, the Dutch recorded high casualties..." This might sound smoother as: "Although the Dutch resident and five others escaped, the Dutch recorded a high number of casualties" (emphasis provided to highlight suggested change only);

• Agreed

• this doesn't seem clear: "the Dutch were able to fight to a three-week standstill". Do you mean "able to hold out for three weeks"?

• Yes.

• something seems to be missing from here: "Meanwhile, Khe Pandjang's troops, driven out of Bekasi and joined with 1,000 soldiers under the command of Captain Ismail to capture Tegal". Perhaps try: "Meanwhile, Khe Pandjang's troops, were driven out of Bekasi and joined with 1,000 soldiers under the command of Captain Ismail to capture Tegal";

• Agreed. Done

• comma splice: "In March, a group of seven Dutchmen led by Captain Johan Andries, Baron van Hohendorff arrived ". Is Captain John Andries and Baron van Hohendorff the same individual, or two separate people? If the first, simply add a second comma after "Hohendorff", if the latter, perhaps try: "Captain John Andries and Baron van Hohendorff". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Done.

Thanks for the review! I've addressed your comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

CommentsSupport

• No dab links [14] (no action required).
• External links all check out [15] (no action required).
• Image has Alt Text [16] (no action required).
• The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
• Image is PD and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
• This seems awkward: "the head of the Dutch East Indies Company's military Bartholomeus Visscher...", probably should be "the head of the Dutch East India Company's military Bartholomeus Visscher..."

• Oops, right.

• This seems a little informal: "while putting on sham battles to convince...", perhaps consider "while staging sham battles to convince..." (suggestion only).

• Sounds formal.I like it.

• "then in Semarang for a military meet", perhaps instead "then in Semarang for a military meeting"? (suggestion)

• Per above.

• "Captain Rudolph Carel von Glan, a unit leader...", do we know which unit?

• No, none of the sources I have read have it.

• This doesn't seem gramatically correct: "went on to be the Dutch's "most dangerous enemy...", perhaps "went on to be the Netherland's "most dangerous enemy..."

• Dutch colonial government's.

• With only one image the article is fairly lightly illustrated, are there any more which could be added? Anotherclown (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I was unable to find anything, not even an image of Visscher. Would something like this be worth a spot at the bottom, where it discusses Pakubuwono being forced to move to Solo? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Those changes all look good to me. A few other points:

• Not sure about the image suggested above, it might be too modern. Thoughts?

• Possibly. We have no contemporary images of the palace on Commons. This appears to be one of the articles where images are very few.

• There is some overlinking - for instance Kartosuro and Grobogan are linked twice (see WP:REPEATLINK).

• Both of those delinked.

• Is a map available which illustrates the places referred to in the text?

• That's a good idea. I'll see what's available on Commons.

• This looks very useful for Semarang, but I haven't the slightest clue how to download the full version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Plan on cropping File:Semarang, 1741.jpg and asking someone to tag the image like at Andersonville National Historic Site. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

• The infobox is a little under developed - can strenghts and casualties be included? (A lot of this information already seems to be included in the prose.) Anotherclown (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Added strengths — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good - added my support now. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, changed my mind on cropping the image (looks good enough as is) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

William T. Anderson

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk)

Anderson was a guerrilla fighter for the Confederates in the American Civil War, and became known as one of the most brutal combatants of the war. This article is currently a GA and has received a peer review, so I'd like an A-Class review. This is the first Milhist article I've done much work on, so there's a decent chance that I'm unaware of some of the conventions here. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Image comments:

File:Bloody-bill-anderson.jpg is fine, good tag.

File:William T. Anderson in sherman.jpg is fine, good tag.

File:William T Anderson death.jpg is fine, good tag.

File:Quantrill.png is fine, good tag.

File:Jesse and Frank James.gif cannot be PD-70 without an author and the author's death date. PD-1923 would work, or something like PD-US-Anonymous or PD-US-Unknown if it exists (see below)

File:Battle of Lawrence.png is fine, good tag.

File:General Order No 11.jpg is actually PD-100, not PD-70. It can be merged into a single PD-Art tag too, methinks.

Comment: Is there a PD-US-Anonymous or PD-US-Unknown? That would be more specific. Without knowing for certain when or if the images were published, we cannot use PD-US-unpublished. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the second image check, I used your suggestions on the two problematic ones--hope they're fine now. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Actually, for File:General Order No 11.jpg I was suggesting something like this. Looks good now, prose checks to follow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

• Prose: "... the first time Confederate guerrillas had done so in the war." - Did the Union capture a train?

Information about the slave debates, perhaps in a footnote instead?

Perhaps some variation, so we don't see "William T. Anderson" and "William C. Anderson" five times in a single paragraph.

Rapes - are they all alleged, all proven, or a mix? You have Anderson's as having been reported, but the rape by his gang as fact.

"Anderson's sister, his former lover." - Which sister?

• Other than that, the prose is just as stellar as wehen I reviewed for GA. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking another look, got all but the first one, the page I had cited only mentioned that the bushwhackers hadn't done so yet, will take more effort to figure out if others did. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Good read, seems complete to me, well researched. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

So far so good down to where I stopped, William T. Anderson#Texas. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Comments -- I'll take over reviewing prose from where Dank left off, will report back in due course... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Support after completing my detailed review/copyedit per above:

• Prose-wise, I'm largely deferring to Dank on everything up to Texas, although I did skim that part and saw nothing amiss. Copyedited from Texas on, so pls check I haven't accidentally altered any meaning.
• Structure-wise it looks straightforward, my one suggestion would be that you might combine the last two sections under the heading "Legacy", as the "Popular culture" part is so short and such sections are somewhat frowned upon anyway.
• Referencing looks good -- I think you've had your share of recent spotchecks at FAC so don't need to see one here particularly.
• Image-wise I'll accept Crisco's check.
• Content/detail-wise, it looks complete to me.

Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Alright, thanks for your support, comments, and copyedit, I've condense the two sections (wonder why I didn't do that before). Your copyedits look great, double-thanks for those. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, with comments below:

• "By 1860, William T. Anderson was a joint owner of a 320-acre (1.3 km2) property that was worth $500 and his family had a net worth of around $1,000." - could you give modern equivalent sums, or comparisons, for how much this money was worth?
• "After he returned to Council Grove, he began horse trading, taking horses from towns in Kansas, transporting them to Missouri, and returning with more horses." - it was unclear from the text if he was stealing them at this point or not; probably worth clarifying this either way
• "Anderson began stealing horses to sell as far away as New Mexico." - stealing them from as far away as New Mexico, or to sell as far away as New Mexico, or both?
• " Bruce Nichols stated that..." worth explaining who Bruce Nichols was/is (was he a contemporary? A modern historian?)
• " to challenge Union hegemony" - Just to check - do you mean hegemony, or control?
• "Anderson did not noticeably change after his marriage and some guerrillas spread rumors that he was not legally married." - unclear from this if the two parts of the sentence are linked (i.e. were the rumours linked to the absence of change in his behaviour?)
• (In his biography of Quantrill, historian Duane Schultz counters that General Benjamin McCulloch had Quantrill arrested after his refusal to deploy to Corpus Christi.) - Are the brackets actually necessary here? Either that, or could it go in a footnote?
• "(The two were prominent Unionists, and did not reveal their identities.)" - ditto
• "Bashi-bazouks " - you don't need a capital here, I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, good comments. I've got most of them, just the first two left. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I think I took care of the final two, thanks again. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Reg Saunders

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Ian Rose (talk)

This article is the result of a recent collaboration between myself and Ian. It has recently passed a GA review and I am nominating it for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria and would like to ultimately take it to FAC. I personally find Saunders' story to be an inspiring one; a man who rose from the ranks purely on the basis of his leadership in combat and in doing so, helping to cut through some of the barriers of race that may or may not have existed within Australian society at that time. Beyond that, in many ways (to me at least) Saunders epitomises the characteristics of a generation of Australians who, forged by the hardships of the Depression and the bush, proved their mettle in the crucible of war. I present this article for your scrutiny and hope that you too will be able to take something from the story of a remarkable, albeit imperfect, Australian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • One dab link [17]:
    • Robert O'Neill
      • Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • External links all check out [18] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [19] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Added, but I don't think I did a very good job of it. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Look reasonable to me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a couple of errors with reference consolidation:
    • Lennox 2005, p. 159 (Multiple references contain the same content)
    • Lennox159 (Multiple references are using the same name)
      • I think I've fixed these. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The images used are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • This sentence could probably be improved: "Employers regularly withheld payments for Aboriginal labourers at this time; Saunders refused to work unless he was paid his full entitlement, and his employer relented." Consider perhaps: "Employers regularly withheld payments for Aboriginal labourers at this time; however, Saunders refused to work unless he was paid his full entitlement, and his employer relented." Or something similar. (suggestion only)
    • Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "soldiery" or "soldiering"? (suggestion only)
    • Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "Soldiery" is a valid term but I'm fine with the more common "soldiering". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "was sent to Greece to help defend against German invasion", consider instead: "was sent to Greece to help defend against a German invasion." (suggestion only)
    • Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "but the government would not accept Aborigines for the operation...", should it be "Aboriginals" for consistency with the rest of the article?
    • Not sure, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • If you check the whole article I think you'll find we (and our sources/quotes) consistently use "Aborigine" as a noun and "Aboriginal" as an adjective, so according to that standard the above sentence is correct. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Grammer never was my strong suit (as the decades roll on I'm still not really sure what is though...). Anotherclown (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Frustrated by the conduct of the war prior to Kapyong, he recorded that afterwards", would this work better as: "Frustrated by the conduct of the war prior to Kapyong, afterwards he recorded..."?
    • Changed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Is this a typo: ""I felt a sense of leadership of Aboriginal people and a desire to do something about Aboriginal situation, yes, yes"." Specifically it seems to be missing a "the" betwen about and Aboriginal". Of courses its a quote so if its correct thats ok (but it could still be edited with the addition of "[the]" or something like that. Also I wonder if "yes, yes" is really required. Might the quote be trimmed?
    • Not sure; I will leave this one up to Ian. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You're right about the "the", AC -- tks. Re. the "yes, yes", I thought of leaving that out myself but kind of liked the emphasis he'd given the statement -- however I'm not that fussed either way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Some of your short citations seem to use a format I have not seen before, specifically those with two authors. An example is "Ramsland; Mooney 2006, pp. 180–181", not sure what the MOS says to be honest but I think it may be more customary to present these as fol: "Ramsland and Mooney 2006, pp. 180–181" or "Ramsland & Mooney 2006, pp. 180–181". (suggestion only)
    • I believe that this is the result of advice from FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Really??? I think FAC just makes this stuff up... our own templates don't even use that format! One day wiki might actually get a style and stick to it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Hi mate -- the point of that format is to mimic the style of the complete references at the end, which use semi-colons to separate coauthors. As I said to AR when we were working on the article, this style was requested of me many FACs ago, I've used it ever since, and it's always seen me through... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
          • No worries then. Anotherclown (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Overall, this article is quite good and its good to see the topic get the attention it deserves. Anotherclown (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time to review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Tks AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
          • All ways glad to help. Anotherclown (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments' I've added content to this article over the years, but not to the extent that I think that I'm unable to comment on it. Overall, I think that this is an excellent article which does justice to its subject. I have the following comments:

• "the first Aboriginal commissioned officer" - I think that "Indigenous Australian" is now used more frequently than "Aboriginal"
  • Well, I note that WP uses "Indigenous Australian", though I thought most of the sources -- which are generally quite recent -- used "Aborigine/Aboriginal". Could check on that, and of course happy to hear Rupert's opinion as well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • G'day, thanks for the review. I am leaning more towards Aborigine/Aboriginal in this case because I think it is clearer than Indigenous Australian, which could possibly relate to Torres Strait Islanders as well. However, I could live with it being changed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, but I'd suggest changing it to 'Aboriginal Australian', given that 'Aboriginal' is a non-specific term. I should note that the place where I work is rather thingy about terminology concerning Indigenous Australians, so I'm probably not being representative of how most readers will react to this wording. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
        • That could work. Ian, would you be happy with this? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I think that's fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Okay, I've made the change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
• "After the ship was attacked in Suda Bay by German aircraft and began to sink, the men from the 2/7th, including Saunders,[19] were picked up by several British destroyers and disembarked on Crete" - Souda Bay is part of Crete, so this is a bit confusing. I'm not all that familiar with the Australian role in Greece and Crete, but I presume that the 2/7th Battalion was being transported to the island.
  • I might leave this to my cohort... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • G'day, my understanding is that it was decided that they would actually go to Alexandria, but instead were landed on Crete after Costa Rica was sunk. I've tweaked it to try to make this clearer. Please let me know what you think. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Can anything more be said about Saunders' time in hiding on Crete, and how he escaped from the island?
  • Heh, I believe it can -- I'd have to dig out the refs of course but I heard somewhere that he felt his complexion blended right in with the locals...! That and having taught himself to speak the lingo... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Added a bit more. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
• The sentence which begins with "He subsequently returned to Australia..." is rather long, and should be split into a couple of sentences. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sound fair -- plus we use "subsequently" again not long after so we should probably try and reword anyway... Thanks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I've had a go at rewording this. How does that read? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Better -- I trimmed a bit and added the exact month he returned to Oz. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed. It's fantastic to see this important article in such good shape. Nick-D (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Support I had a good read of the text and made a couple of minor tweaks to justify my existence...also did a passover of some of the refs and didn't notice anything untoward there. When mentioned in the text, there is no wikilink to the First, Second or Korean Wars, although there is one for the (Second) Boer War - I thought it might be a particular style thing so didn't add them myself. Zawed (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh, your existence is more than justified Zawed, it's been great to see another editor come along with an interest in Australian military biography... ;-) As to the links, I started delinking WWI and WWII in articles I edited a while back in response to what I saw as valid suggestions that they're such well-known and major conflicts that links were unnecessary, if not meaningless. Korea is probably not in that category however; I think I delinked in the infobox because we had some of its battles listed/linked. So I don't actually object to Korean War being linked but I don't think we should bother for WWI/WWII. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Zawed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Image review With the proviso that I uploaded one of the images (File:Reg Saunders with Tom Derrick 1944.jpg), those included in this article are all PD. File:Reg Saunders leading his company in Korea.jpg might fall foul of the crackdown on post-1946 Australian images on Commons, but a) as it's a historically significant and irreplaceable image of Saunders leading his company in Korea it could definitely be uploaded under a fair use claim if that happens and b) based on the emails which have been sent to the Wikimedia Australia mailing list, I have some hopes that the AWM will add CC tags to these images in the next few weeks, though this may not eventuate. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick. That would be good news. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Tks Nick. Yep, something the image nazis don't seem to get is that their interpretation of the law (which still doesn't convince me) will likely result in a mess more images being uploaded to en-wiki, either as PD-Australia or under FURs. Anyway, we'll cross that when we come to it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Henry Petre

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

A companion piece to the article on Eric Harrison also up for review at the moment; again I've only recently compiled enough information to get it to what I consider ACR standard. Hope I'm not overloading the system but, like the time I dropped three Chiefs of the Air Staff on ACR more-or-less simultaneously, these do have the advantage for reviewers of related content and sourcing.

Petre, along with Harrison, founded the original Central Plying School at Point Cook, Victoria, in 1913–14. Unlike Harrison, he a) saw extensive service in World War I and was highly decorated for his actions, and b) didn't join the RAAF, resigning from the military after the war and returning to his first profession, the law. He never lost his enthusiasm for flying, however, which he continued to do privately at least up until the 1950s. Thanks in advance for your input...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Enjoyed it. Minor points below:

• " borrowed £250" - worth giving a contemporary equivalent sum for this?
• "Considered "quiet and academic by nature"" - by who? (I'm assuming his peers, but the paragraph doesn't make it clear)
• ""Two competent mechanists and aviators" - MOS would allow you to lower case the "two" if you wanted
• " "birthplace of Australian military aviation"" - who's the quote from?
• "was photographed sitting in the cockpit of the same Deperdussin—now an exhibit at RAAF Museum—" - unclear if "now" is 1961, or 2012. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks mate, believe I've actioned all those. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support:
  • no dabs, alt text is present, ext links work;
  • images look appropriately licenced;
  • well referenced and coverage seems sufficient;
  • I've read over this a couple of times and nothing in the prose really stood out as needing a tweak;
  • in the Notes, "Coulthard-Clark, The Third Brother, xv". I wonder if this should be: "Coulthard-Clark, The Third Brother, p. xv". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Heh, I thought about that last one and I think I've generally seen Roman numeral page refs (i.e. from the introduction or preface) without the "p." so was following suit -- I don't have a strong feeling on it though. Tks as usual for reviewing, mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No worries, I'm not sure either; it just looks inconsistent. However, the argument against it is that the letters/Roman numerals looks a little hard on the eye alongside the abbreviated "p.". It's all good, as they say, though. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • The Citation Check tool reveals no errors and spelling looks fine.
  • Images, alt text, ext links already reviewed by another editor.
  • I've read over the article word for word and believe that it meets the ACR criteria.
  • IMO it is well-written and complies with the MOS. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Tks AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Henry II of England

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because Henry was a major war-time leader in medieval Europe. The article has been through GA review, and I'd like to take it ultimately onto FA. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawkeye7

Henry was a talented but bad tempered king with a queen who was more than a match for any subsequent ruler of England. (His mother was no slouch either.) The article is kind of long so I'll review a section at a time.

• Lead:
  1. Henry was born to Geoffrey of Anjou and Matilda, who claimed the title of Empress from her first marriage. He became actively involved in his mother's efforts to claim the throne of England . "born to" sounds weird; try "son of".
  2. And what do you mean by "claimed the title"? See was the Empress. Re-word.
  3. Henry's military expedition to England in 1153 led to King Stephen agreeing to a peace treaty in 1153 and Henry inheriting the kingdom on Stephen's death a year later. Repetition; remove "in 1153"
  4. Meanwhile, Henry undertook various legal reforms in both England and Normandy, establishing the basis for the future English Common Law, and reformed the royal finances and currency. "Reform" is over-used. Drop this whole sentence as it is covered in the last paragraph.
  5. Although Henry usually worked well with the local hierarchies of the Church, his desire to control and reform the relationship between the church in England led to conflict with his former friend Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Too much verbiage for the lead. Consider: "Although Henry usually worked well with the Church, his desire for control and reform led to conflict with his former friend Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury." On reflection, I think this would not be an accurate or adequate of the conflict with Becket. You'll need to re-word this.
  6. This controversy lasted for much of the 1160s and resulted in Becket's death in 1170, for which Henry was widely blamed. But only because he was guilty as hell. Delete "for which Henry was widely blamed".
  7. In 1173 Henry's then eldest son, Henry, usually known as "Young Henry", rebelled in protest at his treatment by Henry What do you mean "then eldest"? And delete "by Henry" which adds only confusion.
  8. despite numerous peace conferences and treaties no permanent peace was reached The idea of a permanent peace seems preposterous when we are talking about the Middle Ages. Delete this whole phrase.

• "son of" done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Empress title - biographers aren't entirely clear how far she had a claim to this after the emperor died, but I've gone for "took" which still works I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The custom is to continue using the title after the death of one's husband, even after remarriage. Catherine Parr remained queen to the end of her days, despite remarriage, and took precedence over lesser lights who were married to men senior to her second husband. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• 1153 removed.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Sentence removed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Changed as suggested. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• He'd had one older son, who died v. young. I've tweaked the wording again to avoid confusion in the lead.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• In other parts of France better arrangements were made; I've tweaked the wording slightly - see what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I like the new lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Early years (1133–49)
  1. Empress Matilda, so titled because of her first marriage to the Holy Roman Emperor. Please name the emperor.
  2. Anjou had been formed in 10th century and the Angevin rulers had attempted to extend their influence and power across France through careful marriages and political alliances for several centuries. Link Anjou for people who don't know where it it, and also Angevins. And "formed in 10th century" sounds wrong for some, probably grammatical, reason.
  3. Henry's mother, the Empress Matilda, We just said who she was in the previous sentence. Delete "Henry's mother,"
  4. Matilda was married at a young age to the Holy Roman Emperor; No need to link Holy Roman Emperor twice. Oh wait, I found him! He was hiding under the link. Just name him!
  5. accompanied by his uncle, Robert of Gloucester. we already said he was his uncle. Delete "by his uncle,"
  6. Although this form of arrangement was common What arrangement?
  7. Henry had a passionate desire to rebuild his control of the territories that his grandfather, Henry I, had once controlled. Repetition here. Re-phrase.
  8. The "map of England" also shews Wales and part of Scotland.

• Should all be done now. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Early reign (1150–62)
  1. Henry was supported in the north and east of England by the forces of Ranulf of Chester and Hugh Bigod The map shews them in the north and west.
  2. shortly before Easter And that was when in 1153?
  3. Note 7 is a bit out of place. You have used the notes (correctly) to add historiographical information but here there is actual part of the narrative. Move it into the text.

• 1. The map shows Ranulf of Chester and Robert of Leicester in the north-west I think; Hugh was in the east, but isn't featured on the political maps I could find!
• 2. Done.
• 3. Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Government, family and household
  1. Henry owned a greater proportion of France than any ruler since the Carolingians I think I know what you are trying to say, but this is a bit awkward; after all, the King of France was er King of France. Re-phrase.
  2. historian John Joliffe link here. Unlink below.
  3. ditto for John Gillingham
  4. Henry's mother, Matilda, played an important role in his early life and exercised influence for many years later. How unusual.
  5. Note 21 is not a note; suggest incorporating into the text
  6. The first half of Note 25 should be moved into the text
  7. a significant increase in long-term inflation Do you have an estimated inflation rate?

• 1. I've had a go - see what you think.
• 2. Done.
• 3. I think the earlier link is in the right place for Gillingham?
• 4. It's unusual for the period; typically royal children were removed from their mothers at quite an early age, and we don't have much evidence for their mothers advising on policy etc. later.
• 5. I've kept it as a note, since its explaining an archaic historical viewpoint; the historiography section picks it up in more detail.
• 6. Done.
• 7. There are some around, but they all require some explanation that would feel out of place here; I don't have an easy x% sadly!Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Later reign (1162–75)
  1. Move note 27 into the text
  2. Young Henry receiving England and Normandy, Richard the Duchy of Aquitaine, and Geoffrey Brittany. punctuation required here.

• 1. I'm still of the view that it makes for a better note...
• 2. Done (I can be a little sparse on the verbs sometimes!). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

All in all, great work. Wish all articles were like this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review - much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support All my concerns have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Henry enjoyed warfare, hunting and action;": What kind of "action"?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Late in his reign, one of his court is said to have worn this device on his tunic;" The sentences before and after seemed stronger, so I removed this bit. Feel free to re-insert it, but it would be nice to know who wore the device and why that was significant. - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• "it increasingly appeared as though the English Church was considering an eventual peace treaty.": Who was considering a peace treaty?

• Tweaked. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Henry did homage to Louis for Normandy": I don't think your readers will understand what you're saying here.

• Explained a bit more. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• "At around this time, however, Henry was also probably secretly planning his marriage": What does "however" mean? What's in opposition to what?

• No sentence of mine is complete without a spare "however", Dank! However, I've removed it. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• "the marriage was an insult, it ran counter to feudal practice and it threatened the inheritance of Louis and Eleanor's two daughters,": nonparallel, in the sense that "insult" is an opinion (unless you attribute it to Louis), and the other two in the series don't seem to be opinions (in the same sense).
  • Just occurred to me that you might have meant something like "the marriage was an insult, in the sense that ...". If so, twiddle with it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clarified. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Neufmarchė": I'm not familiar with that diacritic. An acute accent, or none, would probably be better. - Dank (push to talk) 13:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Turns out the French aren't familiar with it either... I've fixed it! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Henry II of England#Reconstruction of royal government. Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Images (oppose for now):

• 'All files must have a valid US copyright tag – the Life+70 is only sufficient for the country of origin. This is also necessary for the source files of File:Parents of Henry II.jpg
• File:North_West_France_1150.png should properly link to the source file for attribution;
• File:Henry the Young King.jpg actually needs a PD-Art tag, rather than just mentioning it.
• "13th-century depiction of Henry and his legitimate children" includes a self-link
• File:HeinrichusII.jpg needs a date of death of author
• File:Ireland 1173.jpg isn't PD-NASA, what we're interested in is copyright over your additions - which may be PD-ineligible, or whatever licence you wish.
• "Note: The background map is a raster image embedded in the SVG file." is not true for File:Great Revolt Normandy 1173.png (no action necessary for this ACR)
• File:Richard Lionheart and Philip Augustus.jpg and File:Philippe2+Henri2+Cross.jpg need a PD-art declaration, or a scan one.

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Have gone back through the files - hopefully those changes are correct! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: a well referenced, illustrated and written article. I made a few minor tweaks (and drank three cups of tea while reading it!). I also have a couple of minor comments/suggestions, but they do not impact upon my support for A-class:

• this sounded a little awkward to me: "In England, Henry initially ruled through his father's former advisers whom he brought with him from Normandy..."

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• this sounded a little informal to me: "significantly during Henry's reign, largely thanks to Richard's efforts in the late 1170s". Perhaps replace "thanks" with "due";

• Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• not sure about the word "unfortunately" here: "Unfortunately Henry's family was divided by rivalries and violent hostilities". It could possibly be construed as a value judgement and as such might be best just to remove it;

• Removed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• inconsistent capitalisation: "Although Henry usually worked well with the local hierarchies of the Church" v. "Henry's relationship with the church varied considerably" (a few potential examples);

• Fixed.Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• inconsistent capitalisation "the Norman Church also intervened to try to assist" v. "despite efforts by the Norman church to";

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• the duplicate link checker tool indicates some examples of possible overlink: "Henry I of England" (in the lead); Vexin; Theobold V, Count of Blois; Henry I, Count of Champagne. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers! I'm travelling until next Sunday now, but will deal with the above on return. Many thanks for all the inputs from everyone above, Hchc2009 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree about the Henry I overlink and fixed it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Heh, I see by the edit history that I'm listed fourth in contributions to this article! However that's mainly been in the nature of vandal control so I think I can be fairly objective here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• General: With all the numbered names around you may want to join them with non-breaking spaces before this gets to FAC, however I'm not fussed about it for ACR.
• Lead: I was thinking "Cold War" should be in lower case here since it's a general rather than specific term; as you reference the specific one in the main body, that second instance should certainly be capitalised -- FWIW.

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Appearance and personality -- I'm not sure about this section where it is since you're sticking it in the middle of an obviously chronological sequence of other sections. On the other hand I admit I'm not certain of the best spot for it. Any thoughts of just integrating these characteristics elsewhere?

• I couldn't find a better place to put it (but agree with your sense that it isn't in a great location) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• France: Brittany, Toulouse and the Vexin -- "The precise events and decisions at these gatherings were disputed by contemporary chroniclers". Do you mean that in Henry's day the chroniclers openly argued with each other about the results of the meetings, or that today we can see that their accounts are inconsistent?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, mate, still not sure about this. I gather from the latest change to "The precise events and decisions at these gatherings are disputed by contemporary chroniclers" that the chroniclers weren't arguing about it back then, but their accounts don't appear to us to be consistent with each other. If that's the case, I would reword to "Contemporary chroniclers' accounts of the events and decisions at these gatherings are inconsistent" or "do not agree" or some such. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• No prob's - have gone with your suggestion, Hchc2009 (talk) 09:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Cool, no further concerns... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• • That's it for now, along with a copyedit up to the end of Law -- generally looking very good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
• Economy and finance
  • "a team of royal officials called the chamber" reads a bit oddly to me; if it's been given a special name, shouldn't that name be either capitalised or in inverted commas?

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• • "a significant increase in both long-term inflation and trade" -- did both inflation and trade increase in the long term, or only inflation? If the former, should read "a significant long-term increase in both inflation and trade".

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, so having completed my copyedit I'm pretty satisfied with structure, prose, and detail (whew, I thought he'd never kick the bucket)...!
• Happy to rely on Grandiose's image check.
• Sources and referencing look okay; I haven't performed a spotcheck as I know you had one for Stephen, King of England in September last year -- that may not be recent enough to get a waiver at FAC level but at ACR it'll do me...
• So, all up, a great effort -- just let me know about the points raised above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ian, I'll do a spotcheck again when this hits FAC ... since I may be the only person around with most of the sources easily available, but I did check while I was doing my GA review and found nothing there... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tks Ealdgyth, that would be excellent (speaking as both a FAC reviewer and a FAC delegate)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Why on earth would Henry promise to avoid cathedrals? Henry reaffirmed that he would avoid the English cathedrals

• The source is unclear; possibly to avoid the bishops having to openly take sides, possibly just because the army would have caused significant damage to the chapter lands etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

• This should probably be rephrased a bit to clarify that the court was based at Caen and did not handle just the revenues from Caen. He also operated an exchequer court that heard cases relating to royal revenues at Caen

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

List of battlecruisers of the United States

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Dank (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding myself per conversation with Sturm. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Images all fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Neither von Spee's or Hipper's squadrons were raiding commerce, so I'm uncomfortable with the connection between hunting down raiders and the Falkland Islands and Dogger Bank engagements. Perhaps rephrase it to "track down and destroy enemy cruisers..."?
    • True enough, but both examples comprised independent squadrons of fast cruisers/battlecruisers. Ideal formations for commerce raiding, which is what the Navy was worried about.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I've clarified this in the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the fates of the two BC classes should be mentioned in the lead section.
• That's all for me, looks to be a pretty good list otherwise. Parsecboy (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks good now, moving to Support. Parsecboy (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Sorry Sturmvogel, but this article - and especially its lead - isn't up to your usual standards yet. My comments are:

• The article needs a lead paragraph which summarises its content
  • Lemme look at the other lists of capital ships and see if I'm missing anything that they have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not true of any of our ship FLs. See List of battleships of Germany, List of battlecruisers of Germany, or List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy. Generally the lede consists of some material providing context for the development/acquisition of the ship type and some brief material covering the various classes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't call those good examples of leads, to be honest. Anyway, the leads for List of battleships of Germany and List of battlecruisers of Germany do at least start off with a sentence which introduces and defines the scope of the article: this one's first sentence is about the Royal Navy and USN ships which weren't battlecruisers. I'm sorry for the slow response by the way. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Better now, Nick? - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
          • A bit, though it still didn't summarise the content of the article. I've basically re-written it, which I hope is OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• The current first paragraph is confusing: it says that a) the Invincible-class made the US Navy's armoured cruisers totally obsolete but b) the US Navy didn't think that speed was important and c) the Navy had changed its mind several years late. This needs to be fleshed out.
  • I'll come back to these two points after we're done with other changes. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Reworked this a little bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• "Over the next several years fleet exercises revealed that the Navy lacked effective scouting forces that could find and track an enemy fleet in all weathers and a consensus gradually emerged that the battlecruiser would be ideal for this role and they would be effective during fleet engagements by concentrating their fire on the enemy fleet's leading ships as the Japanese had done to the Russians at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905." - this is a very long sentence, and should be split into at least two sentences
  • Done.
• The lead should note that no Lexington-class BCs were ever completed.
  • Not true; see the table.
    • Not entirely, none were completed as BCs and that's probably worth a mention.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, now I see. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• Were there further proposals to build such ships in the 1920s and 1930s? The material on the "cruiser-killer" concept appears quite suddenly
  • Reading up.
    • The Washington Treaty effectively killed all capital ship construction from '22 until '37 so nobody really bothered to do much design work during the interregnum. The cruiser-killer concept really gained traction in the mid-thirties as the various naval treaties were set to expire shortly. I wonder if a hat note would help even though I linked cruiser-killer.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
• "The U. S. Navy was most concerned about the threat posed by Japanese cruisers raiding its lines of communication in the event of war with Japan" - the second 'Japan' is not needed
  • Done.
• The lead should note that two Alaska class ships were in fact built, though more were cancelled
  • I added a sentence about the two that were built; again, waiting to see how the text plays out before I return to the lead.
• "It did regard the design's firepower as inadequate" - who's the 'it' here?
  • Done.
• "Both saw extensive action in World War II" - not really; while Saratoga deserves this plaudit several times over, Lexington only lasted six months and was sunk the first time she met serious opposition.
  • Done.
• Should the Alaska class be in this article? The section on them argues that they were not BCs.
  • Sturm? Do you want to tweak the page title?
    • Nope, plenty of historians call them BCs, even if the Navy formally did not. All of the cruiser-killer designs were effectively BCs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Nick, correct me if I'm wrong ... I think he's saying that either their section should make the case that they're battlecruisers, or else we shouldn't call them battlecruisers in the title. That section starts: "The Alaska-class cruisers were a class of six very large cruisers ordered on 9 September 1940. Although often called battlecruisers, the Navy officially classed them as large cruisers (hull symbol: CB)." If those were the only two sentences you had ever read on these ships, and you were asked what they were, you'd probably say they were large cruisers ... so if they're not, let's make the case that "battlecruiser" is a more accurate term. - Dank (push to talk) 20:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Garzke & Dulin call them battlecruisers as I cited ; it's not just my opinion. So I don't think that we need to make the case one way or the other, especially since internal Navy documents use both terms, but we probably do need to clear up the language used here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Dank's interpretation of my comment is correct - if this how independent historians describe the ships, that's OK, but this needs to be emphasised. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
            • How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
              • The delicate dancing around 'battlecruiser' and 'cruiser' in the Alaska class article was the result of The Land (talk · contribs), who essentially argued that we couldn't call them battlecruisers because official sources never called them that. I've tweaked the text a bit more -- hope you both like it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
                • That looks pretty good. Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
• "A large number of design studies were made comparing trade-offs between 8-inch (203 mm) or 12-inch guns, armor and speed, but the detailed design was finalized in January 1941, although changes continued to be made until about June." - why the 'but'?
  • Done.
• The empty 'external links' section should be removed Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems to be gone. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Sturm and I are interested in collaborating on some articles, and since I've got most of the sources already for this one, I decided to have a look. Given the comments by the delegates at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battleships of Greece/archive1 and its talk page, I have no interest in taking this to FLC. Sturm, reviewers, if you're comfortable with removing the "List of" from the title, I believe with a little extra material and some formatting work it would be much more welcome at FAC than it's going to be at FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: is 'Scarpaci, Wayne' actually used as a reference? Have I overlooked it, because I can't see it? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, moved.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've cut a bunch of the development histories of the ships out as extraneous. How does this read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: overall this seems fine to me. I have the following suggestions:

• in the lead, inconsistent: "the US Navy changed" v "The U. S. Navy's main impetus";
• in the lead, "aircraft carrier" is probably overlinked;
• in Note 1, I wonder if "Jane's Fighting Ships" should be put in italics due to it being the title of a work;
• Footnotes # 1 and 2 appear to be the same and probably should be consolidated like the others (for example 10, 11, 12, 13 etc.);
• in the References, Garzke & Dulin is missing location details for the publisher, while all the other works have them;
• incorrect section capitalisation per WP:Section caps. "Further Reading" should just be "Further reading". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Got them all except the footnotes and references. (Sturm?) Thanks so much for spotting these. - Dank (push to talk) 11:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed the refs and footnotes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Arthur S. Carpender

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Continuing the series on senior commanders in the South West Pacific Area during World War II. Had a couple of lucky breaks researching this one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• do we know what the landing force that was put ashore from the Marietta was tasked with?
  • I don't know; do you have any suggested sources? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I added a little bit of context. I think that this would be enough - what do you think? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• are there anymore details about what Carpender did during the occupation of Veracruz? Was he involved in any significant battles/actions?
  • I don't know; do you have any suggested sources? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
    • It probably only needs a sentence that outlines what the First Regiment of Bluejackets did in order to provide a little context to Carpender's involvement. I did a quick Google Books search, though, and it brought up some possibilities [20]. Sweetman's 1968 Landing at Veracruz might be useful. Sorry, I don't know much about this period. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Hi, I did a few searches and found something, so I've added a little bit of detail on this. Please let me know what you think. Feel free to adjust as you see fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• the Between the wars section begins with "Carpender returned to the United States..." however, I don't think that it is clear where he was before this as the last section ends with him at Newport News;
  • Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• images look appropriately licenced, although is there a url or a book source for "File:Arthur Carpender.jpg"?
  • Nope. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• is ancestry.com considered a reliable source? If so, you might mention that Carpender was one of seven children per [21];
  • Not so far as I am aware. I only used it for one small fact. Added though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
• this paragraph seems a little confusing, "In November 1942, Carpender turned down a request..." as it says that he refused in the first sentence, but then in the second sentence it says that the escort mission occured. Was his decision overruled? Does this then link to the third sentence where Sutherland mentions his displeasure? If so, I think the link needs to be made a little clearer. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Not really; the escort was only by corvettes, and was a month later. Added a bit. MacArthur could not, of course, overrule Carpender. We do not know exactly what Sutherland said to King; I have checked the minutes and it was not recorded. I have not checked the COMINCH files though. We can be sure that the reluctance to risk his ships was one cause of annoyance at GHQ. There were others though. I am aware of arguments regarding the award of decorations, the handling of intelligence, and the chain of command. Could have been more though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator: It looks like this article needs more work. I would like to withdraw it and re-nominate it at a later date. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• I personally don't think it is too bad, Hawkeye, and given that articles usually take about 2 months to transit ACR these days, I think you would probably be able to get it up to scratch by then. That's just my opinion, though, and if you want to withdraw the nomination, that's fine too. I'd be happy to help in any way I can, or simply just re-review next time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to add my support to the article. I think it has enough coverage now for A-class. Good work as usual, Hawkeye. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think it's close to AC standard.
• "A direct descendant of Wolphert Gerretse Van Kouwenhoven," - its linked, but if this said "A direct descendant of the Dutch settler Wolphert..." it would prevent someone having to leave the article to understand the significance.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Carpender helped fit out a new destroyer squadron..." Was this a new appointment? (He was previously a Professor)
  • Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "World War II" - minor, but in 1939 the US hadn't joined the war. Might be worth starting the section with something like "In 1939 World War II broke out; although the US had yet to to join the war, it began to mobilise military resources. Carpenter helped fit out..." That way the casual reader can place the events in the article in the wider context.
• Also worth making clear in the sequence when the war for the US did begin (in case the reader doesn't know the date of Pearl Harbor)
  • It is more complicated than that. The Naval historians generally consider that the US was at war in the Atlantic from 4 September 1941. So Carpender took over an organisation that had been fighting for some months. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Leary had clashed with MacArthur over the former's reluctance to risk his ships, and his habit of communicating directly with King without going through MacArthur's General Headquarters (GHQ) in Brisbane." The "the former", "his ships" and "his habits" made it slightly hard to work out who this was talking about on first reading. How about "Leary was reluctant to risk his ships and had a habit of communicating directly with King without going through MacArthur's General Headquarters (GHQ) in Brisbane; this caused serious arguments between Leary and MacArthur."?
  • Reworded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• "Carpender oversaw the Seventh Fleet's operations during Operation Cartwheel." - again, worth giving an indicator of what the Op was in the sentence itself (e.g. "...during Operation Cartwheel, an attack on the Japanese at Rabaul.")
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)
• Do naval historians think Carpender was a success? Reading between the lines of his WWII service, he didn't seem to have been a tremendous success, but I may be doing him an injustice.
  • No, you are just basing your assessment on what I have written. This reflects the consensus of military historians. As for naval historians, Morison defends Carpender against the criticisms from GHQ and LHQ, but goes too far. Blair only covers the submarines. Pfennigsworth praises his good relations with the RAN. Wheeler merely notes that King relieved Carpender for an inability to get along with GHQ. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

NB: I now support. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Support -- I reviewed and passed this at GA not long ago and, checking all changes/additions since then I think it meets A-Class standards for prose, structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials as well; just made a couple of very minor tweaks. Note I haven't performed a spotcheck of sources on this but did so for another of Hawkeye's articles recently at FAC (Truman's Relief of MacArthur) so I don't feel I need to here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Just for future reference, while I think this is A-Class standard due to its full coverage of his military career, I don't know that I'd go to FAC with it in this form as info on his later life seems a bit threadbare -- I often find the same thing with my air force bios, and generally hold off on FAC for those for the same reason. FWIW... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Some articles are just like that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [22] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [23] (no action required).
  • A couple of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [24] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • This is a little repetitive: "After this, the town was cleared and defense lines established before the naval troops handed over to United States Army troops on 30 April." Specifically "naval troops" and United States Army troops" - might this be tweaked (minor nitpick/suggestion only)?
    • Re-worded: The town was cleared and defense lines established before it was handed over to United States Army troops on 30 April. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is also a little repetitive: "As the situation at Finschhafen became increasingly precarious, Lieutenant General Sir Edmund Herring became frustrated with Carpender's attitude...", specifically use of "became" twice in the same sentence (minor nitpick/suggestion only).
    • Changed the second one to "grew" Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I found a minor typo (fixed) but otherwise this article is quite well written and covers the topic well. IMO it meets the ACR criteria, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Thabkyou for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

William Anderson (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Returning after a short break from ACRs, I present one of the founding members of the RAAF. Among Bill Anderson's claims to fame: sharing in the first "kill" credited to No. 3 Squadron of the Australian Flying Corps in World War I; receiving the first Distinguished Flying Cross awarded to an Australian; and serving the shortest term as Chief of the Air Staff (one month)...! Although third in seniority to Dicky Williams and Jimmy Goble for most of his career, Anderson never made as much of an impact on the RAAF's development. He appears to have been well liked but there’s the suspicion that he gained his promotions and commands more through convenience and length of tenure than ability and sound judgement (not the first such officer, nor the last, I hear you cry!). This is currently GA, and I have no plans to take it to FAC at this stage because, while I believe his military career is well covered, information on anything he did afterwards is scant indeed. Anyway, hope you enjoy his tale... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support: up to your usual standard, Ian. I made a couple of minor tweaks, but otherwise couldn't see much wrong with it. There are no dab links, the ext links all work, alt text is present. The article is well referenced and well written in my opinion. The images look appropriately licenced to me, although others may disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks mate, appreciate your time! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• To my inexperienced eye, this looks really good. I did add a few links to the article and corrected another. I didn't add the link to Air Chief Marshal as I wasn't sure whether it should be to the RAAF rank or the RAF rank since Burnett was on secondment. A couple of (minor) things:
  • I tend not to link ranks before linked people because I don't especially like different links one after the other, and if someone follows the person link they'll find the rank linked in there somewhere. However I'm not especially fussed about it at A-Class level. Re. Burnett, if you were to link his rank of air chief marshal it'd be the RAF one as he was always an RAF officer even while CAS of the RAAF. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

1) Williams and Cole are both mentioned in the WWII section, having been referred to earlier. Because of the difference in ranks from their first mention in the article, to me it is not immediately apparent they are the same individuals (particularly for Cole whose first mention is as a F/L; Williams is mentioned a second time prior to the WWII section as being a WC so one gets the idea he is a senior officer anyway).

• Fair enough, are you suggesting re-linking the guys later?
  

probably the easier option rather than adding clarifying sentences.

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

2) Also in the WWII section, 2nd para, 3rd sentence - "its complement also included..." Perhaps that should be aircraft complement?

• That's fair too, the only reason I didn't use "aircraft complement" is that I say "army cooperation aircraft" later in the sentence and don't like repeating words...

How about...;its responsibilities also required the use of fighters...... Zawed (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Came up with something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy to support otherwise. Zawed (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - The changes look good, Ian. Zawed (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [25] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [26] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [27] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • I've read through the article word for word and can find no issues preventing its promotion; it is well-written, covers the topic in sufficient detail and is MOS compliant. IMO it meets the ACR criteria, well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Tks as always for your review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Eric Harrison (RAAF officer)

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Something (not sure what) has compelled me to review, update for style/formatting, and expand where possible all the bios I've done of the first generation of RAAF officers -- the veterans of World War I who joined the new Air Force at or shortly after its establishment on 31 March 1921. Many of those, such as Dicky Williams, Jimmy Goble, George Jones, Harry Cobby, Frank McNamara, "King" Cole and Henry Wrigley have already been through ACR and/or beyond. In other cases, like Bill Anderson and Eric Harrison, I've only recently compiled enough information to get them to what I consider ACR standard -- which is why you're reading this... ;-)

Harrison was, along with Henry Petre, one of the founders of the original Central Plying School at Point Cook, Victoria, in 1913–14. Unlike Petre, however, he remained a part of Australian military aviation after World War I, and so was the first man to be known as the "Father of the RAAF", a title more commonly bestowed in our own time on Dicky Williams. Harrison is therefore, as rightly described by an RAAF officer in 1999, something of an "unsung hero" now, so I hope you enjoy his story... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments Nothing wrong with cleaning up your old articles; I've been doing a bit of that myself as well (and managed a FA out of the process). As usual Ian, this is great work. I have the following comments, however:

• Should the Central Flying School be referred to as an 'facility' (which implies it was some kind of building/base) or a 'unit' or a 'institution'? I don't really have a preference to be honest!
  • Yep, the entire base (i.e. Point Cook) could properly be referred to as a facility but the CFS was indeed more a unit or institution -- think I'll change that.
• "Harrison took charge of instruction at CFS and was responsible for training student pilots of the Australian Flying Corps" - this is slightly repetitive and could be simplified
  • What you have in mind, something like ""Harrison took charge of instruction at CFS for student pilots of the Australian Flying Corps"?
    • Yes, that works Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• You should probably explain Harrison's role in regard to No. 1 Squadron further; I take it that he established this unit, but someone else took it over before it left for the Middle East?
  • Fair enough, I'll at least add that Hercules Reynolds (who might score a new article from me himself some time) took command of it for service in the Middle East -- that'll tie in nicely with the image we have.
• "Langslow was appointed Secretary to the Minister for Air" - do you mean the Ministry of Air here? Departmental secretaries head their department, and are not on the staff of the minister.
  • Quite right, Sir Humphrey! Department of Air was meant.
• You might want to specify that the CFC only provided initial training in World War I, with the advanced training taking place in Britain (Fire in the Sky is pretty good on this topic)
  • Well I don't think we should get too involved in stuff that was remote from Harrison but I guess we could briefly note the initial vs. advanced training situation.
    • Yes, that's what I was getting at: as I understand it, CFS assessed applicants and taught basic flying skills, while RFC schools and later the AFC's 1st Training Wing in the UK provided training in combat aircraft and their tactics. As such, instead of saying "Harrison took on the main responsibility for training pilots of the first three squadrons " it might be better to write "Harrison took on the main responsibility for providing inital flying training to the pilots of the first three squadrons" Nick-D (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay, done -- I meant to work in the "basic/initial" thing to counterbalance the "advanced" bit I added later but forgot... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Picture check All images are PD Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks for reviewing, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Support All my comments are now addressed; great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Support, enjoyed it with minor comments:

• "and helped lay the foundations of the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)." - Minor, but as the lead, this could be read either as a physical (he literally laid the foundations) or a more general action. "...helped establish the Royal..." would avoid any confusion.
  • I'm not wed to "laid the foundations" but "establish" sounds to me like he had a direct hand in the RAAF's formation, which he did not. Does "laid the groundwork" sound better?

• Yep. Hchc2009 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• "Following the outbreak of World War I"- worth linking World War I.
  • It was pointed out to me a few FACs back that WWs I and II are such enormous subjects that linking them is a bit redundant. I concurred and so far most reviewers seem to agree, or at least not disagree... ;-) I have however linked it to Australia's involvement, which is an alternative that's also been acceptable to other reviewers.
• "having accumulated some thirty minutes flight time" - should there be an apostrophe after minutes?
  • Reckon so, tks.
• " "Two competent mechanists and aviators" " - MOS would allow you to lower case the "two" if you wished.
  • Done, tks.
• "While his new salary of £400" - the link clarifies the currency, but I'd advise spelling it out, in case someone didn't click on the link.
  • Well I'd have thought that Australian currency was clearly implied given the context, and all my sources generally use the symbol...
• "Premier of Victoria" - should premier have a lower case letter here?
  • Fair question but I believe upper case is always used for this particular office/title.
• "he reportedly went out of his way " - who are the quotes from? 19:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, the above dated but unsigned review/support was by Hchc2009, per this edit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Tweaked to include author. Many tks for review/support, HC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'll learn to sign my comments one day... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Heh, it's the thought that counts...! Also, tweaked article according to first point above. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support:

• no dramas with prose that I could find and the article is well referenced;
• alt text is present, there are no dab links, and the ext links all worked for me;
• affirming Nick's review, the images appear to be correctly licenced to me;
• spot checks using Google search didn't find any copyright violations. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks for your review, mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Convoy Faith

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers one of the last successful German air attacks during the Battle of the Atlantic in World War II. It passed a GA review last January, but I didn't take it further at the time. I've since expanded and copy-edited the article, and hope that it now meets the A class criteria. To pre-empt a couple of questions I'm sure will be asked: 1) the article only cites a small number of sources as not much has been written about this battle. I've looked everywhere for further coverage, but without success 2) unfortunately none of these sources explain why the convoy was called 'Faith'. I presume that the reason was that it was an unusual one-off convoy from Scotland to West Africa, so it didn't fit into the regular convoy codes. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll be adding more comments later, but one question first – I realize that there's a lack of sources, but is there any way of adding more information on WG Busk-Wood? Could there be a mention of where he gained some experience as a captain? dci | TALK 14:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is; he commanded an ocean liner prior to the war - I've added this to the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Images check out licence wise. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Support -- Nice succinct article in the tradition of your earlier Black Friday (1945), Nick. Prose (bar some minor things I copyedited), structure, detail, referencing, and supporting materials all check out -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment in the Prelude section, the reason that the article discusses movement of two troopships from Scotland, when the entire focus is on moving the division from West Africa to India, is a little unclear. Until half way through the article I did not understand why we were discussing ships originating from Scotland. Recommend you recast the introduction to emphasise the repositioning of troopships to support movement of divisions, instead of the division move itself. Other changes might be needed lower down. Otherwise, a good article, well referenced, though a note might usefully explain exactly what you did above - why the convoy does not appear to have had a code. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I personally would switch the 'Background' and 'Prelude' sections, on the basis that the convoy itself is the subject of the article. If the article was titled something like 'German air attacks on date XYZ' the current order would make sense. Also consider retitling 'Background' and 'Prelude' something like 'German oceanic air attacks' and 'Troop move to India' which would better describe the contents. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Finally, in the absence of KG 40, we do have Fliegerführer Atlantik. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments; I'll follow up on them over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think that these comments are now addressed. I haven't renamed the first two sections, but I have moved their content around and added some extra background, so they should make more sense. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: looks good. I made a couple of minor tweaks. I have the following comments, but am happy that it meets the requirements for A-class:
  • do we know where the German aircraft were based out of? I imagine somewhere in France, but if you know the base, it might be added to the background maybe;
    • Yes, added. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "it was believed that submarines posed the main threat..." To butcher a Churchill quote, in this context submarines were "gallant and noble" Allied craft which sank German ships, while U-boats were "dastardly villians" who sank Allied ships. Essentially what I'm trying to say is that I wonder if "submarines" here should be changed to "U-boats", obviously avoiding the POV of Churchill's statement;
    • I prefer to use 'submarine' in this context as they weren't very different to the Allied boats, and 'U-boat' has developed something of a mythology around it (though I have to confess to using the terms interchangeably when developing Operation Teardrop to FA level a few years ago... - at least it added some extra variety to the prose!) Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Sure, no worries. Sir Winston might hold it against you but I won't. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "one of the escorting destroyers at 0:45 am". This was on 12 July? It might pay to add the date here, just to clarify;
  • "and she was abandoned at 10:40 pm". On 11 July? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • You're correct on both counts; fixed. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You're welcome. Good work. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there anything relevant in the official Canadian histories? No Higher Hope might be the relevant volume for this affair.
  • Good point, I'll check today. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
• Places of publication need nations for everyplace except major cities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Done (I think that people will assume that the 'Oxford' in the reference is the one in the UK given that it's a well-known centre of academic and publishing activities). Thanks for your comments - I hope to be able to fully address the first one later today. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support

• • No dab links [28] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [29] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [30] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all seem to be PD or licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • Should "WG Busk-Wood" be "W.G. Busk-Wood"?
    • Yes, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This sentence seems a little awkward to me: "The decision to use a similar route to other convoys despite Convoy Faith's small escort made it an attractive target." Would something like this work better: "The decision to use a similar route to that used by previous convoys despite Convoy Faith's small escort made it an attractive target..."? (suggestion only) Anotherclown (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point - I've heavily tweaked this sentence. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No problem at all, I found the article to be well-written and interesting and in my opinion ticks all the ACR criteria. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

King of the Ghassanids, the most important Byzantine client ruler of the late 6th century and one of the most important pre-Islamic Arab rulers. The article passed a rather thorough GA about a year ago, but it is complete and well-referenced, and should meet A-class criteria. I'd like eventually to push this for FA, so any criticism and/or advice is welcome! Constantine ✍ 13:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Al-Mundhir_III_ibn_al-Harith#Arrest and exile. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. "his son Nu'man and his remaining three brothers.": Nu'man's brothers? If not, say "his three remaining brothers and his son Nu'man". - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Fixed the ambiguity. Thanks for your copyedits, as well! Constantine ✍ 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support: looks good. I couldn't find anything that really stood out as needing attention and I believe that it meets the A-class criteria. I have the following comments for the review:
  • the one image used appears to be appropriately licenced to me (no action required);
  • ext links work and there are no dab links (no action required);
  • referencing seems sufficient (no action required);
  • in the Arrest and exile section, the duplicate link checker tool reports two duplicate links: "John of Ephesus" and "Patriarch of Antioch". They might need to be delinked, but it is only a minor point. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Delinked the duplicate links. Constantine ✍ 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments -- I'll take up the copyediting from where Dank left off, soon as I get a chance...
  • Just quickly while I think of it: while it doesn't fuss me particularly at A-Class, if you're taking to FAC your citations should follow the general format of the relevant reference, e.g. "Greatrex & Lieu" should appear "Greatrex; Lieu". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Noted, and thanks for taking up Dank's work! Constantine ✍ 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• Prose/structure/style -- looks like Dan completed his copyediting so my habitual all-through copyedit was pretty light; the article is very readable and well formatted, however I have to admit I'm not sure of the point of the brackets around "Flavios" in the opening sentence.
  • Agreed, changed to parens. Is this okay, Constantine? - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It's fine, thanks! Constantine ✍ 13:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• Refs/citations -- aside from what I said at the top re. citation formatting, FNs 9 and 28 are identical.
• Images -- happy to rely on Rupert's check above.
• Source spotcheck -- went through Shahîd, the main one available online:

• FN 9 -- couldn't find any ref to Hirah on the cited page.
• FNs 20, 27, 28 -- no issues.
• FN 25 -- although I can't see everything in the page range on GoogleBooks, it looks to me that the assertion re. historians' view of the supposed treachery is supported; however the claim that author Shahîd is "the foremost scholar on pre-Islamic Arabian Christianity and Arab relations with Byzantium" really needs its own independent citation, otherwise you should probably simply describe him as "author of Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century", which is self-evident.

• Content -- while I think we probably have enough coverage of his career to meet A-Class standards, it seems a bit spartan over all. Just considering it from a potential FAC perspective, do you feel you've mined most everything you can on the subject? Are there no anecdotes (even legendary ones, as long as reliably sourced) or quotes available that might give us a little more insight into the man himself, as opposed to simply what he did? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• On the issue of size, I agree that the article is "spartan", but this is deliberate. The article could be (much, much) longer, if I included a fuller discussion on the various issues surrounding Mundhir, but then it would be a condensed (and heavily plagiarized, no doubt) version of Shahid's excellent book, and I certainly wouldn't make such a good job as he in presenting them. I aimed to provide a complete but not over-detailed presentation of the subject for the average reader. Before going to FAC, I'll definitely run through the sources again and see if I can add something, but a major expansion in the main narrative is unlikely. If however you feel you'd like to know more in specific places in the text, feel free to list them! On the legends, I know there are some anecdotes on Mundhir, or rather the Ghassanids in general, but they all date from far later in the Muslim era, e.g. in the Kitab al-Aghani. Their reliability is open to question, and I haven't yet been able to find a good source in English for them. I shall keep looking, however. Constantine ✍ 13:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
• On footnote 9, I guess you looked in Byzantium and the Arabs, rather than in the Encyclopedia of Islam. The article on Hirah is on those two pages, 462 and 463. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, tks for altering the page range for FN9.
• Re. content overall, as I said before, I felt there was just about enough for A-Class but that FAC could use a bit more flesh on it -- the Legacy section does that nicely, tks.
• I saw the alteration to the description of Shahid but you're still expressing an opinion on the author that's not self-evident for the lay reader -- you may know he's an "expert" but I don't, to me it's self-evident that he's an historian, and the author of a book, and that's about it. I would describe him here in either of those terms, or just take out any description of him since I can see now he has a WP article anyway. I may be a hard-arse here but if this is destined for FAC, might as well address this sort of thing now -- everything else I'm happy with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and I just removed "an expert on pre-Islamic Arabian Christianity and Arab relations with Byzantium" ... I'm not contesting that, it's just that since he's got his own article, the right place to argue and support that is in that article, not in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Tks Dank -- well that makes two reviewers sharing the same opinion on that little point. Constantine, on the assumption you're okay with that change, I'm happy to support for A-Class and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
      • No problem. The article on Shahid is a stub, so I felt an emphasis on his role as an authority in these matters was warranted. But I am equally fine with no description (after all, an observant reader will notice how many times and in what publications he is referenced). Thanks to the both of you for your assistance. Constantine ✍ 16:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. Sourcing looks good, article seems comprehensive, and the language is understandable. I would, however, like to see an additional sentence or two explaining A-M III's importance to history. I note that his reign ended one year before Muhammad was born in the region just to the south. I assume that actions during his reign must have had some influence on the rise of Islam just a few decades later, but I don't see anything about this. Johnboddie (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I have some good sources on the general importance of the Ghassanids, including their place in pre-Islamic Arabia. I'll have some time in about a week, and add a short section then. Constantine ✍ 16:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I've added the section, as promised. Constantine ✍ 13:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks great. The "legacy" section is just what I was looking for. Johnboddie (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

John Troglita

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

An article on one of the rather unknown heroes of the Byzantine reconquest of Africa. It passed GA a few months ago, and is quite complete and well-referenced (the neglect of the Byzantine period of North Africa in modern historiography means that Ch. Diehl's 1896 book remains the standard work to this day). I'd like eventually to push this for FA, so any criticism and/or advice is welcome! Constantine ✍ 13:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

• I don't know what "arrested ... to the Persians" means.
• "in the another": I'm not sure if this is supposed to be "in another" or "in the other". - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for starting the review! I have clarified/fixed both sentences, and made a few other minor copyedits. Constantine ✍ 06:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Support

• I wonder if there are more images that could be added to break up the text a little more. Are there any images of the battles in which Troglita took part? I won't hold it against the article, though, as the image that is there is fine and correctly licenced (I think - I tweaked some of its details, to be sure);
• in the lead, this sounds awkward to me: "where a succession of revolts by the indigenous Moorish tribes and of military revolts had seriously reduced the Byzantine position" (specifically "and of military revolts"). Perhaps try: "where a succession of revolts by the indigenous Moorish tribes and the military had seriously reduced the Byzantine position";
• these sorts of constructions sound a bit awkward to my ears "In summer 546" (etc. there are others similar to this). I feel that they need a definate article and the word "of" (e.g. "In the summer of 546", but if others disagree, I can live with that;
• "he need for a new and capable leader in Africa was apparent". Apparent to whom? Justinian perhaps?
• this sounded a bit awkward to me: "The exact date of Troglita's death is unknown, but most likely he died in 552 or soon after". Perhaps try: "The exact date of Troglita's death is unknown, but it is most likely that he died in 552 or soon after";
• the infobox says his rank was "magister militum", but the article seems to indicate that it was "patricius". This seems inconsistent, but as I don't know much about the era, I can't really be sure. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've dealt with the issues you raised. As for the images, there isn't any depiction of Troglita or the events described in the article, as far as I know - and if there i, it would be a modern work and subject to copyright restrictions. I am searching for suitable material though, and if I find anything, it will be included. Constantine ✍ 15:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Prose/structure/style -- as for Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith, copyedited but little needed on another readable and well formatted article.
• Refs/citations -- again, for FAC I believe "Martindale, Jones & Morris 1992" should appear as "Martindale; Jones; Morris 1992" per the full reference format.
• Images -- happy to rely on Rupert's check above.
• Source spotcheck -- used Diehl, as it's fully online, and my French is not too bad; FNs 5, 10, 17 and 23 all looked okay.
• Content -- a bit more detailed than the Al-Mundhir account, quite sufficient for ACR, and I think we get a little more insight into John's character here, at least at Cato; again, of course, when it gets to FAC it'd be great to see a bit more on the personaility of the man should anything be available in your sources. Overall, though, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Goodenough Island

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Following on the Battle of Milne Bay, is the Battle of Goodenough Island. Not really a battle, though, as only battalion sized units were involved; had I created the article it probably would have been "Landing on Goodenough Island". I'm not much of a "muddy boots" historian either, so this article lacks the touch that Rupert gave the Battle of Milne Bay. Because the Japanese force was not annihilated, there are reasonable Japanese sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: I reviewed this for GA and intend to do a full ACR on it shortly, but I want to let someone else give it a going over first so that it can have a different set of eyes on it. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions at this stage:

• is there a source for the operation being called "Drake"? I haven't yet been able to confirm this. I have found a source for "Drake Force", which might need to be worked in as currently the reference at note 16 (McCarthy 1959, p. 347) doesn't mention that the force was called Drake Force [31];
  • It's also in Graeme-Evans and the war diaries. What I believe - but cannot yet prove - is that Drake was actually the codename for Goodenough Island itself. It was changed to Amoeba in 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• the article possibly could be called the "Landing on Goodenough Island" as you suggest, as that is how it is presented in the source I link above. I'm not fussed either way, though;
  • Me neither. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• I think that constructs such as "Galaiwau Bay-Kilia Mission", generally take an endash in place of the hyphen per the MOS, but I'm uncertain about whether such constructs in quotes should be changed to meet the MOS, so currently I've left them alone;
  • Will use the ndash. I think Dank said that quotations have to be reformatted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Aftermath, "The 1st Battalion, 91st Engineer General Service Regiment was assigned" - I wonder if this unit should be identified as a US Army unit and also whether there is a link that could be added for it;
  • Just for you, I have created a short article on the 91st Engineer General Service Regiment. Now somebody needs to assess it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Cheers, nice work. I've assessed it as a C-class article as the post-World War II service probably needs a bit more detail for B-class. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• currently the Japanese casualties listed in the article are only Allied estimates, are there any Japanese sources that provide their own estimates of said casualties? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It's always hit or miss with Japanese sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• I have gone over the article again this afternoon and I am happy that the article meets A-class standards. I have the comments for the sake of the review:

• the article is well referenced using a format that is consistent throughout the article;
• the article is comprehensive, accurate, neutral and focused;
• the article is well structured and is written in concise English (caveat: I copy edited the article during my GAN review, so hopefully a subsequent reviewer will confirm prose);
• the article contains suitable supporting materials and the images are all appropriately licenced;
• while doing my review at GAN, I did not find any copyright violations (I spot checked the article's print sources and did internet searches) and I have no reason to suspect that any have crept in since then. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments I've made a small number of edits to this article and considered developing it a while ago, but I think that I'm uninvolved enough to review it. As normal for Hawkeye's work, this is a really good article which is even-handed and goes into an appropriate level of detail; nice work. My comments are:

• "were evacuated from the island and withdrawn to Fergusson Island " - this could be simplified with "were evacuated to Fergusson Island"
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• The Military situation section seems miss-placed, as it only describes the situation after the Prelude section. This section also may not be necessary given that the occupation of Goodenough Island was a minor affair.
  • Moved it down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Japanese marines" - I'm pretty sure that SNLF troops aren't normally called 'marines' (as they had no real ability to make opposed amphibious landings and were primarily defensive in nature).
  • That was the US Marines too until the 1940s. Perhaps we need someone who knows some Japanese... Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • From what I've read, SNLF troops are normally called 'naval infantry' or similar, and 'marines' is regarded as incorrect (for instance, see page 7 of this book on Google books as well as this section of a book by USMC Pacific War order of battle specialist Gordon Rottman). I'm not 100% sure what the most common usage is though. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Removed references to "marines". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Do we know how the Americans were withdrawn from the island?
  • No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "C Company, 2/10th Infantry Battalion, under the command of Captain J. Brocksopp, was designated to land on Normanby Island" - I think that 'directed' or 'ordered' or similar would work better than 'designated'
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "and experiencing no opposition " - change to active voice (eg, 'encountered no opposition')
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk)
• Is a book published by the 12th Battalion Association a reliable source on Japanese submarine operations?
  • The author sources to a translation of the relevant Japanese official history, which I do not have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, fair enough. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Do you have enough information to mark-up the map with the movements of the Australian and Japanese forces? (I remember checking the 2/12th Infantry Battalion's war diary for a map showing this when I was considering developing the article, but couldn't find one)
  • Maybe, but it would be beyond my technical ability to carry out. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "were then sent south and were engaged by Japanese forces" - the two 'were's are repetitive
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "He launched an attack on Kilia at 09:10 hours" - is this Arnold or Gatewood?
  • Arnold. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• You could note in the final section that No. 79 Squadron RAAF arrived on the island in June 1943
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support My comments have now all been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [32] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [33] (no action required).
  • Images have Alt Text [34] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • Minor repetition in language in the lead: "...and after a short but heavy fight..." and "After the battle, Goodenough Island was developed..." Consider something like "Following' the battle, Goodenough Island was developed..." (suggestion only)
    • Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • This construction seems a little redundant: "the Australian 2/12th Infantry Battalion, a Second Australian Imperial Force unit..." Perhaps just "the 2/12th Infantry Battalion, a Second Australian Imperial Force unit..."? (suggestion only)
    • Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • Some inconsistency, in places "machine-gun" and in others "machine guns" (minor nitpick).
    • Done Hawkeye7 (talk)
  • Other than these very minor points this article is of a high standard and I'm confident it meets the A class criteria. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Image comments - discussion taken to commons

Images: File:Goodenough Island.jpeg needs more information so as to verify it as a work of the US federal government. Also all images need a United States copyright tag - they just have to. I've done some sleuthing, and it comes down to whether Australian copyright laws have changed or not. {{Template:PD-URAA}} is perfect if they haven't, insofar as this means that they were already in the public domain by 1 January 1996. If you check that out a bit, then that should cover you. I'm making this a technical oppose because it has to be dealt with, and you've got some support above. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC) No idea what you are talking about. All images are appropriately tagged. File:Goodenough Island.jpeg has a US Army tag. You looked in the book cited as the source verified it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Well, there are two separate issues. I admit when I looked at File:Goodenough Island.jpeg I overlooked the fact that the author line feeds into the source line, but a publisher or that sort of information would be useful. The second issues affects files such as File:Australian soldiers with Japanese flag captured at Goodenough Island.jpg. All files on Wikimedia Commons must be both in the public domain in their country of origin (here Australia) and the United States. Files like that one do not state their copyright position in the United States – a file may still be copyright there when it isn't in Australia because the United States does not apply the rule of the shorter term. The template "Template:PD-URAA" to which I refer, which only exists on Commons, may be appropriate: all files which were public domain in their source country (Australia) on 1 January 1996 are in the public domain in the United States as well. If these were privately taken photographs, it seems to me that the files concerned are in the public domain in Australia by virtue of case B of the Australian licence template, "Photographs (except A): taken prior to 1 January 1955". If this was a valid statement of the law on 1 January 1996, then "Template:PD-URAA" is appropriate. So the question then is when this blanket statement came into existence. The extant copyright law in this area appears to be from 1994, which is good. If they are works of any of Australia's governments, then the appropriate rule is year made + 50 years, which would be fine. That would have lapsed in 1992 or so, before the 1996 date. If you can say if they are a work of a private individual or the government I can help follow through. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC) G'day, I've tweaked the map image to make its publisher clearer. Could you please check that you are happy with this change? Regarding the AWM images, I don't think its going to be possible to provide the information that you are asking for. While the AWM includes authors where possible, they do not always do so and the authors' status as an either an official photographer or private photographer doesn't appear to be spelt out. My own belief is that Cliff Bottomley was an official photographer as he doesn't appear to have been in the military at the time (his name doesn't appear on the WW2 nominal roll that I can find), and his presence in a combat zone would be impossible unless he was one of the two, I would assume. I believe that John Thomas Harrison was in the RAAF: [35], and William H. Robinson was too, serving as a photographer: [36]. These answers are not definitive, though. Frankly, I really cannot see how URAA applies practically here. The source of the images clearly states they are in the public domain. How would the US government seek to enforce this copyright, and who would benefit from them doing so? The AWM (which is run by the Australian Government) is making these images, which it holds, freely available. By this reasoning, all AWM Korean War images - which are PD in Australia for having been taken prior to 1955, or over 50 years if owned by the government - are not PD in the US and shouldn't be used. As such, should this image be deleted: File:Reg Saunders leading his company in Korea.jpg? I admit I'm not a copyright expert, but this really doesn't seem to be common sense. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC) As some comments on File:Australian soldiers with Japanese flag captured at Goodenough Island.jpg: The AWM has - very helpfully - accurately labeled the copyright status of all the images on its online database. This one's status is "Copyright expired - public domain". To add to AustralianRupert's comments above, the Department of Information also posted official photographers to the war zones as part of its (somewhat contradictory) efforts to generate propaganda and record images for later use by the official historians - these photographers were government employees, but not necessarily members of the military, and their photographs would have been Commonwealth Government property upon creation. In regards to this specific photo, Clifford Bottomley was engaged by the Department of Information as an official war photographer in 1940 and appears to have severed in the same capacity in the Army at various points in the war. His World War II-era personal file is also available online in via the National Archives of Australia (file B4717). See also this record in the New South Wales State Library. More generally, there have been lots of discussions of the copyright status of images in the AWM's database over the years, and the consensus has always been that the WW2-era images are PD if the AWM says that they are (which it doesn't always do), and these images have been given the thumbs up in lots of FACs. I think that the Korean War-era photos are also generally OK. While there are a small number of errors in the AWM's database, my experience has been that the curators who entered the photos' copyright status knew what they were doing and can be assumed to have tagged the image correctly. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (undent - feel free to move this to talk). I'm confident that pre-1945/6 works are in the public domain, and I've added a tag to File:Australian soldiers with Japanese flag captured at Goodenough Island.jpg to this effect, which can be replicated. I had real trouble tracking down why pre-1955 photographs are in the public domain, so I've concluded that rather than being placed in the public domain, they were never properly covered by it. Unfortunately the Korean War ones will need more thought. If they weren't in the public domain in the US on 1 January 1996, they remain in copyright (by the original copyright holder) by that measure. Might be worth asking at WP:MCQ, or, if this is a lot of files, MDennis/MRG directly. On some specific points, the AWM people are working entirely within Australian law, so they're only concerned with Australian copyright. I've no doubt these works are in the public domain in Australia, that's clear enough. Also if this arrangement seems odd, then yes, it is, but we have to play by the rules. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC) We've been through all this before. See Template talk:PD-Australia. The 1955 date comes from the adoption of the Berne Convention as a result of the US-Australia FTA in 2005. The treaty specifies that restoration of copyright will not occur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC) I don't think I'm quite on the same page here. The Berne Convention, as I understand it, can only increase and not remove protection, which is what our article says for the agreement: "Australia agreed to extend its copyright expiration period from 50 to 70 years after the author’s death". I'm not arguing, I agree that the images are in the public domain in Australia, they haven't been restored into copyright. It's the files' status within the US. Template talk:PD-Australia doesn't seemed to have reached a conclusion, but the helpful passage, which is very similar to that above: is Please read circulars 38b and 15a about the US laws 38a relates to restoration of rights to works where the work is protected in its source country. 15a then states that "The Act provides no procedure for restoring protection for works in which copyright has been lost for any reason.". Restoration of copyright is only for the term of copyright in the source country it doesnt extend copyrights beyond that. Gnangarra 02:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Just because it is public domain in Australia, does not make it public domain in other countries. [5] (page 6) says: "Can I use a work that is still in copyright overseas, if copyright has expired here?.. If copyright in a photo has expired in Australia because it was taken, say, in 1926 or 1953, then you may reproduce it in a book in Australia. If, however, you wanted to print or distribute the book overseas, you would need to check that copyright in the photograph has expired in each country where the book is to be printed or distributed." --Astrokey44 09:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC) The quote which Gnagarra gives above applies to the loss of U.S. copyright, not to the loss of source country copyright. The assertion that "once an image is Public Domain then that is applied worldwide" is, unfortunately, untrue. Physchim62 (talk) 11:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC) As I say, I'm confident that pre-1945 works can be satisfactorily dealt with, which I think is all of those relevant to this review. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC) I'd have to say I share Hawkeye's frustration that this issue is being brough up yet again. The status of Second World War (and also Korean War) images held by the AWM and tagged by it as public domain has been discussed at length, and has been tested on a number of occasions in deletion debates. In each of the occasions that I am aware of the images were kept and moved to Commons. Anotherclown (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC) Could you link me to the past discussions? I don't like playing devil's advocate, but I feel I'm forced to a bit. I'll go ahead and duplicate my explanation to the other images on the article for pre-1946 if you would like, such that there might be a more appropriate venue for 1946-55 images if it hasn't been previously resolved – which from what you say sounds unlikely. The link above was unresolved. The number one rule on Commons is that the US and country of origin licences have to be given, and the files mentioned above didn't – it's been finding out under what rule they're PD in the US that I don't understand, hopefully previous discussions can elucidate that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC) A number of the discussions can be found here - [37] and [38]. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC) (undent) I'm a bit confused as to what proposal moving on is favoured. The links provided (thanks) paint a confusing picture of what rationale these images are being used. (I can justify this viewpoint, but I didn't want to make this reply too long.) Accordingly, I was going to move to licence all the contentious images in the article as I mentioned above, that is, with a rationale that provides for all pre-1946 files without prejudice to any further discussions about files in the 1946–55 period. That would have cleared this ACR to the satisfaction of all concerned, I had presumed, and given me time to consider, prepare and possibly launch a test case for the other files. However, Hawkeye has reverted my proposed licensing for the image file where I used it as an example, which leaves me unclear as to what my remaining options are and which are favoured. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC) PD-URAA is deprecated on Commons. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC) I believe it is indeed. There (here, I made use of PD-1996, which I believe is one of two replacing it - please could you elaborate your point further? I know I referred to PD-URAA, but the placement is a mere split of that template. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Another bad template. It says that government photographs have to be 50 years old in 1996 to fall into the public domain. That is rubbish. When the government extended the lifetime of copyright from 50 to 70 years in 2005, it chose not to do so for government owned photographs. So all government photographs from 1961 or earlier are in the public domain. It is privately owned photographs from 1956 that have to wait until 2026, when the clock starts ticking again. Why are we arguing about this here? It should be taken elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC) You#re absolutely correct – these images are indeed out of copyright in Australia. The above template attempts to show that they are also in the public domain in the United States, which is the other requirement for files hosted on Commons (or a suitable other licence). There are other ways, too, in which the files might be PD in the US, but I really did think that one looked promising. This discussion still involves images in the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 08:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC) I agree with Hawkeye: this discussion belongs elsewhere given that the images in this article have been established to be OK. Though as noted above, this has been discussed multiple times in the past. WT:AUSTRALIA is probably a good venue for the discussion; Australia seems to punch above its weight in producing editors who know the ins and outs of copyright law! Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC) (undent): my feeling is that it's got to come back here, that discretion can't allow an ACR to pass when its images are incorrectly licensed (they do not state, right or wrong, their US copyright status). I would like HawkEye to better explain his opposition to my previous suggestion, as that could get past this problem. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC) These images are Commons files, perhaps you might take this discussion there? Anotherclown (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC) I shall in due course, except that I can in all honesty drop my objection here until such matters are resolved, and thus I felt it might in the interests of the nominator and/or others to resolve it here for the files in the article. Any further discussion elsewhere is almost certainly going to be long, and if this is a test for it, confused and dazing. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC) I fail to see how this discussion is going to move forward then. Three of the four participants in this ACR have all expressed opinions that are contrary to that which you have advanced, so unless some other editor is going to become involved we seem to be at an impasse. The issues you raise do not seem to be clearly defined, and if, as you suggest, they require a test case then they don't seem to be based on policy either. ACR is about improving the standard of our articles, not arguing about esoteric matters of law that may or may not be an issue at all. Personally I'm struggling hard not to view your stand on this matter to be anything other than obstructionalist. Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC) At the moment my proposal was shot down by HawkEye, who I'm hoping will explain his objection. What is your objection, if any, to the my proposed licence [here? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC) This really isn't the right place to discuss this. AWM images using these tags have been given the thumbs up as part of image checks in dozens of FA reviews, so there seems to be no reason to think that there's a problem. Any discussion of the ins and outs of the licensing should take place on an appropriate central noticeboard; which can happen in parallel to this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Created here. You can archive this discussion if you would like to clear some space, but my opposition remains until this issue has been resolved. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Comments on that thread have dried up, with a general position (some posters weren't quite clear) that pre-1946 files should be licensed with PD-1996 and PD-Australia. I suggest this is implemented. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Please could I have an update on whether the nominator or others are likely to implement the accepted proposal for the files concerned (in the context of the discussion on Commons, pre-1946 files) or if not on which grounds they do not feel that a PD-1996 tag would be appropriate. The clear focus on Commons is now a constructive resolution of post-1946 files. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I have added the PD-1996 tag to the AWM images; however, I do not necessarily hold the opinion that this tag is even necessary. I have not been convinced that URAA could be applied to these images or any others like them. That is just my opinion, though, and obviously it is not a universal one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

De Havilland Comet

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it is an article of sufficient depth and importance to merit further evaluating. This review has been recommended by several project members and I am prepared to undertake work in response to the criticisms that may be made of this article. It has been suggested that the article is one of the better civil aircraft-type articles to have been produced so far, and may be worthy of FA level with time, which may be a future developmental step to take - this stage would certainly be benefitial if that goal were to be sought later on. Kyteto (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments aircraft aren't my specialty so I wouldn't normally review such an article. As no one else has reviewed yet, I've given it a crack. I made a few minor tweaks and hopefully you will find those and my comments below helpful in some regard:

• the table of contents is currently creating a large amount of whitespace at the top of the article. You might consider adding a TOC limiter to it, to reduce the size. This can be done using the following code: "{{TOC limit|2}}" (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement);

Implimented; I don't like large wasted 'white space' either. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• this probably needs a citation: "It was the Comet's first deadly accident and the first fatal crash of a jet airliner";

I'll just delete the line, and it can be readded with a citation by somebody who can prove it, because I fished around for something convinent and didn't get lucky - it had enough time to jump out at me. Kyteto (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems fine since the Comet was the first jet airliner and the next jet airliners did not enter service until a few years later. Yea, the jet airliner part could be difficult to properly cite. :( -Fnlayson (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• in the Cohen Committee Court of Inquiry section, the second part of the second paragraph appears to be uncited. Milhist ACR citation standards would usually ask for a citation to cover this part of the paragraph also, even if it is just a duplicate;

Implimented. This was recently reorganised by copyediting by multiple editors, I've relocated the citations correctly that accurately cover the evidence and statements for that section.Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• same as above for the second part of the first paragraph in the Resumption of service section;

Implimented, see above reason for greater detail.Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• in the Accidents and incidents section: "Date from Jet Airliner Production List". Is this a typo? Should it be "Data from Jet Airliner Production List"?

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• the duplicate links script (found here), reports a number of potentially overlinked items;
• the majority of your notes have a citation, but a few (namely nos 6., 14, 17, 18, 21 and 24) don't. If you can, I suggest making this consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Making progress on the reduction of uncited notes, some have been easy fixes, others I am struggling with. Kyteto (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Your changes look good to me and I feel that I can almost support its promotion to A-class, however, I'm concerned that there are still a couple of uncited statements:

• "Large, picture window views and table seating accommodations for a row of passengers afforded a "feel of comfort and luxury" atypical of airliners of the period";
• "It was the Comet's first deadly accident." AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to find a new source, and locate more information. This has now been cited. Kyteto (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I reviewed and passed this at GA after a good deal of useful discussion with Kyteto and Bzuk; I can see it's been expanded since then. Aside from brief copyedit, some points (N.B. no image or source checks as yet) -- Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• The Comet, approximately the length of the later Boeing 737, carried fewer people in a significantly more spacious environment -- When you say "fewer", do you in fact mean in comparison with the 737? If so, it might be expressed more clearly as The Comet was approximately the length of the later Boeing 737, but carried fewer people in a significantly more spacious environment.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Glad to see my suggestion for a Legacy section has been taken up -- however it probably should be one heading level higher as such a discussion is not a subset of the type's operational history alone but of its entire history.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also in Legacy, In spite of the Comet being subjected to the most rigorous testing of any contemporary airliner, pressurisation and the dynamic stresses involved were not thoroughly understood at the time of the aircraft's development; nor was the concept of metal fatigue, mistakes rectified in the design and inspection of future aircraft, which could only be performed retroactively on the Comet. -- Everything's fine up to and including "concept of metal fatigue", after that the meaning or grammar (or both) seem suspect...

Implimented, now two seperated sentences. Opinions on the correction are invited. Kyteto (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Under Military Operators, the RAE isn't cited.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Under Cancelled Orders, Air India isn't cited.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Under Specifications, you should probably should add "unless otherwise cited" after Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1965–66 as you use a few citations from other than Jane's in that section.

Implimented. Kyteto (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• That's a lot of External Links -- no problem if they really do add to understanding of the subject but can you double-check that none in fact have been been cited in the main body, and/or they add information that's not given elsewhere in the article? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many external links; a few months back there were repeated IP/new editors who seemed to adore parachuting more and more external links into the section like confetti. I had managed to intergrate some of them into the article's citation system, and bin a few others, in the past. I'm fairly certain there won't be overlaps between the two, time was dedicated to ruling that factor down two months ago. I'm happy to give the repeated Flight International links the chop, as this article already had dozens of Flight articles in the citations, it certainly isn't normal to spray every Flight article out there on the Comet into the ELs just 'cause they're there. Kyteto (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

- The external links have been trimmed back to 5 links now. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Image check -- All images appear to have appropriate licences; none are fair-use. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Source spotcheck -- Went through the following:
  • All citations to Job, which I happen to own (#86, #96, #119) -- no issues.
  • Ditto Faith (#88, #92, #118) -- Corrected page numbers and otherwise tidied citations.
  • "Tank Test Mk 2" and "Elba Accident Developments" (#22 and #97) -- Links found the magazine but produced blank pages, which I've seen before with Flight archives sometimes; pls see if you can finetune.
  • "Comet Failures" -- All the linked page mentions is 70% of the aircraft being recovered, not the other figures, nor the January--August timeframe.
  • "Obituary: Tony Fairbrother" -- Link found The Times, but not Fairbrother's obit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Comment based on the above spotcheck -- a thorough check needs to be made of all the online sources at the very least, to ensure not just that they accurately support the text, but that they're even accessible. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall begin on this task of re-checking all the links are functional/made functional tomorrow, I hope I am given the consideration of time to make fixes where they are needed. Kyteto (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The two Flight refs work for me - I've added additional cites to cover stuff that wasn't in the RAF Museum reference. I suspect that the Times obit is hidden behind a paywall for subscibers - can someone check - It should still be citeable even iif the link no longer works.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Tks, struck oppose as I can see the Flight articles now as well, and because of the additional citations by Nigel. I'm still waiting on Kyteto's response re. re-checking online citations as a whole, and re. the Tony Fairbrother article -- this last one might be reconstructed via the Wayback Machine or similar, or else needs a page ref if no online version is available.

Hello there, I have been going through the citations, one by one, to make sure that they're all in a decent state - but with so manyh of them, it is hard to stay focused on which ones have been checked/fixed! I'll get to work on the Fairbrother one, see what can be turned up. 11:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• New point, I notice some citations to online sources employ retrieval dates, some don't -- all should have them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't resolve the Tony Fairbrother Times link without spending money to confirm, and I just don't have the money free to fritter on paying for the access- food alone is tight as is, let alone pouring the few coins I get into work being done for free. Searches for the quote elsewhere have turned up nought, substitution has not been possible. However, I believe every other citation is in order after spending a great deal of time sifting through the hundreds put into this article - is this the case in your judgement? Kyteto (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm happy with everything except the Fairbrother obit quote. I can see it's not possible to access the full obit without paying and I agree that there's no obligation for you to do that, especially with all the effort you've put into this. However I think the quote is suspect. I tried something sneaky, i.e. searching the Times site for the full quote, and got nothing. I then searched for "fairbrother" and "wheels" and it found a snippet of the obit (dated per your citation) with this quote: "The world changed as our wheels left the ground" (see here). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the quote is not reliable in line with your findings, it has been removed as a result. Kyteto (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a pity, a Google search reveals many instances of the quote as I've got it above but none are reliable sites. Perhaps it'd be worth double-checking the printed sources for an instance of it (if you haven't already done so). Don't worry about it now, though, let's get this review complete -- changing to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

After searching, I found within Flight International's archives the Fairbrother quote, "I don't think it is too much to say that the world changed from the moment the Comet's wheels left the ground". It is included in a 1989 article here where it is called a "recent comment." Am re-adding this quote with source back into the article, in the quote box format as I'd used earlier. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

To note, the cited quote is a trifle different--it says "Comet's wheels" not "its wheels". Also, the use of quote boxes and their placement can be debated--I wonder how encyclopedic they are--but certainly quite a few FA-class articles have them. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 02:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - Article is fully referenced now and I feel it meets the A-class criteria. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment as contributor: the article is looking great, and getting closer to FAC. Some of my major series of edits in the areas of prose, consistency, chronological order, image selection and placement, referencing, layout, details, and otherwise: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].

Reading through the article, it might help to elaborate further on the pressurisation rules and precedents set by the Comet, which according to sources established principles still in use for commercial jetliners today. The "Legacy" section alludes to this. Also, a spelling detail (including British English, IIRC), it's "implemented" not "implimented". This error popped up in the article earlier.

Looking further to FAC, I'd like to caution on any editorialising or opinionated statements in the article, to help keep a NPOV tone. Also, in past FACs of aircraft articles, the referencing, and the link placement in the "See also" section has been an issue, which I've attempted to gather further project guidance for here. Any contributions to help advance that discussion could head off its recurrence at FAC. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

STRAT-X

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...the article has just undergone a successful GA review, and I think it's good for ACR too. However, it's your comment(s) that will count --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• ", was a nine month long study conducted during 1966–1967 that comprehensively investigated the future of the U.S. nuclear deterrent force. " - it isn't immediately clear from this if this was a US government study, or an independent study.
• " then U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara" - the "then" is probably superfluous
• "weapon-basing ideas" - in the later bits of the article, the context makes clear what this means; in the lead, it wasn't clear to me what this meant (weapons-basing can also refer, I think, to regional deployments - e.g. do you base the weapons in Turkey, or Germany, etc.).
• "eventuating" - this felt like an obscure verb for the lead section. Could you say "ultimately resulting in" or something like that perhaps?
• "reports surfaced " - surfaced in the press, or in intelligence channels?
• "The R-36, some variants of which are still in service, was larger than the LGM-118 Peacekeeper missile" - it wasn't clear to me what this was telling me (I'm assuming the Peacekeeper is particularly large?).
• "Were these ICBMs to be used operationally," - used operationally as in fired, or as in just deployed?
• "ways of maximizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal that could survive a Soviet preemptive strike." - maximising the amount of the arsenal that could survive, or maximising the utility of the surviving arsenal?
• "Fred Payne preside" - "presided"
• "new ideas about "path-breaking" weapons systems, either offensive or defensive, without defense bureaucracy" - I'm not sure "without" is the best word here (it could mean the systems didn't need bureaucracy, whereas I'm assuming he wanted the ideas not be surrounded by bureaucracy); "encumbered by" or "unhindered by"?
• "would roam the ocean" - "oceans"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchc2009 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mostly done. ✔ I've replaced "weapon-basing ideas" with "weapon-basing concepts". As for the eighth point, I don't see much difference between your first suggestion and the current phrase. And if I wanted to convey the latter meaning, I would've have said "ways of maximizing the utility of the surviving U.S. nuclear arsenal following a Soviet pre-emptive strike." It is also superfluous because, what would be the use of maximizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal that could survive a first strike if not to inflict the most damage against the adversary? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Cheers - I now Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your time. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 21:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments This is an interesting article, but I think that it needs some extra work to reach A class:
  • "the Soviet Union were making significant strides in nuclear weapons delivery" - 'were' should be 'was'

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • "To address a potential technological gap between the two superpowers, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara entrusted the STRAT-X study to the Institute for Defense Analyses, who compiled a twenty-volume report during the nine month long study." - no need to have 'study' twice in the same sentence

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • "The R-36, some variants of which are still in service, was larger than the LGM-118 Peacekeeper missile (the most modern U.S. ICBM in the 1980s through 1990s) while its 8.8-tonne (19,000 lb) throw weight is the greatest of any ICBM ever" - uses both past and present tense

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Page numbers are needed for each reference to the 3 page long Air Force Magazine article

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • "greatly mitigating the threat posed by U.S. ICBMs and thus the concept of nuclear deterrence." - seems an overstatement, and isn't really supported by the source given. Soviet ABM facilities were limited to the system around Moscow.

• I've rephrased the sentence. And isn't it the mitigating of the American ICBM threat, and thus the concept of nuclear deterrence, the essence of why McNamara initiated the study? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• The new wording is still much too strong; a semi-effective system around Moscow didn't mitigate the US nuclear arsenal given that it could continue to hit everything else in the country. The US had more then enough missiles of overwhelm the defences around Moscow. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Please explain what the Institute for Defense Analyses was. Was this a genuinely independent organisation, or part of the US military/department of defense?

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Who's Fred Payne?

• There wasn't any background info about Fred Payne, so I just added "the institution's". Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • "Not one was ever fully implemented, partly as a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991." - given that the Soviet Union collapsed about 20 years after the study reported, this link seems rather tenuous: there was tons of time to develop and field new weapons.

• Weapons can take years to design, manufacture, and field. I suspect that with the USSR's collapse, some programmes were cancelled after a few prototypes were constructed, or that some weapons were not fully fielded as probably envisaged by the stud. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, but 20 years is stretching it a bit, especially given how quickly military technology was moving at this time (eg, during the late 1970s and 1980s the US military replaced virtually all of its analog-based aircraft and tanks with vastly more effective computer-based equipment). Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• • How was the study "one of the most influential analyses ever conducted" if none of its ideas was ever fully implemented?

• I've added an explanatory sentence at the end of "Legacy". ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• That doesn't really address my concern for the reason explained below. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Given that the US Navy already had SSBNs before this study was conducted, how were the Ohio class boats one of its outcomes? - surely new SSBNs would have been ordered to replace the old ones when they wore out?

• The class accommodate much larger reactors than previous SSBNs. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• The article says that the Ohio class boats have significant differences to what was specified in STRAT-X (eg, they carry their missiles inside the hull and are capable of high speeds) Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• • Did the study reach any conclusions other than on weapons systems? I presume that they had some strategic concepts which underpinned their thinking.

• There are no conclusions on aspects other than weapons systems that I'm aware of. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• • What criticisms did this plan receive? I imagine that nuclear disarmament groups wouldn't have been impressed with the idea of new nuclear weapons, and especially ones sailing around on unmarked ships or driving through public lands. In retrospect, it also appears to have been based on an drastic over-estimate of Soviet capabilities (especially considering that the ABM treaty was quite successful in stopping the deployment of these systems, which have never really worked all that well anyway). From a purely military point of view, some of the concepts seem impractical. Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• The study was classified until, I believe, a few years ago, so no anti-nuclear activists couldn't have been aware of it. And no, I haven't come across any criticisms of the study's findings. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 10:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that the development and deployment of the systems specified in the study (whose existence weren't classified) attracted some criticism. Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: I only looked at prose. Generally looks okay, but I have a couple of suggestions:

• "The latter was particularly interesting, as documents were..." Interesting to whom? I think it would be best to reword this as it seems a bit like editorialising;
• "Despite the numerous options investigated during this successful study..." I think it would be best here to remove "successful" and just say "study", leaving the readers to determine where it was successful;
• would this work (emphasis added only to highlight suggested change): "Nevertheless, the former was only a prototype, while only 50 out of the original 100 of the latter were fielded (the Peacekeeper has since been retired)"?
• this needs to be tweaked slightly: "The study originally called for a dedicated slow-moving missile-carrying submarines, instead of converted attack submarines, to embark missiles outside its hull and relying primary on stealth so as to not betray its location..." Perhaps try: "The study originally called for dedicated slow-moving missile-carrying submarines, instead of converted attack submarines, to embark missiles outside their hulls and relying primary on stealth so as to not betray their location". This would probably also work: "The study originally called for a dedicated slow-moving missile-carrying submarine, instead of a converted attack submarine, to embark missiles outside its hull and relying primary on stealth so as to not betray its location.";
• would this work: "However, Admiral Hyman Rickover, director of the Naval Reactors office, wanted..."?
• "STRAT-X has far-reaching effects..." I think this would be best in past tense. "STRAT-X had far-reaching effects...";
• I think a second comma is required here: "Journalist Peter Grier, in his Air Force magazine article "STRAT-X" described the study" (after "STRAT-X");
• would this work: "In 2006, the Defense Science Board noted the inspirations"?
• the duplicate link checker tool reports a couple of items that might be considered to be overlinked: "nuclear triad" and "LGM-118 Peacekeeper". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • These comments have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
• I have performed a copy edit of the article today and believe that the prose is okay. Please check that I did not change any of your intended meaning and feel free to revert/adjust as you see fit. I support this article for A-class on the caveat that I only looked at prose and have only a very limited knowledge of the subject matter. I defer to others to determine its quality in this regard. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Interesting, succinct article. Specifics:

• Prose/structure/detail: Copyedited but basically happy with all these.
• Supporting materials: Images appear fine, all US govt.
• Referencing/sources/spotchecks: Citations look good; I also spotchecked refs to FAS.org (FN3), Burr (FN5), and AF.mil (FN8). The only slight issue I found was that AF.mil only records the Minuteman launch from a Galaxy; it makes no connection between that event and STRAT-X, which is implied by the preceding sentence Nevertheless, the study did inspire a number of developments in nuclear weapons delivery systems. I realise the first sentence is probably meant as an intro to the whole paragraph but it may not be read that way by some. Suggest you cite the first sentence to Grier, then the rest follows logically. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Tks for that, Phil -- happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

John F. Bolt

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. It's about a celebrated US Marine Corps aviator of WWII and Korea. —Ed!^(talk) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: I've done a bit of copy editing work on this article. Please check that you are happy with my edits, and adjust if necessary. I have the following other comments, which are issues I wasn't able to resolve during my work on the article.

• due to the size of the table of contents, there is currently a large amount of white space between the lead and the rest of the article. You might consider using a TOC limiter such as "{{TOC limit|2}}";
  • Tried it. It does look good. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• this is inconsistent: in the Aerial victories section: "12 confirmed aerial victories during his career, with an additional "probable" victory and two aircraft damaged" but "scored a total of six confirmed victories and three probable victories" in the Vela Lavella section (the inconsistency is in the number of probables);
  • Both are cited to a reliable source. One source probably assumed the damaged aircraft were likely destroyed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Understood, however, my concern is that readers will see the inconsistency and question the reliability of this article. As such I feel that it needs to be worded in a way that identifies the discrepancy. Perhaps try changing the opening of the Aerial victories section to: "Bolt scored a total of 12 confirmed aerial victories during his career. In addition, depending upon the source, he is credited with between one and three "probable" victories, with two of these sometimes being listed as "damaged"." AustralianRupert (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• this section is confusing: "Bolt left for basic training with the United States Navy in June 1941. Though he intended to join the US Marine Corps, he signed up for the Navy Flight Training Program, which would allow him to fly for the Marines. He was selected to be a pilot in November 1941". (Specifically the part about how he was selected as a pilot in November 1941, when the earlier section says he joined in April 1941 "to train as a pilot". The second sentence also seems awkward, but I couldn't think of a way to reword it);
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "weighing hundreds of pounds, while diving in Florida's Tampa Bay" ("weighing hundreds of pounds" sounds quite imprecise. Is there a precise weight that could be added?);
  • Unfortunately no, I can't find an exact weight on the fish. —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I won't hold it against the article, but it seems a little counter-intuitive. One would think that if it was a world record, it would be recorded accurately somewhere. What about the Guiness Book of World Records, or something like that? AustralianRupert (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The Guiness book did not exist at the time. And I really can't find anything online, we would probably have to go through a local newspaper archive, something I don't have access to. —Ed!^(talk) 01:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
        • No worries, fair enough. Thanks for your patience. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• this doesn't work: "This apparently angered some of his commanders in VMF-115, and Bolt completed a requisite six weeks of duty with the wing prior to its next R&R". Specificially the sentence is structured using a co-ordinating conjunction "and" which implies that the second part of the sentence is dependent upon the first, however the really don't seem to be linked. Do you perhaps mean: "This apparently angered some of his commanders in VMF-115, and as a result Bolt only completed six weeks of duty with the wing before it went on R&R"? Depending on your meaning, this might also work: "This apparently angered some of his commanders in VMF-115, nevertheless Bolt managed to complete six weeks of duty with the wing before to its next R&R".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• the red in the table in the Aerial victory section looks a bit hard on the eye. Just a suggestion, but I think it would be better to make it a similar colour to that of the infobox for consistency of style;
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks, I've changed the colour of the headings to black as white writing on a light blue background is really hard to read, in my opinion. I've also changed the the background to something a little closer to the infobox colour. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Regards AustralianRupert (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Bolt had shot down two of the MiGs after firing 1,200 rounds of ammunition, a relatively difficult feat". ("a relatively difficult feat" seems subjective and unclear as to what it actually means, i.e. what was difficult - shooting down the two planes or firing the 1,200 rounds?);
  • Worded it more objectively. —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• this sounds awkward: "he was a law instructor". Do you mean "law professor"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• this seems contradictory: in the lead "He continued to be active in law until his death from leukemia in 2004", but in the Later life section "He retired from law in 1991". AustralianRupert (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 01:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• Mostly copyediting bits:
• " Bolt was elected Class President his final two years" - a missing "in" here
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• " Bruce Bolt also enrolled in Florida," - "at Florida"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "paying US$ 500 a year to do so" - "paying him"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• " The two would marry after two years of dating.[4] They would subsequently have two children together, Robert and Barbara" - these two sentences could be joined, which would make them flow better.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• " Aviator wings " - is the capitalisation right here?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• " the "Black Sheep" because of their status as officers without other units" - I didn't quite understand this bit
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "and the fight was soon on" - felt a bit informal in tone
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• " .50 cal guns" - the abbreviation of calibre felt odd here
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "R&R" - probably needs to be expanded on its first use
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Worth checking if all the captions with full stops are in fact complete sentences.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Bolt is only non-USAF pilot" - missing "the" Hchc2009 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Fixed. I think that's everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 01:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, although I'd like to see a reference for note 1. Images check out. I realise that the public domain Marines source is a template, but it's not clear which work. Is it one listed? Else, could we mention it? (I'm trusting the above on prose.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

• I'm with Grandiose, I'd like to know which parts of the text come from which PD sources. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To both: I put the PD template in for the Medal of Honor citation. The rest of the text is entirely sourced to references. The reason I put the PD temp in is because, though I got the exact prose of the citation from a book, it is in its entirety a work of the government. I thought it was a large enough block of text to need that disclaimer there legally. If this is/is not appropriate let me know, as I include this template on all Mil Bios where I include the citation for an award. Never had a comment about it, though. —Ed!^(talk) 02:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. I'm not getting any hits on "honor" (except "honor society") ... are we talking about the Navy Cross citation? - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah the Navy Cross citation. —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:ALLCAPS, which Garner's agrees with, rewrite the telegram quote, your choice of lowercase or title case. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "At this point, Bolt began dating Dorothy E. Wiggins,": It's hard to know where to put all this stuff, but in the middle of this paragraph doesn't seem like the best place for it. Maybe it could go in a paragraph of its own.
  • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "subsequently": search for this word throughout and consider whether you can do without it.
  • Replaced a few instances of it. Now there's only one in the lead and the prose. —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "On completion of his initial training in November 1941, he was selected as a pilot, ... After completing his initial training, Bolt was moved to Jacksonville Naval Air Station ...": Don't call both "initial training".
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "After completing his initial training, Bolt was moved to Jacksonville Naval Air Station for the next phase, where he started flight training in the AT-6 Texan. He also qualified to fly in the N3N Canary trainer aircraft. After this training, his final phase of training occurred in Opa Locka Naval Air Station in Miami, Florida, where he trained on the Grumman F3F, a biplane which was the Navy's most advanced trainer at the time. Bolt completed this training ...": Search throughout for "train" and see what you can do.
  • Fixed as many as I could, but "training" in many of these instances can't be avoided since trainer aircraft and training phases go by specific names. —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "July 18, 1942": search throughout for second commas after dates and geographical names, where they're needed.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• "at which time": Garner's recommends ditching this phrase for "when". - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
• Otherwise, So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at John_F._Bolt#Formation of VMF-214. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [44] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [45] (no action required).
  • Most of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [46] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • Is there a reason there is no caption on the photo in the infobox?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a little repetitive: "Bolt stayed in the Marine Corps until 1962, serving as an analyst and instructor in his later career, before retiring and later earning a Juris Doctor..." (use of the word later twice in the same sentence). Perhaps reword one?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • This is awkward to me: "Bolt completed this training on July 18, 1942 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the US Marine Corps, with his aviator wings pinned that day as well." Perhaps consider something like: "Bolt completed this training on July 18, 1942 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the US Marine Corps, receiving his aviator wings the same day..."?
    • Done. —Ed!^(talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Overlinking and repetition here: "The bombers had been followed by 20–30 Zeroes and a dogfight quickly ensued.[13] During the course of the ensuing dogfight over..." Specifically linking and use of dogfight twice.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Also repetitive: "Although they did not spot Boyington, they engaged a flotilla of Japanese barges they spotted..." Specifically "spot" and "spotted" in the same sentence. Perhaps reword one?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Some redundancy in the "Exchange and Combat section": "This brought his tally of confirmed victories during the war to six and in doing so he became the 37th of 40 US flying aces in the war, and the last of the seven aces who were double aces from World War II.[26] For these actions Bolt became the final Marine aviator to be awarded the Navy Cross during the war.[31] Bolt is the only non-USAF pilot to become an ace in the F-86 and the only naval aviator to become an ace in two wars." This infomation is also mentioned later in the article in the "Aerial victory credits" section. Seems no need to mention it twice, perhaps remove it from one of the sections? Anotherclown (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
      • All my points have been dealt with, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

6th Machine Gun Battalion (United States Marine Corps)

Nominator(s): Kb butler (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I believe it to be a well-written article. In addition very little, if any information, has been made available for this unit. The article serves the purpose of uniting this information into one place. Thank you. Kb butler (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: G'day, I will try to review the article shortly, but the first thing I notice is that this article is a near duplicate of 6th Machine Gun Battalion. That article should probably either be a dab, listing this unit and others with similar designations, or simply a redirect to this one. It appears to be a copy-paste move, rather than a technical move, so I wonder if we need an admin to do a history merge, or something similar. Sorry, I'm not quite up on the technical side of things. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This has been rectified. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Welcome to Milhist ACR: G'day, I'm not sure if you've been involved in a Milhist ACR before, but as I've not seen you here before please let me provide a general explanation about the ACR process (apologies if you are already aware of it). Essentially an ACR is designed to get an article ready to consider a FAC. It would usually be done after a successful GA nomination, but that is not a pre-requisite. To be successful here, an article will need at least three explicit supports without an explicit opposes. Currently we have a shortage of reviewers, so please consider doing a couple of A-class reviews on other articles that are listed here, while other people review your article (please note, though, that it is not a requirement, however, it can help free up other editors to focus on your article). Reviews are generally open for 28 days, although this is not a hard and fast rule. After this time, the review may be closed either as promoted or not promoted. If it is not promoted, a nominator is free to renominate at any time. If there are any questions about the process, please feel free to ask me or one of the Miltiary History project's co-ordinators. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Suggestions: I've taken a quick look at the article. I feel it needs a bit of work to bring it up to A-class standard, although it can probably be achieved. Mainly the article needs a copy edit, but I feel also that the coverage needs expanding. These are my suggestions:
  • "battalion" is overlinked in the lead. Currently you have three links to it in the lead, but one would be sufficient;
  • if possible please add links in the lead to "4th Marine Brigade", "5th Marine Regiment" and "6th Marine Regiment";
  • the lead probably needs to be expanded to summarise the unit's entire service history;
  • the current structure of the article probably should be adjusted slightly. I suggest making "World War I" and "After World War I" third level headings under the 2nd level heading of "History";
  • the heading "After World War I" would probably sound better as "Post World War I";
  • "Casualty Lists" should probably be "Casualty lists" (per WP:Section caps), although it might be even better as simply "Casualties";
  • in the infobox, instead of a hyphen between the active dates, it should probably be an endash per WP:DASH;
  • the ship name "USS DeKalb" should probably be presented as "USS DeKalb (in italics);
  • "USS DeKalb" is probably overlinked. I suggest linking only once, on first mention;
  • "St Nazaire" is probably overlinked (as above);
  • "Lewis Guns" is overlinked;
  • This is a little awkward: "The original battalion consisted of the Headquarters, 77th, and 81st companies with two more companies to be added at a later date". I suggest tweaking it to: "Upon formation, the battalion consisted of a headquarters and two companies, the 77th and 81st, although provision was made for two more companies to be added at a later date";
  • this is a little awkward: "From 27 August 1917 to 7 December 1917, the battalion went through extensive training to learn their weapons and doing various other drills including trench warfare, building pillboxes, firing discipline, and other training". I suggest tweaking to: "Between 27 August and 7 December 1917, the battalion undertook extensive training, which included individual weapon familiarisation, building pillboxes, fire discipline, trench warfare doctrine and other training.";
  • "On 14 December 1917, the battalion embarked on the USS DeKalb with the addition of the 12th and 20th companies and the Aviation Detachment to St. Nazaire, France.". I suggest rewording this to something like this: "On 14 December 1917, the battalion was brought up to establishment with the addition of the 12th and 20th companies, and along with the Aviation Detachment, they embarked upon the USS DeKalb for St. Nazaire, France."
  • in the World War I section, I suggest decapitalising the dates in the list of battles;
  • "The USS DeKalb arrived at St. Nazaire, France 28 December 1917". I think that there is a missing word here. Perhaps try: "The USS DeKalb arrived at St. Nazaire on 28 December 1917". I also suggest removing "France", as it has already been clarified where St Nazaire is in the previous paragraph;
  • missing possessive apostrophe here: "This was also the battalions baptism of fire and helped to bring them into the war". (should be "battalion's baptism");
  • in the World War I section there is a link that points back to the duplicate article "6th Machine Gun Battalion", which should probably be removed;
  • would it be possible to convert the list of battles that the unit participated in into a couple of paragraphs of prose. Currently, the reader probably doesn't really get a good understanding of how the battalion was employed. I assume that they were detached by companies (like the Australian machine gun battalions), but the article doesn't seem to say;
  • in the "World War I" section "5th Marine Regiment" is overlinked;
  • in the "After World War I" section, "New York" is overlinked;
  • "Marine Corps Base Quantico" is overlinked;
  • in the Casualty Lists section, this needs rewording: "These are the casualty lists (per battle) that the 6th Machine Gun Battalion suffered". The issue with this is that a "casualty list" can't be "suffered", but casualties can. As such, perhaps try: "The battalion suffered the following casualties, which are listed per per battle";
  • in terms of References, I wonder if it is possible to expand what you've got. Currently the article is referenced to just two works. That is of course fine if that is all that exists, but if there are more sources out there, it would be probably be necessary to add a few more sources so that the article can honestly represent the body of work on the subject. Have you searched for journal articles?;
  • in the References, "pp." should really only be used for page ranges; for single pages "p." is generally accepted;
  • for page ranges, instead of hyphens, endashes should probably be used;
  • did the unit receive any campaign streamers? If so, you might consider mentioning them. For instance, see the way 104th Infantry Division (United States) handles this as an example;
  • the image "File:6thmgbparade.jpg" probably needs a copyright tag added to it;
  • this is just a general comment, but it might pay for you to take a look at other military unit articles, such as those listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/History#War and military. These are all rated as GAs, which is slightly below A-class, but still a good gauge of the required standard;
  • I will leave my comments at this now to allow time for work to be done on the article. I will come back later and re-review. Please feel free to question anything you don't understand or don't agree with; however, I will be quite busy at work for the next five days or so, so I might not get back until Friday night (Central Australian time). Good work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I have corrected most of the things you have listed and are noted in the prior nomination link. Unfortunately, there isn't much information in regard to the 6th Machine Gun Battalion specifically. There is a lot about the 4th Marine Brigade and even the regiments but unfortunately, information is scarce in regard to the battalion. The book by Curtis is the definitive work and it was published in 1919 right after the war so it can be considered pretty accurate as seen from other derivitive works using it. I also decided to break down the battles into their own sections and give a brief blurb as to what the battalion did during the battle. I believe that is it. Thank you. Kb butler (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Further comments: okay I've done a second review and made most of the edits that I would have suggested now. I believe it is almost up to A-class standard, although I might now be a tad close to the article to judge objectively. I have a couple of minor comments:
  • regarding the copyright tag for "File:6thmgbparade.jpg", I'm no image expert, but I think that {{PD-US-1923}} might be a more accurate licence;
  • "File:6th MG Bn Shoulder Patch.jpg": you probably need to explain why this image is not replaceable. Although I don't necessarily agree with the policy, these days it is very difficult to justify non-free media on Wikipedia and as such the image might be nominated for deletion by someone unless a good rationale can be written;
  • "File:77co6mgbbelleauwood.jpg", the licence for this appears okay to me, but it might be a good idea to add the url of the website that you got it from if it was obtained from a website. If it came from a book, then it would be good to list the details of that. These could just be inserted by embedding them in the Source field beside "United States Naval Institute";
  • regarding the reliance on two main sources, it is probably okay, although other editors might disagree. If possible, it would be great if you could maybe work in one or two more book references, even if they just served to confirm what is already there. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • this Google book search produced a few results, some of which might be useful. For example: To the limit of endurance: a battalion of Marines in the Great War by Peter F. Owen; Miracle at Belleau Wood: the birth of the modern U.S. Marine Corps by Alan Axelrod; Battle History of the United States Marine Corps, 1775-1945 by George B. Clark (p. 116 looks particularly promising). Some of these appear to be available on Google books, but if you can access them from your local library it might be the best solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your time and effort on this article. I went ahead and used the Battle History of the United States Marine Corps, 1775-1945. It really was the only book that gave a little detail to the 6th MGB. Unfortunately, most other histories only mention it as being a part of the 4th Marine Brigade or mention it as a derivitive work of Curtis. As for the picture, thought I did include the website that it came from. Kb butler (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • No worries. I've added my support for promotion to A-class. Hopefully a couple more editors will stop by soon and also review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Thank you so much for your help. I really appeciate it and I've learned a lot for my first real article.Kb butler (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• I think there's a bit of work to be done on the prose, but with that done it should meet the standard. Thoughts are listed below:
• Lead:
• "fire support role " in lead - worth linking, as it won't be a familiar term to some readers.
• " in a fire support role along with the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments during World War I." -unclear if this is saying that it operating alongside the regiments, or if the regiments also had a fire support role.
• " machine gun" - worth linking
• History:
• " Each company was issued..." Did this include the HQ company?
• "33 carts apiece" - "33 carts each" might be clearer. Did this include horses as well?
• "Aviation Detachment " -what's an aviation detachment?
• "12th and 20th Companies" - did they have machine guns as well?
• "Haute-Marne" etc. - worth linking
• "and over the next nine months took part in a number of battles" - unclear if these are the ones you then describe, or different battles.
• "deploy in support" - "deployed"
• "This was the battalion's baptism of fire and helped to bring them into the war" - how did it help bring them into the war?
• "in order to provide concentrated fire support along the Allied line." - presumably not all along the Allied line, as they were concentrated in a single unit. How about "at key points along the Allied line"?
• "They also assisted the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments in their respective drives" - what were these respective drives?
• " In recognition of their achievements during the fighting" - the "their" currently refers to the Germans in the previous sentence; worth clarifying.
• "In addition, the legend of the marines getting their nickname "Devil Dog's" came about as a result of this battle." - unclear what this means. Is it saying that that they did get their names from the battle, or that the tale of them getting their nickname from the battle came out from the battle?
• "the unit's logo" - do military units have logos? I'd have thought they had emblems or some term like that.
• " were ordered in to reserve " - ? Ordered to join the reserve?
• "the offensive they would be conducting" - what offensive is this?
• "In August, the 6th Machine Gun Battalion companies were again parceled out" - they're still parcelled out from the last paragraph - were they reunited again first?
• " consisted mainly of marches and deployments on the front lines" - I couldn't quite see how an operation could consist of marches (the language doesn't feel right) - was this a formal operation?
• "During the fighting around Saint-Mihiel during September" - if you say "the fighting", it implies its been mentioned before (its the definitive); in this case, you'll want to say "During fighting..." as you haven't mentioned it before. There's repetition of "during" three times in the paragraph as well.
• " as they made general advances along the entire front" - who's the "they" here?
• " the 6th Machine Gun Battalion companies continued to hold the line " - which line?
• There are a lot of short, one paragraph, two-sentence sections towards the end - I think this would read better if they were combined in some way. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to review my article and thank you for all the helpful tips. The things I didn't or couldn't change are:
  • Nothing was mentioned about whether the 12th and 20th companies had machine guns or not. All it stated was they were attached to the 6th Machine Gun Battalion for the transit across the Atlantic. It probably could be deduced that they didn't have any machine guns and those were issued in country when they arrived.
  • About the marines getting their nickname "Devil Dogs". It is written exactly how it should read. The name came as a result of the battle and the link to "Devil Dogs" is provided.
    • Ah, I get it now. The problem is the term "the marines" - I thought that this referred to the marines in this unit, not the corps as a whole. You want to say something like "In addition, the legend of the U.S. Marine Corps acquiring their nickname "Devil Dog's" came about as a result of this battle." Hchc2009 (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I have changed marines to United States Marine Corps as per your suggestion.Kb butler (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • All other items corrected accordingly. Thank you again.Kb butler (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments I've done some work on US military units, hopefully I can provide some help.

• The patch needs a little explaining in the infobox. It should be established that it was the shoulder sleeve insignia of the unit (since the US Marines no longer formally use them) and that it was designed with the 2nd Infantry Division's patch in mind.
  • I've added a description to the infobox. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Agree with the above on the "fire support role" in the lead; that term needs to be linked and elaborated upon.
  • I've had a go at rewording this and have added a link. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In addition to this role, the battalion was sometimes employed as a complete unit to ensure maximum firepower was applied to various points along the line in both offensive and defensive situations." -- this sentence is filled jargon to where I can't really understand it.
  • this was my fault, I think. I've had a go at rewording it, but to be honest I'm not really sure I know how to make it any clearer (but I'm probably tainted by my current posting where I do a lot of service writing). Do you think it is better now? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Given the size of the article, I personally think the lead needs to be expanded into a few paragraphs, as well.
  • Problem is, there isn't a whole lot of information in regard to the 6th MGB as a separate unit. Most literature (in regard to the Marines) deals with the 5th and 6th Marine Brigades.Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Formation" section; where did the weapons training take place?
  • Taken care of. Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "This was the battalion's baptism of fire and helped to bring them into the war by enabling them to learn about how the war was fought on the Western Front." -- needs to be reworded. "Baptism of fire" is unencyclopedic, and I don't understand how they needed to be "brought into the war;" it sounds to me like they were already there.
  • I had a go at rewording this. I don't have access to the sources, though, so there is only a limit to what I can do. How does it read now? AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• The three orders of battle in the article would be better suited for a table so they don't break up the prose as badly. I would suggest Template:Command structure.
  • I've seen that template and I think it would create more of an awkward read then the current bullet format. Also, considering we are talking about two battalions within the two Marine Brigades means about four boxes (at minimum) per section. In addition, the command structure of the 6th MGB as a whole. Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Asine" section: "The fourragère thereafter became a part of the uniform of these units, and all members of the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments are now authorized to wear it while serving with those regiments." -- does this mean it can be worn by members of the unit to this day? If so, that should be clarified.
  • Done Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• The "Aisne–Marne Offensive", "Marbache Sector" and "St. Mihiel Offensive" sections are too short to be independent sections. I understand why you organized them that way, but I think each should be expanded or merged into one section.
• Be consistent with the capitalization of "Marine," it's inconsistent in the article.
  • I believe that I've fixed this. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• The "Meuse River Campaign" section is also too short. In this case, I think it needs some expanding to explain what the parent units were doing during the battle.
  • Added a bit more about the drive to the river. Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• The casualty lists would be better repurposed in the individual sections where they belong, or else summarized in the prose. As-is, they're a little out of place.
  • I thought about this but I think it would look kind of funny to add at the end of each battle-section "KIA WIA MIA" versus just having a table at the end of the article. Kb butler (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

In all, the article has a little way to go. I look forward to seeing it improve, and then I'll happily support. —Ed!^(talk) 00:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I'm satisfied with the way things look right now. —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. In general, the prose is too wordy, and there isn't a quick fix for this, so don't consider this a support or an oppose, just advice. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the battalion was sometimes employed as a complete unit with all its companies being concentrated together ...": How does concentrating its companies make it a complete unit? Would "the battalion's companies were sometimes concentrated together" work?
  • I'm guessing "complete unit" in so much that it could exercise operational (or at least tactical) command over its subunits, whereas when the companies were detached they probably would have been placed under the operational control (or at least tactical control) of the unit they were supporting, allowing the supported unit to gain the benefits of using the effect of the assigned unit without reference to a higher commander. That's just my interpretation, though. It's been a while since RMC and ops planning is no longer my area of military expertise, so maybe someone will correct me.(PS, I don't know if these terms were used then). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• "these additions meant that it was designated as a Provisions Battalion.": Can you rephrase without "meant"? I'm not sure what this means.
  • I tweaked it, but I am not exactly sure what it means. I believe that it was a divisional supply/support function, but I'm not really sure and my limited research isn't adding to my understanding. Kb, can you help with this one? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • According to the literature and how units were transferred into combat zones, the companies were combined with other companies headed to France to either reinforce or to create new units. It was named a Provisions Battalion so that on paper, they were a "complete" unit for purposes of transport to France.Kb butler (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Kb, that makes it a little clearer in my mind. I think in the British Commonwealth, we'd call these "holding battalions". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• In general, there are too many long words (subsequently, undergo/underwent, undertake), long phrases and long sentences where short ones will do. I'll leave the prose alone for now, but please aim for simpler and more concise language in future articles. This article will need some work if it's headed to FAC. For instance, see what you can do with this: "the battalion underwent a period of intense training designed to get the men ready for battle. Once completed, the battalion was committed to the fighting against the Germans and over the next nine months until the war came to an end, [it fought in all the US battles for the rest of the war]". - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I had a go at it. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Rupert, much better. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Cheers. I fear that the wordiness in this article crept in with my earlier copy edit. I've found recently I've been quite wordy in all areas of my writing (I got beasted by a colonel about this issue the other day at work, so it seems to be a common fault...) AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Hm, I generally like your style Rupert, I'll have another look at it in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
          • There isn't anything left that I feel comfortable cutting out, knowing as little as I do about WWI Marine battalions. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Thanks for taking a look, Dank. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Wait, I see you just got started in February .,. nevermind about FAC. Are there any writing guides you like? If not, I'll see if I can suggest something cheap that gives suggestions on concise writing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [47] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [48] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [49] (suggestion only).
    • Completed as requested. Kb butler (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD or licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • "The time spent at the camp was used to prepare ammunition and supply dumps, conduct a reconnaissance of the area, and set up firing positions for the upcoming offensive." What offensive? (it is not immediately clear from the paragraph IMO).
    • I had a go at rewording this. Does that work now? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that seems like a simple and effective solution. Good work AR. Anotherclown (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there any information available about the units commanding officers? Perhaps a list might be included (as a suggestion see 2nd Battalion (Australia) as an example of how this might be done). Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi, I managed to find some information on this, so I have added it to the article for the nominator. Have all your concerns been met? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks mate. All my concerns have been deal with so I have added my support. Anotherclown (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted — MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

List of field marshals of the British Army

Nominator: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Note: previous review is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Field Marshals of the British Army (note caps), as the article has been moved in the intervening period.

I'm bringing this list back here for a second attempt, having massively increased the number of references and fixed some sorting issues. As I said last time, this list provides a fascinating snapshot of the British Army through the 300-odd-year history of the rank of Field Marshal—the highest, most prestigious, and most coveted rank in the British Army. The rank has been held by 138 men—most of whom had decades-long careers in the army, some royals were given the rank after just a few years' service, an some were given the rank as a gesture of diplomacy, which makes for an eclectic group of men.

Lists aren't my speciality, but I'm hoping this might make it to FL, so all feedback is welcome! Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport

I am unsure of what the relationship between this article and Field marshal (United Kingdom). The featured list people want explanations in the lists; but now the list contains more information that the article. Whatever.

Ideally, the article would provide a description and history of the rank; the list is about the 138 men to have held the rank, with enough history and background information to place it in context. That article is pretty crappy, though, and I'm tempted to redirect it to the list, but there could conceivably be a use for an article on the rank and a list of its holders.

1. I am not certain about the statement that the US reserves General of the Army for wartime. I remember talk about promoting Colin Powell and David Petreus to the rank, and this never came up. Bradley was promoted in peacetime in 1950.

   I've qualified this with "mostly". Our article seems to suggest that it's reserved for wartime commanders (though I don't have the source to hand), and Heathcote says the same.

2. Having noted the distinguished careers of the military field marshals, it seems only fair to note that a couple made it without seeing a shot fired in anger.

   Fair point. I'll see if I can add something about that.

   How;s this?

   Disappointed. I thought you would go down the list looking for them like you want your readers to do. The first, who was famous when I was an ankle biter, was Charles Moore, 1st Marquess of Drogheda, who was not only the oldest man to receive a baton, at age 91, but managed to do so without seeing combat. (Although the two may be related.) This stood as the record until 1985, when Sir John Wilfred Stanier was promoted without seeing any action. Then in 1992, Richard Vincent, Baron Vincent of Coleshill was similarly honoured. The oldest living British field marshal (and the only one I've ever met) is Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who (all going well) turns 91 in June. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

   It's interesting, certainly, but I'm not sure how relevant the amount of combat an officer saw in the course of his career is to his promotion to field marshal. It's worth a passing mention in the prose, which is what I've given it, but I don't think it's sufficiently relevant to an officer's appearance on this list that it should be noted on individual list entries. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

   That's because you know what you're talking about; but the reader may not. I'm not sure how relevant the amount of combat an officer saw in the course of his career is to his promotion to field marshal is the important point. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

   I respectfully disagree. The amount of combat an officer saw would be relevant to his biography, but it would only be relevant to this list (in my opinion) if it was directly relevant to the officer's eligibility to be on this list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

3. though four others became cabinet ministers Seems a bit of a tease. Why not mention them? (Same goes for the two distinguished foreign military officers and one foreign statesman)

   It's almost an intentional tease—we want the reader to look at the list, not just the prose, and I think (with the possible exception of the cabinet ministers), to name them would cross over from summarising to duplicating the list.

4. No professional officer has reached the rank of field marshal without having served in the cavalry, infantry, Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery or Royal Engineers. Tom Blamey did. You need a little more qualification.

   Done.

5. I am not sure how money was saved by cutting back on field marshals. Do they get additional benefits over four-star officers? I note as an aside that in 2011 the British Army had 255 generals, compared with the US Army's 301. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

   They hold the rank (and continue to receive a salary) for life, whereas a four-star officer would retire once they relinquish the last position of their career, and one assumes their salary would be higher than a general's, but I can't imagine it would save a huge amount of money. It's interesting, isn't it, but that and the comparison to the US Army was the rationale the MoD gave for suspending the rank.

   • Thanks for the comments, Hawkeye, I'll look at addressing them over the next day or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support My only outstanding comment from the last review (the lack of an individual reference for each field marshal) has now been addressed. I agree with Hawkeye's comments above, but am confident that they'll be quickly addressed. The only suggestion I'd make is that you may wish to note that Sir Henry Wilson, 1st Baronet is the only FM to have been killed in action (at least according to the blurb for this biography I read on my Kindle!). Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support, Nick. According to our article, he was assassinated several months after he resigned from the Army, so I'm not sure it's really worth mentioning in this list. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but I didn't look at the tables. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Dan. I looked at your edits and can't disagree with them. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Great job, Harry. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Alsos Mission

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

An article packed with espionage and behind the lines stuff, as the Alsos Mission attempted to discover the secret of the Nazi nuclear and biological weapons programs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments This is a fascinating and well written and researched article. Some of its wording needs to be tightened, however:
  • Should 'or Alsos Mission' be 'or the Alsos Mission'?
    • Added "the" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You should briefly state what the Manhattan Project was in the lead
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The mission's codename Alsos was the Greek name for a grove, in a play on Groves's name." - this occurs in the article before Leslie R. Groves is introduced
    • Added Groves to the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Do we know when in 1943 Styer approached Groves? Also, what was Styer's position?
    • Added bit about Styer. Groves says "in the fall of 1943". Fall is an American term meaning "Spring". It had to be between the invasion of Italy in September 1943, and the despatch of Pash in November. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The 'Origin' section should also explain what the Manhattan Project involved
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The nationality of Kenneth Strong should be identified when he's first mentioned
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It's probably better to red link Francesco Giordani rather than link to the article on the Italian language Wikipedia
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Groves sent Furman to Britain to discuss to discuss the establishment of a London Liaison Office for the Manhattan Project the British government" - something is needed before 'the British Government' (eg, 'with' or 'to')
  • Added "with" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is the French Wiki article on the Porte d'Orléans linked?
    • The English one incorrectly links to a metro station. Renamed the metro page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • " and its uranium processing plant in Olen, Belgium, where uranium ore." seems to be missing some words
  • What was R-Force?
    • Er, good question. I found a description of the unit here Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 'Köln' should be 'Cologne'
    • Why? Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • It's the common English-language name for the city (and I can attest the term is currently used on tourist-focused signage around the city itself as well). Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Done. I thought it was just a matter of spelling, like Ieper and Ypres, depending on whether my brain was in French or German mode. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Norwegian heavy water sabotage is linked in the body of the article, and so shouldn't be in the see also section
    • Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The lineage of File:German Experimental Pile - Haigerloch - April 1945-2.jpg seems a bit unclear from what's in its record on Commons - can you clarify its sourcing? It's almost certainly PD (as either PD-US Government or copyright expired in the UK), but it's unclear where it actually came from. The partial credit to David Irving raises some red flags!
    • David Irving obtained an actual copy of the photograph, which is now in the Haigerloch Museum, while researching his book Virus House. This was reproduced for H. V. Jones' book Secret War. This is where someone scanned it from. Another copy is in the Brookhaven National Laboratory, where it was deposited by Goudsmit. There is at least one other copy out there, in the Alsos files at NARA. The original photograph was taken by Mickey Thurgood, the Alsos Mission's official photographer. He only joined the Mission in April 1945, so that is why that period is covered so well, and the earlier period not at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I did not use any of Virus House because of the controversy about Irving, although it is okay really. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The sourcing of File:Pash boris c1.jpg and File:Haigerloch uranium cubes uncovered.jpg are a bit unclear - where is it stated that these were created by Mickey Thurgood on the source website? (I imagine that they are PD, but this should be clarified if possible)
    • It is in Pash's book. (Well, he says they took the photographer along.) People usually like me to provide as much information about the date and circumstances surrounding the creation of images as I can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The only references used in this article I've got access to is Warren 1956 (as it's online). Both references to it are accurate and free of close paraphrasing. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Jones is also available online. Linked. And you can check Groves at Google books if you like. Search on "Alsos" Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. I may spot check some additional references if I have time, but I'm confident that they'd be OK given your record and the results of the checks I did make. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Comment: looks quite good. I've made a some tweaks to the article. Please check that you are happy with my edits and adjust as you see fit. One thing I noticed was that there is some mixture of English variation. For instance US ("caliber", "organized") and British (armoured, disorganised, minimise, characterised). Which variation are you wanting to use? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Standardised on US Spelling. A little tricky as the spell checker wants to use Australian spellings. (A mixture is actually historically accurate though.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I made a couple more minor tweaks. Looks good, I'm happy to add my support for A-class. Overall it was one of the more interesting articles I've read on Wiki for some time. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Alsos_Mission#Germany. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: the plan to copyedit two-thirds is working better at FAC than at A-class, so I'll continue.
• "It was discovered that most was sent": discovered from the same prisoners?
• "nuclear matter": nuclear material?
• "the intelligence staff General of the Army Douglas MacArthur's AFPAC.": ?
• "post-war": your call. There's more support in AmEng for "postwar".
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have corrected all of these. The one I have most trouble with is "traveled", which violates the double L rule drummed into us in the first grade (and incorporated into my spell checker); but I was hoping that you would have an opinion on "aroused fears that the technique might be used in combination with biological agents, which the Japanese were known to be experimenting with." I could not remember whether hanging prepositions are valid in AmEng. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • M-W says one l or two, but then uses one themselves. But like most AmEng copyeditors, I listen when Garner's speaks, and he/it/they say one l in AmEng, two in BritEng. The "with" is perfectly okay at the end. - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [50] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [51] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [52] (suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD or licensed and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • This is a little repetitive: "...but with the Anzio landings, Rome was expected to soon fall..." and "...The expectation that Rome would soon fall proved illusory, and by March 1944..." Perhaps consider "...The expectation that Rome would soon be captured proved illusory, and by March 1944...", or something similar? (suggestion only)
  • "As little thorium was in Germany or German-occupied Europe...", perhaps consider "As little thorium was available in Germany or German-occupied Europe..." (suggestion only)
  • This seems redundant: "Pash, now a lieutenant colonel, assumed command of the new unit upon its official..." (you previously introduced him as an LTCOL in the "Origin" section).
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "Three Netherlands officers and a Norwegian officer...", would "Dutch" work better?
  • "He was informed that the matter would have to be taken up with General Eisenhower...", General Eisenhower should just be Eisenhower as his rank has already been formally introduced per WP:SURNAME.
  • This seems awkward to me: "...and the 1.5 tons of uranium ingots were found buried in a field...", perhaps just "...and 1.5 tons of uranium ingots were found buried in a field..."?
  • Otherwise I found this to be a very well written and fascinating article. Anotherclown (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• All done. There are a lot of details in this article that I did not know when I started researching it. Glad you liked it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • All my points have been actioned, so I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (D)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it is close to the standrds. Following the proven layout of other Knight's Cross lists I ask the reviewers for their feedback. Thanks and enjoy. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I made a couple of tweaks, please check that you are happy with them. I believe it meets the criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: An excellent list article complementing the main article beautifully.
• Support: Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Kenneth Nichols

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Wartime commander of the Manhattan District. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• "He was military liaison officer" - "a military liaison officer"?
  • Changed to the military liaison officer Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• "West Point" - could be wiki-linked
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• " deputy director" - worth checking the capitalisations for these - I think their modern counterparts would be in capitals (as in "Deputy District Engineer" previously in the lead - the capitalisation of all of these varies as you go through the article)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• "For exceptional service rendered the Republic of Nicaragua" - the MOS would allow you to drop the capital "F" if you wanted to allow an easier flow.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• "the problems of crowding there" - "over crowding"? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: good to see another biography on an engineer. I made a couple of tweaks; please check that you are happy with those. As always for you, Hawkeye, this is of an excellent standard. I have only a few nitpicks:

• This is my fifth engineer, after Somervell, Casey, Sverdrup, and Groves. More to come. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• in the Early life section, "Here he first met First Lieutenant Leslie Groves, a fellow officer in the expedition". This might perhaps sound smoother as: "One of Nichols' fellow officers on the expedition was First Lieutenant Leslie Groves, who would figure prominently later in Nichols' career";
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• is this missing something: "for exceptional service rendered the Republic of Nicaragua" (perhaps "rendered to the Republic of Nicaragua"). As it is in quotes, I didn't want to tinker;
  • Yes, that's what it says. Added "[to]". Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "where he received a bachelor's degree in civil engineering". I wonder if the date of conferral is available and if it should be mentioned. Not a warstoper, and just a suggestion;
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• order: "...year at the Technische Hochschule in Berlin. The thesis he wrote won an American Society of Civil Engineers award.[3] While there he was promoted to first lieutenant on 1 October 1934". I wonder if this might flow better as: "...year at the Technische Hochschule in Berlin. While there he was promoted to first lieutenant on 1 October 1934 and the thesis that he wrote later won an American Society of Civil Engineers award.[3]"
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "From September 1936 to June 1937 he was a student officer at Fort Belvoir, Virginia". Do we know what being a "student officer" entailed? It might not be important, but I wasn't really sure;
  • It just means that he was attending a training course. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the World War II section, "lieutenant colonel", "colonel" and "Oak Ridge, Tennessee" are possibly overlinked;
  • Unlinkled. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the World War II section, the presentation of this is a little confusing: "the Rome, New York Air Depot" - it currently looks like its proper name was "Rome, New York Air Depot", but I get the impression that it was actually called the "Rome Air Depot";
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• this seems a little awkward: "...and looked over prospective sites in the foothills of the Cumberland Mountains that had been identified by scouts from the Office of Scientific Research and Development that combined the desirable attributes of power, water and transportation with sparse population". Perhaps it should be tweaked slightly: "...and looked over prospective sites in the foothills of the Cumberland Mountains, which had been identified by scouts from the Office of Scientific Research and Development as combining the desirable attributes of power, water and transportation with sparse population";
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In September 1942, Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr assumed command..." the link here is probably unnecessary as Groves is alreadly linked earlier, additionally the name is presented differently to earlier where it is just "Leslie Groves". It could probably just be "In September 1942, Groves assumed command...";
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• inconsistent capitalisation: "district engineer of the Manhattan Engineer District.[15] As District Engineer..." (district engineer v. District Engineer);
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Post war section, "Like many of his contemporaries, Nichols was reduced in rank on 30 June 1946, reverting to his substantive rank of lieutenant colonel". I wonder if it should be clarified why this was the case, i.e. due to the post war reduction in the armed forces or something similar;
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Post war section, "Armed Forces Special Weapons Project" is overlinked;
  • Reduced links.n Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Post war section, "assets and responsibilities from the MED to the AEC". I don't think you've explained the abbreviation "MED" yet - I think it is the Manhatten Engineer District, but I'm not sure;
  • It is. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Later life section, "Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Plant" is overlinked;
  • Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Later life section, there is some repetition here: "competitive with coal and oil, but later became competitive with inflation and large increases in coal and oil prices";
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, for the Fire & Remington and the Jones sources, are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added?
  • For some reason, US government publications do not have ISBNs. Added OCLCs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, there are few terms that might be considered to be overlinked, e.g. George Cullum; Richard Hewlett; Washington, D.C.; United States Army Center of Military History; New York, New York; University Park, Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania State University Press; Chicago, Illinois, etc.
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, the ISBN for the Stern work appears to be presented differently to the others. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ran the bot over them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks good, happy to support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [53] (no action required).
  • One external link reports as dead [54] (action required).
    • "Finding aid for Kenneth D. Nichols Oral History" (info) [archives.gov]
  • Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [55] (suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD or licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • I've read through it and couldn't spot any issues so it looks good to me. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• ALT text added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Scott (governor)

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)}

How about this for a change from me – a politician who is better known for his military exploits? Charles Scott was a veteran of the French and Indian War, the American Revolutionary War, and the Northwest Indian War, and became governor in the lead-up to the War of 1812. It is a GA, but I just finished a major rewrite based on some sources I didn't have access to back then. I intend to take the article to FAC, but since politics and not military history is my strong suit, I thought I'd get it vetted here first. Hope to respond to comments promptly. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This looks to be a very good article. I haven't gone through it all yet, but here's one issue that caught my attention. The lead and the "Early life" section both say "Scott enlisted in the Virginia militia". My impression is that regular soldiers "enlist", but militiamen don't exactly "enlist"; they show up for duty in emergencies and then go home. We should doublecheck the language the sources use. I only have a snippet view of Ward's Spirit of '76, but he appears to say that "Scott joined the Virginia Regiment", which was really a regular unit rather than militia. You might want to link to Virginia Regiment in the article, and see if Ward, an expert on this, makes a distinction between that regiment and the militia. —Kevin Myers 03:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You are quite right. I didn't realize the Virginia Regiment was a regular unit, not militia. I have made this correction now. This is the kind of feedback I need from this review. My knowledge of military protocol is weak; I primarily stick to politician articles. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused by dates in the first two paragraphs of the "Settlement in Kentucky and early political career" section. Probably just a couple typos. Did you mean "1785" in the three places that "1795" appears? —Kevin Myers 04:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It should be 1785. I thought I had corrected this earlier, but perhaps I mis-corrected it, changing 1785 to 1795 instead! Fixed now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the same section, you might want to reconsider using the adjective "marauding" to describe the Shawnee raid. In older histories, whites conduct expeditions while Indians maraud, but many modern scholars are sensitive to possible linguistic double standards. —Kevin Myers 05:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I second-guessed that term myself when I wrote it, but didn't know what else to use. I just deleted it and said "Shawnee warriors" crossed the Ohio. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm confused about the route taken by Scott's men in the first paragraph of the Northwest Indian War. You say they "departed from Limestone on April 18, 1790, marching to the mouth of the Scioto near the present-day city of Portsmouth, Ohio. From there, they headed south and discovered an abandoned Indian settlement." Which side of the Ohio River are they on? If south of the river, maybe you should say across from the present-day city of Portmouth. That's probably what threw me: if you say they're near Portsmouth, I picture them north of the river, but then they head south, and so I realized they're probably south of the river. But then I see that they discover an abandoned Indian "settlement", although there were no Indian settlements south of the Ohio at this time. Do you mean "encampment" instead of "settlement"? I think Ward says "encampment", which makes more sense south of the river. —Kevin Myers 05:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You aren't the only one confused about the route, although I know little of the geography there. This is the relevant quote from Nelson's article:

"On the 18th of the month, Harmar with 160 regulars and Scott with 230 Kentucky mounted volunteers, mostly from Bourbon and Fayette counties, marched north-northeastward from Limestone to the upper Scioto, then almost due southward to the mouth of that stream, emerging on the Ohio near the present town of Portsmouth."

From there, he just says that the raid accomplished little, but doesn't give any details. Here's what Ward says about it:

"On April 18 Scott with 200 volunteers joined Harmar's regulars, and the next day the combined force crossed the Ohio. By April 25, Scott's and Harmar's troops had proceeded fifty miles from the mouth of the Scioto. Then, making their way southward, they came upon the deserted Indian camp."

Don't know if this will help you make better sense of the route or not. Nelson includes a footnote that points to Military History of Kentucky (1939), pp. 53-54, but Google Books only has a snippet view of that. If you have access to a copy, it might provide more clarification. Also, as you can see, you were right about it being a camp, not a settlement (carelessness on my part). I corrected that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. Your wording suggests that they marched south from the Portsmouth area, but actually they marched south from the upper Scioto towards Portsmouth. I've reworded it. —Kevin Myers 05:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Another very good article from Acdixon, easily meets the A-class criteria. Going forward to FAC, you might consider moving some details to other articles, especially if you think readers and reviewers might find the article overlong. For example, we don't need to read here who Scott replaced as colonel of the 5th Virginia; that could be in the article on the regiment. Similarly, the paragraph on the Edwards and Wilkinson expeditions, in which Scott did not take part, could be in the Northwest Indian War article rather than here. Of course, moving details often requires work on the target articles, which is time consuming and something you might not wish to do, especially if reviewers don't find the article length to be problematic.

I may wait for those issues to be raised at FAC. I did wonder in places how much detail was too much, but I'll let the community decide that. I would be a little intimidated editing some of those other articles, since military history is not my specialty. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As a minor point, I'd replace the George Washington picture with one from his wartime career. The portrait is of President Washington from nearly 2 decades after the events described in the nearby text. Washington was relatively young during the war, and we should avoid contributing to the common misconception that he looked like the old guy on the dollar bill during the Revolution.

I was hoping to stick with one that could go on the left (looks better on my oversized monitor), but you are right. I found one of him just prior to the Battle of Trenton, which is the appropriate time period for that point in the article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Great article overall, I learned a lot. —Kevin Myers 06:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Your knowledge of this time period is substantial, and the fact that you found so few things that needed correcting gives me a nice boost of confidence! If it's OK with you, I'd like to drop you a note when this goes to FAC. Depending on when my ACR of John Sherman Cooper, this ACR, and my current FAC for James Garrard all close, it could be as late as April or May or as early as March. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, best wishes. —Kevin Myers 05:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I have no knowledge of the topic, so I have only focused my review on level of referencing, prose and presentation. In those regards, I'm happy that it meets the A-class standards. I wasn't able to check the images for licencing as there are too many for my download limit. A couple of minor points I picked up:
  • in the Bibliography, for the Harrison work there is a double full stop next to "John E.. ed". This should probably be removed;
    • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • as above "NY Facts on File, Inc.." No need for a double full stop and indeed, based on comments I've seen at FAC, it's possible that "Inc." is not required either;
    • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • double full stops: "Trowbridge, John M.."
    • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • some works in the Bibliography have publisher locations and others don't. At FAC, I think they will ask for all or none. I don't necessarily agree with this guidance, but it might be something for you to consider;
    • Not only do I know it will be raised at FAC, I know who will raise it! :) Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Further reading section, I wonder if ISSNs or OCLC numbers could be added;
    • Since I grabbed them from "Further reading" sections in the other sources, this is all I know about them. I tried to get copies on interlibrary loan, but no luck so far. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure whether or not the Find-A-Grave link in the External links section will survive scrutiny at FAC. I'm not sure of current policy, but I remember some vigorous debate in the past. I don't have a problem with it, given that you are not citing it as a reference, but just be aware that someone might.
    • I am very unattached to that link. I don't think I was the one who added it, but I just hung onto it since someone bothered to put it there. If they want it nuked at FAC, it shall be nuked. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick and positive review. It will save me some trouble down the road. If I get reviews this quickly on this article, I might be able to get it to FAC before John Sherman Cooper even finishes its ACR! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Oppose mainly per sourcing (see below), subject to nominator's response:

• External links: one of these appears to be dead (see [56])
  • Fixed. NGA changed all their links about a year ago, and I haven't bothered to go back and change them on all 58 Kentucky governors yet. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Disambig links: seems fine ([57])
• Reference formatting: the refs might benefit from some tidying and rationalisation (see [58])
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Image licensing: looks good; the only minor point is File:General Green Clay.jpg which, although it's PD, is stored on Wikipedia rather than Commons. To allow its use on other WMF projects the image should really be transferred over (Note this has no effect on the outcome of this review)
  • I'll leave that for someone else. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• I haven't checked the text against the references because I don't have access to them. However one possible issue is the article's heavy reliance on one or two sources. There are a range given in the Bibliography and Further reading sections, and Google books suggests a number of potential sources ([59]).
  • I'm not really sure how to respond to this, since proving a negative (i.e. "there aren't more sources out there") is impossible. I will say that I requested each of the articles from the further reading section on interlibrary loan and wasn't able to get any of them. If I ever do, I will update the article. Particularly, if I could have gotten "General Charles Scott and His March to Ouiatenon", I was going to try my hand at creating an article about the Ouiatenon campaign.
    • "General Charles Scott and His March to Ouiatenon" is an 87 year-old article written by an amateur historian. It's the kind of "dodgy" source I encourage people to avoid if possible (see below). Ward's biography of Scott cites that article and presumably used the reliable parts; no need to try to redo what our expert source has already done. If you want to expand upon Scott's involvement in this war, I recommend President Washington's Indian War by Wiley Sword, a modern scholarly source with some good info on Scott's campaign. —Kevin Myers 02:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There is also this book review from someone at the University of Pennsylvania which notes: "Unfortunately for posterity, Scott's personal papers are no longer extant. The papers, stored by his son-in-law, were destroyed by mice. Ward attempts to make up for this loss by painstaking research of the major and minor manuscript collections of the period along with virtually every other available source, and has succeeded in piecing together a cogent narrative. Still, the loss of Scott's papers leaves certain gaps in the narrative. As a result, little is told about his early life, his personal likes or dislikes, and not much is known about his thinking on the major issues of the day." (p. 147, or p. 7 in the PDF). Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• The prose and article organisation seems good.

Thanks for an interesting article :) EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I hope to secure your support at some point. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I regard EyeSerene's comments about sourcing as potentially harmful to the quality of the article. I've long cautioned Wikipedians against viewing sources as something to be sprinkled into articles like adding spices to food, as if a dash of this source and a pinch of that source constitutes quality research. If there are only 2 or 3 modern scholarly sources on a given topic, that's all you need. Don't add lesser sources just to create variety. An article written with 2 good, reliable sources is better than one written with 2 good ones and 6 dodgy ones. Conversely, if there are 8 modern scholarly sources and the article uses only 2 or 3, that's a problem. If there any modern scholarly sources that this article neglects, let's focus on that. But the common impulse to "add more sources" is, in my view, best avoided. I know EyeSerene is not advocating adding dodgy sources to the article, but I think an "oppose" should be based on specific mentions of neglected sources. —Kevin Myers 13:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both for your responses. Regarding Kevin's comment, I agree with everything you've said. You noticed I wasn't advocating adding additional sources - my phrasing there was quite deliberate. In my experience there are two reasons why articles rely heavily on very few sources: (1) because the author(s) haven't carried out a thorough-enough document search; or (2) because a wide range of suitable sources don't exist. My concern was prompted by the fact that the Bibliography section appears to be quite comprehensive but most of the sources listed there have been used only once or twice. The Further reading section implies there are other sources that could have been drawn on but weren't. All I was really after was an assurance, which Acdixon has kindly provided, that there are good reasons for this. Switching to support. EyeSerene^talk 08:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

1740 Batavia massacre

Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it fulfills all five criteria. It may be a little weak on prose (criteria 4), per Dank's comments at the failed FA candidate last year, but I'm hoping that having extra eyes here can help clean up the prose and make the next FAC a breeze. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: I had a go at copy editing. Please check that you are happy with my edits. I have the following comments for the review:

• according to the Featured article tools, there are no dab links and all the external links work (no action required);
• I wasn't able to check the image licencing due to limited download on my plan. Please check that you are confident that they are appropriately licenced, or ask someone to post an image review here;
• the article seems well cited and I believe it meets the A-class referencing requirements (A1), it also seems well structured (A3) and contains appropriate images (A5), although as I said, I wasn't able to review them;
• in regards to A2 (comprehensive, factually accurate) the infobox says ">10,000 killed, >700 injured" but the start of the Aftermath says "10,000 people were killed within Batavia's city walls, while another 500 were seriously wounded". Unless I missed something, this seems a little inconsistent;
• A2, in the infobox "9–24 October 1740", but in the lead "came to an end on 22 October";
• in regards to A4 (concise and accurate English) in the Aftermath, this sentence confused me (can you please try to clarify what you mean either on this review, or by rewording the article?): "Valckenier had asked to be replaced late in 1740, and in February 1741 had received a reply instructing him to appoint van Imhoff as his successor; alternatively, the Lords XVII informed him that his replacement by van Imhoff was his punishment for exporting too much sugar and too little coffee in 1739."
• if these few points can be addressed, I'd be happy to support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the check and copyedit
• Images are all PD-100, am fine with these. An image review would be appreciated, of course.
• Thanks again
• Fixed
• Fixed
• I think I've made it clearer.

Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Support I peer-reviewed this, and find it to be significantly improved. The addition of Dutch sources (whose lack I noted in that review) has clearly added depth. A minor quibble: given its mention in the lead, I expected slightly more (a short paragraph, say) on the cultural references to the event, including 20th century references if possible. Magic♪piano 02:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, it really helped. There is a paragraph in #Effects with a bit of information. No reliable sources indicating 20th century uses, although I have seen a 2 page description of the event in Sindhunata's Putri Cina (which I did my undergraduate thesis on; yes, I'm a literature major). Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment The image licensing needs another approach. You cannot, on files such as File:Chinezenmoord van stolk (2).jpg, say the author is unknown and use an life+70 tag. Instead, you should use {{PD-Netherlands}} – if the author cannot be put beyond reasonable doubt, which I think is a strong claim. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The alternative (and possible included anyway) is to check whether all co-authors are dead. This would help your claim in any case. Abraham van Stolk appears to have died in 1896 and Gerrit van Rijn in 1912. WorldCat mentions a "C van Ommeren" but archive.org's version doesn't actually seem to mention one (here). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Changed to {{PD-old-auto}}. Included birth and death dates for the authors. Done. Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Read through this at lunch time and really enjoyed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Priscus (general)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

I am nominating this article on one of the most capable but unknown generals and one of the "great survivors" of Byzantine history for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. It became a GA without major problems almost two years ago, but I've recently expanded it by adding more details on his Balkan campaigns and gone through the article to closer reflect the sources and remove some ambiguities. Constantine ✍ 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Spport:

• Enjoyed it; some points below:
• "he was deposed and tonsured, dying shortly after." - it's only the lead and its explained later, but it wasn't clear to me in just reading this if he died as a consequence of the deposition and the tonsuring, or if these events were independent.
• "Priscus first appears in the sources " - which sources? (they haven't been mentioned yet in the main text)
• "Theophylact Simocatta" - linked, but worth noting in a few words who he was? "e.g. Historian Theophylact..." or similar?
• "The Avar khagan was persuaded that the letter was true, arranged for a truce in exchange for the renewed payment of an annual tribute." - the second half "arranged..." feels like its missing an "and" or something like that in front of it.
• " Michael Whitby," - again, well worth describing who he is.
• "Being absent from Constantinople..." - might be worth reordering this sentence, as you don't get to the noun of the sentence until about half way through.
• "Phocas's rule lacked in legitimacy" - "lacked legitimacy"?
• " Kazhdan 1991, p. 1722." - if this is an edited volume, it would be worth expanding to include the author of that particular chapter/article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for the review! I've addressed most of the points you raised. On the "primary sources" question, I preferred to include them one at a time in the article as needed, rather than have them presented all together at this point in the text, where it would interrupt its flow. I could include a note detailing them, if it is considered absolutely necessary. What this would boil down to would be that Simocatta, as noted in the last section, is the main source for the reign of Maurice, while Theophanes the Confessor and others are used as corroborative sources for Maurice's reign and then as main sources for the events under Phocas and after. As much of this material was copied and recopied by later historians, the sources encompass pretty much every historian of note who wrote "universal" histories until the 14th century. Constantine ✍ 19:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• On the sources, you could go for "in historical sources", which removes the "the", which is what implies they've been mentioned previously? 17:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's a good suggestion. Thanks! Constantine ✍ 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions: generally looks fine, but I have a few copy editing suggestions:

• slightly repetitious in the "Under Maurice" section: "and tasked with..." followed shortly by "1,000 cavalry was tasked with holding". Perhaps change one "tasked with" to "ordered to" or something similar;
• "bearing a faked letter purportedly". Perhaps change to "bearing a fake letter purportedly";
• "Maurice that informed of a seaborne attack". Perhaps change to "Maurice that talked of a seaborne attack";
• "a considerably reduced sum over the 100,000". Perhaps change to "a considerably reduced sum compared to the 100,000";
• "...Priscus was re-appointed in command as commander of the cavalry in Thrace , with Gentzon leading the infantry, although Priscus, as the more senior of the two, also held overall command". Perhaps change to "...Priscus was re-appointed as commander of the cavalry in Thrace alongside Gentzon who led the infantry. The more senior of the two, Priscus held overall command";
• in the Under Phocas section, "and because he retained still a large measure of support within the soldiery". The word "still" is probably not necessary;
• "only one of Maurice's senior generals who managed to survive into the new regime". I wonder if this would sound smoother as "only one of Maurice's senior generals who was retained by the new regime";
• "In addition, the later historian Paul the Deacon records". I'm not quite sure what this is "in addition" to... Are you trying to explain why Priscus survived the transition? If so, it might need to be reworded slightly;
• "His prestige further eroded when the Persian shah". --> "What prestige he held was eroded when..."
• "when the Persian shah Khosrau II (r. 590–628) declared war, and when the Byzantine forces suffered their first defeats" --> "when the Persian shah Khosrau II (r. 590–628) declared war, and the Byzantine forces began to suffer their first defeats";
• "Unopposed by Phocas's forces, he landed at Hebdomon outside the capital on October 3 and marched to the capital" --> "Unopposed by Phocas's forces, he landed at Hebdomon on 3 October and marched to the capital";
• "Heraclius now became emperor of Byzantium, although" --> "After Phocas's fall, Heraclius became emperor of Byzantium, although..."
• "As commander of the excubitores, protopatrikios (first among the patrician order) and one of the few" --> "As commander of the excubitores, a protopatrikios (first among the patrician order), and one of the few...";
• "most influential Byzantine military manual, the Strategikon ascribed to Emperor Maurice". Probably need a comma after "Strategikon";
• "For instance, during the siege of Tomi in 598, he..." I suggest changing "he" to "Priscus" here;
• "This may be due to the fact that Simocatta relied for this period on a semi-official" --> "This may be due to the fact that for this period Simocatta relied on a semi-official..." AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've made the suggested changes, with some minor modifications where warrented. Constantine ✍ 07:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks good. All images are tagged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support looking through the article, the above reviews seem to satisfy any comments I may have had. I do have one question though: when referring to the currency solidi, you sometimes say "X pounds of gold." I assume you're referring to weight, is there a reason the convert template isn't used for convert measurements? —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  I thought it refers to the libris, a unit of currency that translates as "pounds". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I might be misunderstanding, but isn't "He also married Phocas's daughter, Domentzia, becoming the effective heir-apparent to the childless ruler. " a contradiction? Do you mean, perhaps, that he specifically did not have a son to inherit? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, yes, I feel stupid for making this mistake. Good catch... Constantine ✍ 05:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

SMS König Albert

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another German battleship at ACR. This was the only German capital ship in commission to miss the Battle of Jutland. I wrote this back in December 2010 and it passed a GA review in January 2011 - it's been sitting in the queue since then and hopefully hasn't gathered too much dust. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support with minor comments:

• Looks good!
• Is there a map that could go with the "World War I" section? If you didn't know the history/area, it would be relatively hard to follow the movements of the ship.
• Image checks come back fine, although SMS König Albert.jpg's file lacks a publication date to back up the claim that it was published in the US pre-1923. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Added File:North Sea map-en.png, which is probably the best map we have of the North Sea for informational purposes. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions: looks quite good. I have the following suggestions (happy to discuss anything you disagree with):

• the Featured article tool reports two dab links that might need fixing: [60];
• in the lead "World War I" and "High Seas Fleet" are probably overlinked;
• "during the Battle of Jutland on 31 May – 1 June 1916" --> "during the Battle of Jutland between 31 May and 1 June 1916";
• I wonder if the size of the crew could be worked into the Construction/design section. Currently it seems only to be mentioned in the infobox;
• "The Division reached Rio de Janeiro on 15 February 1914, which ceremonially greeted the visiting German warships". This sentence seems slightly out of order. Perhaps it should be reworded slightly, for example: "On 15 February 1914 the Division reached Rio de Janeiro, which ceremonially greeted the visiting German warships";
• "From Rio de Janeiro, Strassburg went to Buenos Aires, Argentina while". There should probably be a comma after "Argentina";
• sentence order: "They remained in Valparaiso from 2 to 11 April, which marked the furthest point of their journey" --> "Between 2 and 11 April they remained in Valparaiso, which marked the furthest point of their journey";
• "The High Seas Fleet, including König Albert, conducted a number of sweeps and advances into the North Sea". This probably needs a date/timeframe to provide some context. For instance, "During the early months of World War I, the High Seas Fleet, including Konig Albert...";
• in the World War I section "Grand Fleet", "Franz von Hipper" and "I Scouting Group" are probably overlinked;
• "he was faced with the entire Grand Fleet" --> "he was faced with the entire British Grand Fleet";
• "to avoid risking the fleet unnecessarily, von Ingenohl broke off the engagement and turned the battle fleet back toward Germany" --> "to avoid risking the fleet unnecessarily, von Ingenohl broke off the engagement and turned back toward Germany";
• "the fleet steamed out to the north of Terschelling and return without incident" --> "the fleet steamed out to the north of Terschelling and returned without incident";
• "was an advance without result in the direction of Horns Reef" --> "was an advance in the direction of Horns Reef which concluded without result";
• "designed to force a confrontation with the British Grand Fleet" (if you add "British" to the first mention of "Grand Fleet" as per my earlier suggestion, it can probably be knocked off here);
• "Work on the ship wasn't completed until 15 June". Probably best to avoid the contraction here;
• "in an attempt to draw out and destroy Beatty's battlecruisers". Probably best to wikilink and use Beatty's full name here as he hasn't been previously mentioned;
• sometimes you use "the X Squadron" but then sometimes just "X Squadron" without the definate article. This should probably be consistent;
• in the Operation Albion section "Zerel", "battlecruiser" and "Danzig" are probably overlinked;
• "the German navy decided" --> contentious as to whether the organisation decided, or just the people that were in command;
• slightly repetitious: "over the span of an hour. The three ships fired on the battery at Zerel for an hour". Perhaps reword slightly;
• in the Fate section, "light cruiser" is probably overlinked;
• "Admiral Adolf von Trotha made clear to von Reuter that he could not allow" --> "Admiral Adolf von Trotha made it clear to von Reuter that he could not allow" (or replace "made clear to" with "told" or something similar);
• in the Footnotes section, I think it is a little counter intuitive to have a level 2 heading called "Footnotes" and then subheadings of "Footnotes" and "Citations". Perhaps it might be best to have a level 2 heading of "Notes" and then subheadings of "Footnotes" and "Citations";
• in the References section, there is some inconsistency, e.g. "Bloomington, IN" as opposed to "Annapolis", but also "Amherst, New York";
• in the References, is there a publishing location for the Tarrant source? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Should all be fixed - I knew some dust would have gathered, thanks for helping me clean it up. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

• "From Rio de Janeiro, Strassburg went to Buenos Aires, Argentina while König Albert and Kaiser <missing part of a sentence?> Montevideo, Uruguay."
• christened by Princess Mathilde of Saxony; speech by Frederick Augustus III of Saxony
• The image in the infobox shows anti torpedo nets. Maybe worth pointing out
• Do you know how many rounds of ammunition she carried? I found this in the class article
  • What's the page number for the christening & speech? Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • HRS volume 5 page 109 MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Added in.
• HRS v5 p109 says that she was the last of five ships of the Kaiser class. The article here states that she was the fourth! Error or misinterpretation? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The discrepancy is probably from the fact that König Albert was ordered and laid down before Prinzregent Luitpold, but commissioned last. Parsecboy (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Maybe you yould make that clear in the lead? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Alright, I added a note explaining the difference. I'm guessing it's still p109 in HRS? Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
        • yes MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

SupportOppose based mostly on the unaddressed comments above. A few more comments of my own:

• "On the evening of 15 December, the German battle fleet of some twelve dreadnoughts—including König Albert and her four sisters—and eight pre-dreadnoughts" -- this sounds strange, as the pre-dreadnought page seems to indicate they are not dreadnoughts.
  • It's 20 ships in total - the five Kaisers were part of the 12 dreadnoughts.
• "as a result, König Albert was the only German dreadnought in active service to miss the battle." -- What are the implications of this? A little context might help about the battle and why this is relevant.
  • How does it read now?
• "Another fleet operation took place on 18–19 October" -- what kind of operation.
  • The same as the previous operations mentioned - steaming out into the North Sea to find British ships.
• Campbell and Gröner in the references aren't used in the article.
  • Yes they are, Groner is fn #1 and Campbell is in one of the notes. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Will be happy to support when my comments and the other above comments are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well done. It all looks good to me now. Adding my support. —Ed!^(talk) 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Frederick E. Morgan

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Relatively few articles on British generals. This one on Frederick Morgan was actually a spin off of the one I did on Bedell Smith; I often create a number of spin off articles. I went through and attempted to produce articles on the key staff at SHAEF. For most US and British Army officers, service at SHAEF was a career ender. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: looks quite good. I'm happy to support, but I have the following suggestions/comments:

• there are no dab links;
• images appear appropriately licenced;
• "stripped of its two artillery field regiments", might sound smoother as "stripped of its two field artillery regiments";
  • But is would not be clear that it meant all of them unless the reader knows the OOB of an armoured division of the day. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't quite follow. My take is that "field" describes the type of artillery regiment, rather than "artillery" describing the type of field regiment. Not really a warstopper, though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Aaargh. Sorry. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about this, but I wonder if "antiaircraft" shouldn't be presented as "anti-aircraft"?
• as above "antitank" -> "anti-tank"?
  • Okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The 1st Armoured Division was reformed, and became a mobile reserve in south eastern England, with the task of counter attacking an invading German army. The 1st Support Group being given two Canadian infantry battalions for the purpose". I think this needs to be tweaked slightly. Perhaps consider: "The 1st Armoured Division was subsequently reformed, and became a mobile reserve in south eastern England. Tasked with launching a counter attack in the event of a German invasion, the group received two Canadian infantry battalions for the purpose."
  • The role was for the whole division; your proposed rewrite might make it sound like just the 1st Support Group. Rewritten to merge both versions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Good point, I see what you mean. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Morgan's corps headquarters, designated Force 125, with the 1st Division and 4th Division..." Perhaps try: "Morgan's corps headquarters, designated Force 125, along with the 1st and 4th Divisions...";
  • Not quite right: tried a different version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Initially, Morgan's staff consisted of an aide, two batmen and a driver..." We should never have gotten rid of batmen. I'm lucky now if a Digger leaves some water for me after making his own brew... ;-) Sorry, I couldn't resist...
• "Morgan established headquarters in Norfolk House at 31 St James's Square". Perhaps: "established his headquarters"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "However, all the key features of Morgan's plan remained- the choice of Normandy as the assault " The hyphen here probably should be either a spaced endash or an unspaced emdash;
• in the COSSAC section "Commander in Chief" might be overlinked;
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• in the SHAEF section "Allied Forces Headquarters" might be overlinked given that it was linked only a couple of paragraphs earlier in the COSSAC section;
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Morgan also was called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery". Perhaps reword slightly to: "Morgan was also called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery..."
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• I wonder if this should be moved out of the SHAEF section to the "Post-War section": "He was also Colonel Commandant of the Royal Artillery from 1948 to 1958.[2]"
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Morgan's position in Germany was eliminated by UNRRA Director Fiorello La Guardia". This might sound smoother as: "Morgan's position in Germany was terminated by UNRRA Director Fiorello La Guardia";
  • No, the eliminated means they got rid of the position; terminated just means they got rid of him. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes, the subtleties of the English language. I was thinking that they just got rid of him. Dastardly. ;-) AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "antisemitic". I wonder if this should be "anti-Semetic"?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• "but was dropped from the test series to save money". Given the possible confusion of the word "dropped" in the context of weapons, perhaps "removed" might be a better choice here;
  • Heh. Good point. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• in the Notes, # 1 is a different format to the others. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Got rid of it. Thanls for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries, happy to help. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Fine work as usual, some prose/content points in addition to my usual copyedit:
  • ...a British Army officer who fought in the First World War and the Second World War -- "fought in both World Wars" instead? A side effect would be that you don't have to remove the currently redundant link to First World War in the next paragraph...
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Won't make a fuss about it but I don't think national terms like "German" and "Spain" need linking -- cities and towns, and states/provinces on their own, are fair enough.
  • Morgan became Deputy Chief of Staff to Major General Bedell Smith -- not sure of the expression here, or perhaps it's just the vagaries of the organisation, but since Smith was COS to Ike, did that in fact make Morgan DCOS to Ike, or was he really DCOS to Smith? Whatever the case, it might be better to say Morgan was "Deputy Chief of Staff under Major General Bedell Smith" to avoid confusion...
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As it was envisaged that the Supreme Allied Commander would be British, it was decided to appoint a British Chief of Staff to the Supreme Allied Commander (Designate) (COSSAC)... -- don't you mean "envisaged that the Supreme Allied Commander would be American..."?
    • No. Added and the usual practice was for the commander and the chief of staff to be of the same nationality Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Photo caption: Senior Allied commanders at SHAEF headquarters in Rheims shortly after the German surrender... -- bit picky I know but Kay Summersby and Harry Butcher weren't senior commanders, how about just "Allied officers"?
    • Nor were Smith and Morgan for that matter. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The plan set forth in detail the conditions under which the assault could be made, the area where a landing would be feasible, and the means by which it would be developed -- can you clarify just what it was that would be developed, the plan or the assault/landing itself?
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In the COSSAC subsection you say "north-west Europe" (which I hyphenated, as it sounds like a general geographical term) and "North West Europe", which reads like an area command -- do you mean the same thing in each case? If so the terms should be consistent.
    • No hyphens, no caps, per MOS:CAPS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ...to assist with Civil Affairs -- again, should this in fact be in caps?
    • No. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You use "furore" twice re. the UNRRA situation -- can you use another term for one of them, e.g. "sensation" or some such?
    • "Uproar" Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ...Morgan, who was "amiable but not adequate to the task"... -- as a criticism, this probably should include attribution, e.g. "Morgan, who according to so-and-so was 'amiable but not adequate to the task'..."
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Image licensing looks okay, as do references and citation, structure, and level of detail; I'm going to pass on source spotchecks as I've been through one or two recently with Hawkeye that didn't cause special concern. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, tks for all that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • External links check out (no action required).
  • The citation check tool reveals one error with reference consolidation:
    • {{harvnb|Arnold|Smith|1987|pp=9–10}} (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • Wrong ref in the second case. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Morgan also was called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery...", perhaps consider instead "Morgan was also called upon on occasion to deal with Montgomery..."
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency with isbns as some have hypthens and others do not.
    • Ran the bot over it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Some overlinking of authors in the References section per WP:REPEATLINK.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Anotherclown (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support with just a few comments.
• "With his military background, Morgan was appalled at the corruption, inefficiency and political diversion of UNRRA. " -- are there any specific examples of the corruption? It would help to have a little more context.
• "He retired in 1956, but remained Colonel Commandant of the Royal Artillery until 1958. He died at Mount Vernon Hospital on 19 March 1967." -- Any more info about what he did after military service? Kind of seems like his subsequent life was an afterthought.

Great work. —Ed!^(talk) 23:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Bardanes Tourkos

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

The article passed GA some time ago, in May 2010. The bulk of the article has remained the same, but more details have been added since, making use of practically all the relevant bibliography. I feel that the article is complete and satisfies A-class criteria, and would eventually like to push for FA. Constantine ✍ 13:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Support:

• Interesting and well researched. Minor points follow:
• "He is usually regarded..." worth saying who regards him as this (eg. chroniclers? modern historians? etc.)
• "Thracesian Theme," - is there any way to explain what a theme is in this paragraph?
• "the exceptional post" - not quite clear what "exceptional" means in this context
• "The chroniclers agree..." this is the first mention of chroniclers; I'd either go for "Chroniclers agree..." or explain which they are.
• "to learn of his prospects." - "his" is presumably Bardanes, but could also mean the holy man.
• "the representative of traditional elites' opposition " - is elites meant to be in the plural here? It's also slightly unclear if this means the "traditional elites", who are opposing issues, or "traditional opposition" by the elites.
• "awaiting some revolt against" - I wasn't sure about the "some" here.
• "blinded Bardanes." is it worth explaining or footnoting that this would have disqualified Bardanes from ever becoming emperor? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for another review and the insightful comments! I've addressed all your points except for the second (on the themes). I think that the fact that there was a military governor of the "Thracesian Theme" will indicate that this is some sort of province, which is all that is necessary. If you have any other comments or observations, feel free to write them. Constantine ✍ 09:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: no major issues, just a couple of suggestions:

• "motivated chiefly by economical concerns". I think "economic concerns" would sound better;
• slightly inconsistent capitalisation: consider "horses of the Empress's carriage" as opposed to "The emperor had revoked the...";
• "This was a highly symbolical act". I think "symbolic act" would sound better;
• slightly inconsistent: "woman named Domnika" v. "along with Domenika";
• "File:Solidus-Nicephorus I and Staraucius-sb1604.jpg" probably should have date and author information added to the template if possible, although there is no issue with its licence because it has an OTRS ticket. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I've corrected the issues pointed out. On the image, I am not sure what to add in the author and date section: the original uploader (Panairjdde) or the uploader to Commons (Saperaud)? Constantine ✍ 20:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

G'day, I think it would probably be Panairjdde as the original uploader. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. Constantine ✍ 14:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Support

• Technical bits:
  • No dablinks [61]
  • Reflinks good [62]
  • External links good [63]
  • Image licenses good
• References check out apart from:
  • The first Winkelmann et al ref, the ISBN "9783110151790" is showing up as invalid. The second ref is okay though. Is there a transcription error here?
• Source sampling not done
• Prose seems fine. A copyedit for run-on sentences might be worthwhile if the intention is to take the article to FAC, but otherwise no significant concerns.

Nice article. I'll be happy to support when the ISBN thing is addressed :) Best, EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the isbn, and I'll definitely have the article checked for prose before submitting it for FAC. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Changed to support. EyeSerene^talk 12:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reginald Pinney

Nominator(s): Shimgray | talk |

One of an occasional series of articles on British generals of the First World War, and my first A-class nomination. Pinney was not a particularly prominent figure, though he seems to have been the unnamed subject of one of Sassoon's satiric poems. He was well-regarded by his contemporaries, though sometimes unpopular with his men - among other things, he was devoutly religious, and forbade any issue of rum in the trenches. On the whole, a fairly representative example of his kind.

Created in September 2010; GA a week later (reviewed by Jim Sweeney), and not much since. I've given it a tidying-up and a quick copyedit in preparation for A-class. Shimgray | talk | 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • Good to see some work on British generals of the Great War, and first drop is ... Reggie Pinney??? Anyway, some comments:
  • Image Review: One pic, copyright expired.
  • Could we have a consistent spelling of "major general"?
  • Add battles and wars to the Infobox
  • Was the scholarship fund in memory of Pinney or his son?
    • There are a variety of others at B-class, this is just the only one where I'm confident it has sufficient coverage to make A! I suppose an average career makes that easier...
    • Infobox and charity done; I'll have a look to figure out what the correct way to render MG for the period is and standardise on one form. Shimgray | talk | 16:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Standardised on hyphen. Shimgray | talk | 17:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Major-General with a hyphen was the form at the time, but more recently the British Army (and British English) have dropped the hyphen. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure whether we normally use "current" or "contemporary" style, but I mainly picked it as this is the one used by the ODNB, which is the only major secondary source there. Shimgray | talk | 19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments/suggestions: only some very minor stylistic suggestions from me
  • in the Early career section, "attending the Staff College, Camberley in 1889-90". Probably should be an endash in the date range;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • the spacing around emdashes is incorrect. Per WP:DASH, emdashes should be unspaced. Endashes can be spaced, however;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "23rd Brigade met heavy resistance when". Might sound better as: "The 23rd Brigade met heavy resistance when...";
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • not sure about the capitalisation here: "that the Corps artillery was about to fire". "Corps" is probably an improper noun here, so it is probably best presented in lower case;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • sometimes you use "the Xth Unit" but sometimes you drop the "the". I have a feeling that modern usage supports "the Xth Unit", but it probably should be consistent;
    • Done, all except the reference to J RHA at the end; "the J Battery" feels quite awkward. Shimgray | talk | 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "with high casualties and little achieved". Perhaps reword to: "with heavy casualties and little having been achieved..."
    • I've tried "having taken high casualties and achieved little". Shimgray | talk | 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • not sure about the full stop here: "him as the GSO.2 in 33rd Division". Is this correct presentation?
    • Fixed. Contemporary practice was "G.S.O.2"; our article on staff officer uses GSO2, as does Hamilton. Not sure where I picked up the dot from... Shimgray | talk | 22:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Divisional command section, Montgomery is probably overlinked;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 22:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • this sounds a little awkward to me: "It was arranged that he would exchange with Pinney in 35th Division". Perhaps try: "It was arranged that he would exchange commands with Pinney..."
    • On the other hand, this gives us three sentences in a row with some variant of "command" in, which to my eye is a bit clunkier. Shimgray | talk | 22:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • this could possibly be smoother: "was written by Siegfried Sassoon, then an officer in one of the 33rd's battalions; he was the subject of The General, one of Sassoon's better-known satirical poems". My suggestion is: "was written by Siegfried Sassoon, then an officer in one of the 33rd's battalions, who described Pinney in the satirical poem The General as a "cheery old card"..."
    • Rewritten (in a slightly different form). Shimgray | talk | 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • the hyphen here probably should be an emdash for consistency with your style: "was masterminded by Pinney[30] - one observer noted...";
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "where Pinney was hospitalised and temporarily relinquished". Do we know why he was in hospital?
    • No clear indication. Foot: "Pinney was injured"; Dunn (p. 382, 1-14th Sept): "The GOC went to hospital." On the other hand, Dunn normally notes when a senior officer is wounded (presumably it was good gossip) and it may be significant he doesn't in this case. Shimgray | talk | 22:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Pinney died on 18 February 1943, survived by his wife and five children". Perhaps change to: "Pinney died on 18 February 1943, survived by his wife and five of his children" to link in more clearly with the next sentence;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 22:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Notes section the hyphens for page ranges should probably be endashes;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in Note 5, "5 February 1884. Retrieved 2010-09-19.." Please take out the double full stop;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the References section, "p.36-7" should probably be "pp.36-37" to make it consistent with the style previously used in the article (per above it should probably also have an endash);
    • Done. (cite book is a complex template...) Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the References section is there an OCLC number for the Edmonds work?
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the References section "Macmillan and co.." should probably just be "Macmillan" based on previous advice I've seen at FAC. Nevertheless, if "co" is kept, the double full stop should be knocked off;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the References section is there an ISBN or OCLC number for the Gould work?
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the References section the capitalisation of the titles might need tweaking. For instance The donkeys probably should be The Donkeys. Same same for the Dunn, Gould and Hamilton works;
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the military office box at the bottom of the article, the dates "July 1915-September 1916" and "September 1916-February 1919" probably should have spaced endashes instead of hyphens. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

All done bar a couple of OCLC lookups and endashes (oh dear), & I'll look into these tomorrow. Shimgray | talk | 22:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

...and all completed. I am agnostic about the OCLC numbers; there's several more-or-less comparable records for the same edition of each of these works in WorldCat (it's not perfect at deduplicating older or small-press material) and so assigning one particular number rather than another seems of marginal utility - it's only going to return some of the items, whatever happens. Shimgray | talk | 19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments This is a good quality article, and I found it an interesting read - great work. I have the following comments:
  • The first mention of '33rd Division' in the lead should be linked
    • Done. I've knocked it down to "a division"; the particular division isn't as important in context, and we can bring out units in the second para. Shimgray | talk | 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Do we know what position(s) Pinney held in the Boer War?
    • No, but I'll look into this. I believe it will have been relatively "normal" regimental service, probably as a senior company commander (if he was a major). Army Lists should at least give us a battalion, and I'll construct something from that. Shimgray | talk | 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Done. The answer is "very little"; he arrived in November 1901, by which point the major fighting was over and it was mostly security/garrison work. A detailed history of the RF might show something, but there's certainly no "named battles" to reference. Shimgray | talk | 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "the Territorial Force was embodied to replace them for home defence duties" - 'embodied' sounds a bit odd in this context. I'd suggest something like 'mobilised' instead. You should also explain that the TF was a reservist formation.
    • Done. "Mobilised" is in the previous section - "activated" might work. I've noted the TF were reservists in the previous section, when they're first mentioned. Shimgray | talk | 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "it is not clear if Pinney's brigade was involved in this attack as an organised unit or not" it would be worth consulting a wider range of sources on this. Does the British official history might have anything on this? - I see that you've consulted it.
    • Unfortunately I don't have access to anything other than the 1914 volumes. I'll look into this. Shimgray | talk | 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest dropping the "it is not clear if Pinney's brigade was involved in this attack as an organised unit" bit then; you could say that 'several battalions of the brigade took part in this attack' or similar. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The ever-useful LLT does not mention anything about 23rd Brigade being employed, but of course absence of evidence, etc. I'll poke the library and see what comes out. Shimgray | talk | 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I've gone with "some units of Pinney's brigade", pending digging up further sources to explain what went on. Shimgray | talk | 21:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • What's meant by 'waves' of New Army divisions should be explained. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Done. I've dropped the wave comment entirely (since it always confuses me, anyway...) Shimgray | talk | 21:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments -- I copyedited a little but generally thought the prose was fine, likewise structure, citations, image licensing, and level of detail; well done. Some points:

• "On the outbreak of the First World War in the summer of 1914" -- best avoid seasonal references; if we mean "August" for the outbreak of war that's what we should say (actually I went and changed this myself).
  • Done. Two instances of "summer" left - one at the end which I can't reword because I don't know a more specific date, and one earlier which should be okay as it's in the fairly specific context of "the summer offensive". Shimgray | talk | 22:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Haven't read "The General" since I was in high school -- thanks for bringing it back to me... ;-) However, MOS-wise I believe poem titles are treated similarly to song titles, i.e. in inverted commas rather than italicised.
  • Done. Shimgray | talk | 21:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• No other images of the chap around? If not, perhaps the walls of text in Brigadier in France and Divisional Command could be broken up with say one picture each depicting a battle in which he was involved, or other contextual PD imagery.
  • I've had a dig around but can't find any clearly-identifiable pictures of any of the units he commanded. I've added a generic one of a machine-gun crew to the end of the divisional section; decent pictures of Ypres, for the first section, seem quite rare. Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yes, bit of a surprise there's so little of relevance image-wise. Mind you, I think the Vickers shot, though excellent in itself, may be too generic for this article. The picture of captured British and Portuguese troops in Battle of the Lys might be marginally better, given it's an action that involved the 33rd to some degree, and you mention the Portuguese... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I considered that one, but it's one of the ones that we can tell is definitely not directly related - his division wasn't in the line until a few days after the main group of prisoners had been taken. How would commons:File:British Lewis gun team Battle of Hazebrouck 1918 IWM Q 10902.jpg work, do you think? It's Hazebrouck, and not identifiable as a particular "other" unit. Shimgray | talk | 22:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I guess that'd be the best -- sorry, I didn't want you to sweat the images, it's not a condition for support... ;-) Actually as far as that goes I'm just waiting on your next bit re. citation #9... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• In the references section you link one or two notable publishers but not all, e.g. Macmillan -- best be consistent either way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Shimgray | talk | 21:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources/Spotcheck -- I checked notes #4, #9, #10, #40, #45. Unless mentioned below, info seemed accurate without evidence of copyvio or close paraphrasing:

• Re. #9, couldn't see the six divisions sent to France mentioned on page 7, only earlier (page 3 first up).
  • p. 3 doesn't really say it either, only by inference. I'll look at reciting this "background" section, probably from Vol. I of Edmonds. Shimgray | talk | 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the delay - this should hopefully be okay now. It's surprisingly hard to source the commonly-known details from the official histories! Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Tks -- yes, I sometimes find it easier to use more general books for the basic stuff myself... Cheers,
• Re. #10, generally accurate but I don't think the author explicitly equates the Wessex with the 43rd -- you might need to add the previous citation (#9, i.e. page 7) to make that connection clear.
  • Well-spotted! Done. Shimgray | talk | 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Re. #40 (and others from same source), I'm a little unsure of Baker as an RS, certainly if you take this to FAC -- while the site's information seems well-written, he appears to only recently have made history his profession and claims just one published work. Granted the material cited to him isn't controversial but then I'd have thought it might just as easily be found in more clearly reliable sources -- no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • In theory, it's certainly available from other sources; however, those sources are a bit of a hassle to come by! I'd like to use the unit histories, but they're expensive and difficult to obtain. LLT has been briefly discussed at RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 35#The Long, Long _Trail); "fine for factual information" seems to be the loose consensus, and it's certainly the way I've tended to treat it. Shimgray | talk | 22:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough if it's been discussed -- as I observed, you've used it for uncontroversial info, so I'm happy to go with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Support:

• Look good to me: interesting and well written. One minor query:
• "an Expeditionary Force of six divisions" - if we're talking about an expeditionary force (as opposed to the BEF), is it correct to capitalise it? (NB: I'm not sure) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It is intended to be "the" BEF (just known as the EF at this point), rather than a generic expeditionary force (though of course it's one of those as well.) I could rephrase to "the Expeditionary Force of six divisions", but there's something a little awkward-seeming about that - can't quite put my finger on what, though. Shimgray | talk | 22:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

While Australians comprised only a small proportion of the Allied forces during the Battle of Normandy in 1944, this campaign involved the great majority of the thousands of Australians (most airmen) stationed in the United Kingdom at this time. This article passed a GA review in November and has since been expanded. As such, I think that it may now meet the A class criteria, and would appreciate other editors views on this. To preemptively respond to two questions which are going to be asked; the article is heavily reliant on John Herington's volume in the Australian official history because - amazingly - it remains the only work to cover the operations of the Royal Australian Air Force in Europe during this period in any detail. It's a well regarded book, though. The other likely issue is that the article doesn't contain a figure for the total Australian casualties in this campaign. I've looked everywhere for such a figure, but have been unable to find it. The best I could find is the number of Australians killed on D-Day, and the number buried in war cemeteries in Normandy (which include some servicemen killed in the region well before the invasion, but obviously do not include Australians who died of wounds incurred during the campaign after their planes or ships returned to the UK). Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Support, with very minor comments:

• The first lead para gives several "hundreds of", which sounded repetitive; I'm not sure it married up with the thousands then cited in the second para (unless I've misunderstood)
  • Done
• "the county's military" - Australia's only a small place, and a former colony and all, but I still think "country's" would be more appropriate. :)
  • Oops, fixed (and there's no reason to be mean! :p )
• " and rapidly liberated most of France and reached" - if you said "to reach the German border", you'd avoid two "and"s Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks a lot for taking the time to review the article: I really appreciate it. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments:

• I wonder if Note 2 shouldn't just be included in the body of the article. As a foot slogger, I'm obviously biased, but I'd love to hear more of the Army experience in Normandy, as its something that I bet most Australians would know nothing about. Obviously, though, as Army officers represented such a small part of the Australian contribution, I understand that there is a need to treat it with due weight;
  • I'd included it as a note as I didn't want to give undue weight to this officer (given that I haven't been able to find out what the other ten or so did). I've added this to the body of the article as an example of the roles these officers filled, however, and I think that it works well. There's a very interesting magazine/journal article (or thesis?) to be written on what these officers did, I suspect, and it's a shame no-one has written it yet. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries, I think the way that you've handled it works. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• not sure of the capitalisation here: "the low countries". I think it should be "the Low Countries";
  • 'Low Countries' is preferred; fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• this is a little repetitious: "but many were unable to drop their bombs due to cloud over the target area... but many did not drop their bombs as cloud and smoke obscured the target area..."
  • Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a little confused by the date here: "No. 10 Squadron flew a similar number of patrols to those it had conducted during August". This seems to already be talking about August, do you mean that in August they flew a similar number of patrols to those that it had conducted during July? Sorry if I've missed something;
  • Yes, I meant July; fixed. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• in the Bibliography, the title for the Converse source probably shouldn't have a space before the colon;
  • Fixed
• in the Bibliography, the title for the Lecouturier source probably should be capitalised as The Beaches of the D-Day Landings. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's unusual, but that's the capitalisation the book uses, so I've stuck with it (the book appears to have been written by a French national and was published in France which might explain things a bit). Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • ;-) . No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support (as the GA reviewer)
  • No dab links [64] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [65] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [66] (suggestion only).
    • For some reason I thought that I had added alt text already... I'll fix it up. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD or licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • Are there any images that might illustrate the involvement of Australian naval personnel? (suggestion only)
    • Unfortunately not. The AWM doesn't have anything, and the only relevant photo on the Imperial War Musuem's website is this, and it's rather short of historical value! Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've read through it again and believe it meets the A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your comments Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment/Suggestion -- while I was going to review in depth as it's an interesting subject that's of course close to my heart, I'm quite happy to see this promoted as is, given it has the requisite support. My one suggestion based on a quick read, especially if going for FAC, is to personalise it with a few more individuals' stories, particularly if that involves wikilinks to notables. For instance Nicky Barr went ashore on D-Day+2 on attachment to an air control unit, and later in the campaign flew Typhoons against V-1 launch sites. If you check John Balmer and William Brill you might find something you can use re. their roles in interdiction raids before and after D-Day. There may be other notables I haven't thought of who could be mentioned. Anyway, just a thought... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ian; that's a good idea. It would be nice to flesh the article out a bit more, and illustrate what the Australians actually did. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Milne Bay

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk); AustralianRupert (talk)

Result of a cooperative effort last year to bring this article up to scratch. I think it is now A-worthy. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • No dab links [67] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [68] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [69] (suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD or licenced and are appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • Tense mismatch here I think: "The coastal area is flat and was suitable for airstrips...", consider "The coastal area is flat and suitable for airstrips..."
  • "...with attacks against the British and Commonwealth forces in the Battle of Hong Kong and Malayan campaign...", consider instead "...with attacks against British and Commonwealth forces in the Battle of Hong Kong and Malayan campaign..."
  • "...which was caught at anchor in the Pearl Harbor...", or should it be "... in Pearl Harbor..."?
  • "Following this, they had advanced rapidly south...", perhaps instead: "Following this, they had rapidly advanced south..." (suggestion only)
  • Typo here: "To the west, he authorised the construction of an airbase was at Merauke in...", specifically "airbase was at Merauke".
  • Typo and wording here: "...not be subject to vagaries of the weather and air turbulence other the mountains...", consider instead "...not be subject to the vagaries of weather and air turbulence over the mountains..."
  • "...as a better alternative site...", perhaps consider: "...as a more suitable alternative site.." (suggestion only)
  • "Three Kittyhawk aircraft of No. 76 Squadron RAAF landed on the airstrip on 22 July. Kittyhawks from No. 76 Squadron and No. 75 Squadron RAAF arrived on 25 July.", consider instead "Three Kittyhawk aircraft of No. 76 Squadron RAAF landed on the airstrip on 22 July while further Kittyhawks from No. 76 Squadron and No. 75 Squadron RAAF arrived on 25 July."
  • This is awkward to me: "They found that only 4,950 by 80 feet (1,510 by 24 m) of the 6,000-by-100-foot (1,800 by 30 m) runway was covered with Marsden Matting, and there was frequently water over the runway...", consider instead "They found that only 4,950 by 80 feet (1,510 by 24 m) of the 6,000-by-100-foot (1,800 by 30 m) runway was covered with Marsden Matting, and was frequently covered in water..."
  • "One Kittyhawk was destroyed on the ground, and a Kittyhawk from No. 76 Squadron shot down the dive bomber...", consider perhaps "One Kittyhawk was destroyed on the ground, while a Kittyhawk from No. 76 Squadron shot down the dive bomber."
  • "...it contained many 30 to 35 year old soldiers...", as an adjective 35 year old should probably be hypthenated.
  • Inconsistent spelling with "picket" and "picquet".
  • Is there a missing word here: "a minor attack upon Japanese forward positions which were located...", consider perhaps "a minor attack upon the Japanese forward positions which were located..."
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "Weary from the day's fighting, though, they withdrew to the west of the mission, to Motieau." As a suggestion consider: "Weary from the day's fighting though, they withdrew to Motieau, west of the mission."
  • "Moreover, while the Australians had no knowledge of the enemy's strength or intention...", consider perhaps "Moreover, while the Australians had no knowledge of the strength or intentions of the Japanese..."
  • Punctuation seems a little off here: "Meanwhile, the Japanese also sought to reconfigure their forces and Mikawa, decided to reinforce the forces that were already ashore." Consider "Meanwhile, the Japanese also sought to reconfigure their forces and Mikawa decided to reinforce the forces that were already ashore."
  • "...reaching Sanderson's Bay, before decided to set up their night location...", consider instead "...reaching Sanderson's Bay, before deciding to set up their night location."
  • "...but without causing any casualties in the defenders...", perhaps "...but without causing any casualties amoung the defenders..."
  • "...and provide anti-shipping missions...", perhaps "...and undertake anti-shipping missions..." or something similar.
  • Missing word/s here: "In 1944 this was to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, which had been set up by the Allies following the Moscow Declaration." Was what to the UN War Crimes Commission?
  • Overall, this is a very good article IMO. Just a few points to deal with or discuss, otherwise I will be glad to support. Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • G'day, I think I've fixed all of these now. Thanks for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Looks good, adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with comments:

• Looks good to me, and I thought the maps were particularly nice.
• Only one minor point: "the coastal plain is "virtually impassable"" - it wasn't clear in the text who the quote is from. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The citation points to Keogh, p. 185: "In wet weather the flats become virtually impassable quagmires of glutinous mud". It should have been clear, but placed an duplicate reference after the quote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Cheers. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support: no personal warranty for prose, but it seems to be adequately looked at above. (Some sort of image check probably a good idea?). Will revisit the balance issues at FAC if you take the article there, but I'm satisfied that it's not a significant enough problem for ACR.

Is "scrubbed" a reference to scrub? Could this be clarified?

Yes. Added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you think the length of the "prelude" section is justified?

The Background and Prelude sections tell the reader about Where and Why the battle was fought; the actual Battle section is concerned mainly with How, drawing on an understanding of details in the preceding sections. Keogh devotes three pages out of nine to the Background and Prelude; in his larger account, McCarthy uses 12 out of 45. Given the encyclopaedic nature of this account, I believe that the balance is good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that due to the poor quality of the articles on the various campaigns in the Pacific at this time, high quality articles on their constituent battles need to provide lots of background (I faced the same problem in the Battle of Arawe article). In this case, the New Guinea Campaign article sucks. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - this is a really sterling article, excellent work you two. Parsecboy (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

List of battleships of Greece

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Another list of battleships for WP:OMT - this comprises a pair of dreadnoughts ordered to counter Ottoman expansion, and a pair of old US battleships bought as stop-gap measures. The list is short, but it's comprehensive for the size of the topic, and is based on earlier lists from other countries. Thanks in advance to all editors who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support for content (as opposed to prose, at coord's discretion). Has everything I'd expect to see, with suitable referencing, worthy sources. Obviously the format comes under a little strain with single ships and no real classes, but I think. Are "Gardiner & Chesneau" authors, or editors as Gardiner was in other books in the series? Also, England isn't the primary locator (I think "United Kingdom" would be better", as with Greenwich). I assume that "England" is given because Windsor is not well known - but I have no idea which state "MD" is. Would it be heresy to give the country? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Gardiner and Chesneau are editors, I'm not sure how that slipped through like that for so long :) Thanks for catching that. I think it would be odd to give the country for Maryland (either as "Annapolis, MD, US" or "Annapolis, US"). Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments There is one basic flaw in this article that has not been resolved. The three Hydra-class battleships are not included. I know some of the folks here don't consider them to be battleships, but the fact of the matter is that naval publications at the time (and many today) do consider them to be battleships. For example Brassey's Naval Annual lists them as such. This must be addressed in some form before this article can achieve A-class i would imagine. Similar problems will arise if a list of Japanese battleships ever gets to A-class review. Is it known what they were officially classed as by the Greek Navy?XavierGreen (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, the term "battleship" was highly fluid, especially in the 19th century. Essentially all capital ships at least as far back as the 1850s were "battleships", though today we classify them as steam battleships, ironclad battleships, etc. The three Hydra class ships are not now regarded as modern battleships like the Royal Sovereign class was; they belong to the ironclad era. As such, they belong on a List of ironclad warships of Greece list, along with Vasilissa Olga and Vasilifs Georgios. It doesn't exactly matter what the Greeks called the ships at the time, for the reason outlined above. If you look at modern sources (for instance, Conway's), you'll see that they're typically not classified as battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless some modern texts still call them battleships, and at the very least some note needs to be added explaining why they are not included in the list as a greek naval historian would likely expect them to have them included.XavierGreen (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I haven't seen them called battleships by any modern text that was in any way expert - non-specialist or amateur works sometimes do, but we don't base our articles on those. Nevertheless, I have added a note on the earlier ironclad vessels. Parsecboy (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I check Sondhaus Naval Warfare 1815-1914 and he calls them armored cruisers which seems more accurate than 'ironclad' to me.Kirk (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

They are refered to as Battleships in Greek Naval Strategy and Policy, 1910-1919 by Zisis Fotaksis, [[70]], in Steve Crawford's Battleships and Carriers [[71]], various editions of Brassey's Naval Annual example here [[72]], the Naval Institute' Proceedings [[73]], the Journal of the Military Service Institution [[74]]. The vast majority of contemporary Naval analysts and historians definitely considered them to be battleships, and likely half of modern naval authors consider them to be as well. This needs to be reflected in the list.XavierGreen (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Xavier that at least some reference ought to be made of them. This reflects the operational role assigned to these vessels: in the absence of "proper" battleships in Greece (and the Ottoman Empire), both the Hydra class and later the cruiser Averof were used as capital ships and were classed accordingly. This means you'll have trouble finding them referred to as anything other than "battleship" (θωρηκτό, which actually means simply "armoured") even by specialist Navy sources in Greek. Constantine ✍ 09:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Xavier - Crawford also includes the German Deutschland-class cruisers, which implies his definition of what a battleship is is somewhat expansive. The journals you linked to are all period pieces, not modern works. Their usage is largely irrelevant.

Constantine - you make my point with the phrase "in the absence of 'proper' battleships". This is a list of "proper" battleships, not ships that were used as capital ships because the Greeks couldn't afford actual battleships. The Hydra class's direct contemporaries, the British Trafalgar class and the Italian Re Umberto class, for example, were two or three times as large and much more powerfully armed. In no way were the Hydra class ships even second-class battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Parsecboy; I wonder if the translation from Greek to English contributes to the confusion. Compare them to the British Orlando class cruiser which they are pretty close to in time, size, armor and armament. Kirk (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the journals to show that contemporary Naval Analysts of the time the ships were in commission, regarded them as battleships. It should be noted that the same journals describe Averof as an armoured cruiser. While they were in commision the ships were regarded by the vast majority of naval analysts of the day as being battleships. And to this day many authors still consider them to be so. If you would like more sources, i be happy to provide them.XavierGreen (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

These ships are about 3/4 the size of the smallest 2nd class battleship of the period and are pretty comparable to the German Siegfried class coastal defense ships. Conway's All the World's Fighting ships 1860–1905 calls them armored ships and Tony Gibbons' Complete Encyclopedia of Battleships lists them (without characterizing them) right next to the Siegfrieds, which it explicitly calls coast-defense ships. Conway's Battleships doesn't list them at all. Isn't there a book in the ABC-Clio series on battleships? What does that say? So I'll call you on modern characterizations of them from experts more knowledgeable than Crawford and the like.

I suspect that some of the nomenclature issues probably arise from translations of what the Greeks called them. They were the biggest ships in the Greek Navy until they bought Averoff from the Italians. I'll note that the Italians used the same term, navi da battaglia di 1^a classe, for both armored cruisers and battleships, but we have no problems with anybody trying to lump those ship types together in English-language sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions:

• the images appear appropriately licenced to me (no action);
• in the lead, this probably should be reworded slightly: "As a result, only Kilkis and Limnos were the only battleships delivered to Greece". I suggest removing the first "only";
• this might need tweaking: "The new battleship was to be named Vasilefs Konstantinos to the same design as the French ". I suggest something like: "The new battleship was to be named Vasilefs Konstantinos and was to be built to the same design as the French..." (emphasis added to highlight suggested change only);
• "The contract dispute was settled in 1925". This might need clarification as there doesn't appear to be any mention of a contract dispute before it is said to have been settled. The table says that the ship was broken up; I think that that should probably be added to the paragraph.
• inconsistent: in the lead "stop-gap measure", in the Kilkis class section "stopgap measure";
• in the Kilkis class section "Ottoman Empire" is possibly overlinked, having been linked in an earlier section;
• in the Kilkis class section "World War I" is possibly overlinked, having been linked in an earlier section;
• there is a slight inconsistency in your ISBNs; some are hyphenated and some aren't;
• there is a slight inconsistency in the three Conway's titles. One has a colon before the date ranges, one has a comma and the other has nothing. This might be correct, or it might be a couple of typos. It is really minor, of course, but if you can, please check this;
• in the Sondhaus source it is "London, UK", but in the Hore source it is just "London": this is inconsistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Should all be fixed - thanks for reviewing the list, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries; looks good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Technical bits:
  • No dab links [75]
  • No external link problems (only one external link :) [76]
  • Reflinks good [77]
  • Image licenses good
• Nitpicks:
  • References: Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships at Worldcat is shown as 1906-1921, not 1922 [78]
  • history.navy.mil refers to Limnos as Lemnos.

Prose is good; no other concerns. Nice article :) EyeSerene^talk 11:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• • • Thanks, EyeSerene - fixed the year in Conways. I had left it Limnos when I rewrote that article and did this list, but Lemnos appears to be preferred in other sources as well. Also, the articles are at Lemnos and Naval Battle of Lemnos, so it makes sense to have these articles match that spelling. Parsecboy (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • That seems fine. I wondered if it was one of those translation/transliteration things that could go either way. EyeSerene^talk 14:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

John Sherman Cooper

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk)

I was kinda bummed that the last time I nominated this article for A-class, it failed because only one editor commented, and that was a source review. I took it to GAC, where it passed with little trouble, but since I'm still on my quixotic quest for a Governors of Kentucky featured topic, I can't take it to FAC at the moment, due to the limitation of one nomination at a time per user. So here I am, back at MILHIST A-class, hoping for some more reviews and useful feedback for the day when I finally do get around to making it an FAC.

Cooper earned the Bronze Star Medal while serving under George Patton in World War II. He was also Ambassador to India and East Germany during the Cold War and was one of the rare Republican voices in the U.S. Senate against escalation of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Hopefully, folks interested in any of these three will provide feedback. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments I'll review this article over the next few days. However, I suspect that the reason for the lack of support last time is that the majority of this lengthy article is about Cooper's non-military career. I'll start off with some comments on the 'Service in World War II' section:
  • Was it unusual for people above the draft age to volunteer?
    • The sources didn't say one way or another, but one of them noted it, which implied to me that it was unusual. I'd say it was unusual for someone in his forties to volunteer regardless. I could drop the bit about the draft age if it raises too many side issues.
      • It wasn't unusual, but it says something about him that he volunteered to serve when he didn't have to. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why did Cooper turn down a direct commission as an officer?
    • Unfortunately, the Schulman biography does not elaborate. It is the only one that mentions a commission being offered.
  • The US Army (like most other western armies) uses Roman numerals to designate its corps, so the '15th Corps' is actually the XV Corps (United States)
    • I'll take your word on that. Schulman used the Arabic numerals. Thanks for the link.
  • What unit did Cooper serve with? A corps is a huge formation
    • None of the sources said. What is in the article is all I know.
      • XV Corps left Third Army in August 1944, but Cooper did not. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Under Patton, Cooper served in France, Luxembourg, and Germany." - what's the relevance of the 'under Patton' here? There were many layers of heirachy between a second lieutenant and the commander of an Army.
    • None, I guess. My limited military knowledge gives me little context. Omitted "Under Patton".
  • "Patton ordered all of his unit, including Cooper, to tour the Buchenwald concentration camp just hours after its liberation." - why the 'including Cooper' here, and did Patton really specifically order this unit to tour the camp as this implies? It seems unlikely that he would have singled out a military police unit for this.
    • Actually, it looks like I misread that. According to Schulman, Patton actually ordered all the people in the city of Weimar to go through the camp after its liberation; Schulman records that Cooper saw the camp during that time.
  • "Following the cessation of hostilities in the war, Cooper oversaw the reorganization of the 239 courts in the German state of Bavaria, replacing all the Nazi officials, for which he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal" - how did a very junior officer serving as a mere courier get such a significant responsibility? (though Cooper was far from being the only junior officer with substantial peacetime experience to gain significant roles in WW2 military governments)
    • I gather that by this time, Cooper had attained the rank of captain, but again, my limited military knowledge means I don't know that this changes your observation much, if at all. In Schulman's biography, Cooper's work with repatriation and personal appeal to Patton on behalf of the spouses and children of repatriated individuals precedes the discussion of his reorganization of the court system, although it is noted that these actions took place at the same time. Perhaps through his personal appeal to Patton, Patton came to trust him and give him such a responsibility. I don't really know. I've rearranged the order in this article to match what is given in Schulman's biography, though.
      • A Captain is still a pretty low rank. However, rank was often ignored during military governments - I've read accounts of privates with pre-war expertise being given key tasks! Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Cooper brought this to the attention of General Patton, who rescinded the repatriation order in his unit's occupation zone." - did this halt all the repatriations from the 3rd Army's occupation zone? - it's a bit unclear what the scope of this is.
    • Yes. Clarified.
  • When did Cooper depart the US? Presumably it was after he got married in 1944. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm thinking you mean when did he depart for the US. I looked for this and was never able to pin it down.
• I've read through the article, and think that it's in very good shape. I have have the following further comments, however:
  • The article consistently speaks of Cooper in glowing terms. Did he really make no mistakes or took actions that left him on the 'wrong side of history'?
    • I'm sure he made mistakes, but there has been surprisingly little written about him for someone who was so active on the national scene for so long. Honest-to-goodness, about the only negative that was consistently mentioned was that he was frequently absentminded and notoriously tardy for everything. Not sure that bears mentioning here.
      • It might be worth including to add some extra 'colour' to the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Although Centre was known as one of Kentucky's foremost colleges in academic quality" - is a bit awkwardly worded (it could be something like 'Although Centre was one of Kentucky's foremost colleges" given that academic standards are the most common way of ranking tertiary institutions)
    • Good point. Done.
  • "Of the first 16 opinions he issued during his time on the bench, 15 were upheld by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, Kentucky's court of last resort at the time." - was this unusual?
    • Apparently. At least two sources that I remember mentioned it as a mark of his quality as a judge.
  • "Kennedy chose Cooper to conduct a then-secret mission to Moscow and New Delhi to assess the attitudes of the Soviet government toward the new administration" - how was he to determine this from India?
    • Again, I seem to have mis-read the source. He was assessing Soviet attitudes for the new administration. Attitudes toward what, the source doesn't say, unfortunately. Changed.
  • "Overall, Cooper's report to Kennedy regarding the potential for harmonious relations with the Soviets was extremely pessimistic." - I think that this could be simplified by moving it into the active voice (eg, "Cooper concluded in his report to Kennedy that there was little potential for harmonious relations with the Soviets" or similar)
    • Good suggestion. Done.
  • There are no details on Cooper's period as ambassador to East Germany - can anything be added on this?
    • I looked for something significant, but didn't find anything. If not for the Franklin study on his time in India, I would have had very little on that, either. Apparently, Schulman didn't explore his diplomatic career very thoroughly.
      • It might be worth looking for works on the US-German relationship during the Cold War if you haven't already done so. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • What's a 'RECC'?
    • I wish I knew. I'm sure it's a "Rural Electric Cooperative Something", but I don't know what the "something" is, given that I gather the overall name refers to a power plant.
  • Can more photos of Cooper be added? Given that he spent most of his career in the service of the federal government, I'd expect that there would be quite a few PD photos available. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I didn't find as many as I expected. There are a few on Commons from his time in East Germany, but I was hoping to get one of the statue in Somerset for the later life section instead. I searched the State Department and Library of Congress web sites, but didn't turn up anything.

Sorry for this extremely tardy response. I caught a stomach virus last Tuesday that had me out of commission pretty much all of last week. Thanks for your review. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support My comments are now addressed to the extent possible. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

• A really good article. One very, very minor point below:
• " resumed the practice of law in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Gardner, Morison and Rogers" - second "law" is probably redundant. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Goodness, yes. Fixed. Thanks for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Image Review: All images have appropriate rationales.
• Source review:
  • Source: Cooper saw the Buchenwald concentration camp within a few hours after its liberation by the Third Army (Patton ordered the enlire populace of nearby Weimar out to look at its horrors. (Schulman, p. 31)
  • Article:Cooper viewed the Buchenwald concentration camp just hours after its liberation when Patton ordered the entire population of the nearby city of Weimar to go through it and observe the conditions.
    • Comment: Needlessly close wording.
      • Attempted to fix. Seems there are only so many ways to say this without it becoming clumsy or inaccurate. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Source:At the same time Cooper single-handedly was reorganizing for the military government the 239 court5 in Bavaria, preventing Nazis from securing important posts and spotting as successors Gennans who were qualified and genuinely non-Nazi.
  • Cooper also oversaw the reorganization of the 239 courts in the German state of Bavaria, replacing all the Nazi officials, for which he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal.
    • Comment: The source does not support the contention that all Nazis were replaced (and with good reason).
      • Fixed. The present wording fixed an earlier issue where it sounded like he was replacing judges with Nazis! Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Article: Cooper was elected without opposition as circuit judge of Kentucky's twenty-eighth judicial district in 1945, despite still being in Germany and not campaigning for the office.
  • Source: Democrats joined with Republicans to sponsor the Army officer... His candidacy was unopposed.
    • Comment: Judges are not elected in Kentucky, but are appointed by the governor on nomination by a bipartisan commission
      • Not sure this is accurate. I know we elect judges to the Kentucky Supreme Court in nonpartisan elections, but that may have been a result of the 1975 constitutional amendment dealing with the judiciary and passed under Governor Julian Carroll. Regardless, this says he was "elected".
  • Article:In 1944, while he was still in the Army, Cooper married Evelyn Pfaff, a registered nurse.
  • Source:In 1943 he had married Evelyn Pfaff, an Army nurse
    • Aside from the date (what gives?) the source does not support being an RN. You could apply to join the Army directly from Nursing school, and so did not have to be an RN. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The source cited immediately above gives the 1944 date; reworded to include both. I may have inadvertently stuck in the "registered nurse" part. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Artillery Memorial

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a famous and distinctive monument to the losses of the First World War. The article includes both military history and the history of art, and I'd be particularly interested in views as to how well these two blend together, and if the artistic community's interpretation is clear enough in the article. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments/suggestions: interesting article. No major dramas from my perspective. Just a few minor points per below. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with:
  • in the infobox the conflict is called "World War I', but elsewhere in the article the term that is used is the "First World War". I suggest tweaking the infobox so that it is consistent;

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • the first sentence of the History section: "The First World War between 1914 to 1918 saw the extensive use of artillery, particularly on the Western Front." This might sound smoother as: "The First World War, which took place between 1914 and 1918, saw the extensive use of artillery, particularly on the Western Front";
  • in the History section, the wikilink to the "Western Front" might be adjusted to "Western Front (World War I)";

• Adjusted. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • this seems a little inconsistent: in the lead "Royal Regiment of Artillery", in the History section "Royal Artillery Regiment";

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The link to "Royal Artillery Regiment" in the History section points to a Malaysian unit, not the British one;

• Fixed, but ultimately we probably need a DAB page... Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • in the section sentence of the History section, I suggest wikilinking "other ranks" which could be linked to Other Ranks;

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "because of his service as a infantry officer". This might sound smoother as: "because of his service as an infantry officer" (emphasis added only to highlight suggested change);

• Agree, fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • "months late on October 18 1925 by..." Per convention and ease of understanding for the reader, there should probably be a comma after "October 18" and another after "1925";

• Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • this seems awkward: "These memorials frequently used of abstract, beautiful designs intended..." Perhaps try: "These memorials frequently used abstract, beautiful designs intended... (suggest removing "of");

• Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • in the References, the instances of page ranges probably should have endashes rather than just hyphens (minor point obviously);

• Will fix (I always get these wrong...) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • I have only limited download on my new internet plan, so I am not able to review the image licences. If you wouldn't mind, though, can I ask that you make sure that you are confident that they are correct in this regard. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review - sorry it took so long! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• No worries, looks good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Images:
  • All are fine except the lead image, which was previously confirmed as valid but has since been deleted from flickr. I believe we normally think this is okay, but worth noting. If you want to be safe with an alternative, you could upload a copy of this one - CC-BY-SA, and equally striking against a blue sky.

• If its been checked, its usually okay (unless there's obviously a copyright problem with it); in this case, I think the original posting was in good faith, and it checked out okay in Feb last year. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Additional images, should you want them - there's some PD images from the 1930s(?) here.

• You can really see how clear the original carving was in some of these! I'm not sure they'd be PD under UK law though, given the date. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Style issues:
  • As Rupert notes above, Royal Reguiment of Artillery is the full form; Royal Artillery is the short form. I'd go with either RRA first then RA on later uses, or RA throughout; "Royal Artillery Regiment" should probably be avoided, ditto the use of "British" as a prefix to it - it's clear from context what nation we're discussing.

• Fixed; I've gone with the RRA first, then RA, except where its a quote from the inscription. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Standardise "First World War" or "World War I", but remember it's "in the First World War" versus "in World War I".

• Yep, found that one a moment ago! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Jones is credited with the "Boer War Cavalry Memorial" - it might be worth double-checking the name, as it seems likely that in 1920, this was still called the "South African [War] Cavalry Memorial".

• Will check (will need to fish out the book though!) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Content:
  • It's a Grade II* listed monument - the list entry includes a comment as "of considerable originality and force", which seems worth quoting.

• There's no indication of the author of the comment, so I've left out for now. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• • The article briefly mentions South African memorials; you could bring in the fact that there's a specific RA memorial for South Africa a couple of streets away.

• The link isn't drawn out by the existing literature, so I think this might be synthesis. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• • On critical commentary, Fry died 1934, and so was possibly a contemporary comment rather than "later years" - it might be worth moving him back to the first paragraph.

• Good point, have moved accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• • In general, there's a lack of commentary covering c. 1930 to 1980 - was it discussed at all in the wave of war memorials during the 1940s, and did it have any influence on future designs of this kind?

• I haven't found any thing giving a direct link, and the sources I've been looking at are very quiet after 1930. I've been trying Alan Borg and a few others without any luck. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll have another read over for style tomorrow, but other than the later commentary I don't think it's missing much. Shimgray | talk | 21:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment:Support An interesting and readable article that seems well-rounded. One source that I thought was missing was the UK National Inventory of War Memorials. Their database record for this memorial states that the howitzer was modelled on the example held by the Imperial War Museum. The database also identifies one of the models for the sculpture as Domenico Mancini, and that the unveiling ceremony's dedication was performed by Reverend Dr A C E Jarvis. These details might be worth integrating. Even so, a good article. IxK85 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've added the IWM and the Jarvis elements, but I wasn't sure how notable Mancini was in this context. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good. I wonder though if there ought to be a reference to the 2011 restoration; it would seem a significant event in the life of this memorial. --IxK85 (talk) 09:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've no further comments; I support this nomination. --IxK85 (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (E)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because of similar lists listed as A-Class articles. Thank you for your comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: with a couple of comments:
  • according to the Featured article tools, there are no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • some of the images appear to have alt text, while others don't. It is not an A-class requirement, but you might consider adding it in to make it consistent (suggestion only);
  • I currently only have a very limited amount of download available, so I haven't checked the licences on all of the images, but please make sure that they are all correct;
  • in the Background section, I think you need some commas here: "The first enactment Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573 of 1 September 1939 instituted the". For instance either side of "Reichsgesetzblatt I S. 1573";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Recipients section: "Of the one-hundred-and-eighty-eight awards made". I think it would be better to present this as: "Of the 188 awards made..."
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Heer members received one-hundred-and-twenty-six", as above it would probably be best presented as "126" (but not if you implement the suggestion below);
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • same for "twenty-two" (22), "fifteen" (15) and "forty-one" (41);
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • this sounds awkward to me: "Heer members received one-hundred-and-twenty-six of the medals, six went to...". I suggest: "One hundred and twenty-six Heer members received the award, while six went to..." AustralianRupert (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I assume you mean not to implement this change if I implemented the "one-hundred-and-twenty-six → 126" chnage? Correct? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
      • G'day, yes that's right, although I think it would sound smoother this way rather than the other. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I had concerns about an earlier list, but this one is good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with a few fussy comments:

• "for a wide range multitude of reasons"?
• "the Heer (Army), Kriegsmarine (Navy) and Luftwaffe (Air force)" Shouldn't the German words be italicised because they're not used often in English (maybe except for Luftwaffe)?
  • don't know. On another review, I forgot which one, the reviewers did not want italics. For sake of uniformity I would like all the same. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Why isn't "E" italicised as per WP:WORDSASWORDS?
• "[Dr.] Ernst Ebeling" "[Dr.]" shouldn't be linked?
  • I don't understand "[Dr.] Ernst Ebeling" links to "Ernst Ebeling". what do you mean?
• Why isn't "Oberkommando der Wehrmacht" italicised? Also, can you do something about the ranks in the table? The words aren't common. IDK, that's what I think should be done, but I'm not sure with guidelines, if there are any -- please point them out to me if I'm wrong.
  • See above, please. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

--Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 09:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Another professional article in this epic series, and up to the same high standards as the others.
  • No dablinks found
  • External links are fine
  • Reflinks also fine
  • Prose is good, only one comment:

    "This indicates that historian Veit Scherzer has expressed doubt regarding the veracity and formal correctness of the listing." I'm not sure what "formal correctness" actually means.

  • Image licenses seem good; no other concerns. EyeSerene^talk 09:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesse L. Brown

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 20:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support with comments:

• An inspiring individual. Some minor comments below:
• "The family lived in a house without central heating, indoor plumbing or running water so the family relied on a fireplace for warmth" - I think the having both the indoor plumbing and running water bits are redundant (if you don't have running water, I don't think indoor plumbing is really possible?). Similarly the central heating and using a fireplace for warmth. How about "The family lived in a house without running water relied on a fireplace for warmth."?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• "US$600" - with this and other figures, I'd normally vote in favour of giving an equivalent USD sum.
  • It's in a USD Template. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• " rooming house" - I'm not sure I'm familiar with a rooming house, I suspect its a US term.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• "There, his enlistment ended 15 April " - I could see that this referred to his previous enlistment, but I wasn't clear if he was still in the military with the midshipman rank?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Brown was said to have broken the "color barrier." - was this said by the press (e.g. as an editorial) or by someone quoted in the press?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• " though racism against him persisted" - "though some racism"? (qualifying it, given that it had reduced)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• "and an experienced pilot " > "as an experience pilot"
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• " He was known to be well-liked" - several "known to"s here - could you just say "He was well-liked..."?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• "he appeared to training fuel" - > "draining fuel" or "trailing fuel"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• "Lieutenant Charled Ward " - "Charles Ward"?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• "As word of his death spread, Hudner was known to have inspired " - again, could just be "Hudner inspired..." Hchc2009 (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. That's everything. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Made some tweaks. Corrected a couple of typos.
  • I feel that this article, written in the typical upbeat American style, while explicitly mentioning segregation, falls short of giving the reader any understanding of how it worked. For example, the critical aspect of Brown's becoming an aviator was his selection of a white university. Had he gone to a black university, there would have been no V-12 program for him to have joined. The Holloway program operated at 52 colleges; but Ohio State was one of only 13 that admitted blacks. In fact, there were over 5,600 students in NROTC in 1947; but Brown was one of just 14 black students. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Decided to just be WP:BOLD and add this to the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments/suggestions: an interesting article on an inspirational individual. I think it needs a bit of copyediting, but after that it should be up to standard. I have the following suggestions (apologies for the long list and of course happy to discuss anything you disagree with):
  • in the lead, "Born in Hattiesburg, Mississippi to an impoverished...". There should probably be a second comma after "Mississippi";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "Brown, an Ensign, flew 20 combat missions..." Probably should be "Brown, an ensign, flew 20 combat missions..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the lead, this is a sentence fragment, "Brown, an Ensign, flew 20 combat missions until 4 December 1950, when during a mission supporting ground troops at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The family lived in a house without central heating or indoor plumbing so the family relied on a fireplace for warmth". This might sound smoother as: "The family lived in a house without central heating or indoor plumbing so they relied on a fireplace for warmth";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "John Brown then moved the family to Lux, Mississippi to be..." As per the earlier point, there should probably be a second comma after "Mississippi";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • this could be reworded slightly: "The family was also a committed Baptist Christian family and Jesse..." For instance, "The family were also committed Baptist Christians and Jesse...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Brown, inspired by these aviators, had said he wanted to be a pilot from a very young age". Perhaps this might sound smoother as: "Brown, inspired by these aviators, developed a desire to pilot from a very young age.";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "because the schools closer to his family were lower-quality". Perhaps, "because the schools closer to his family were of lower-quality";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Brown was an excellent student in this school, attaining high marks in his classes and was a member of the basketball, American football, and track and field teams". Perhaps try, "Brown was an excellent student in this school, attaining high marks in his classes and being selected a member of the basketball, American football, and track and field teams";
    • He wasn't selected for these teams, he volunteered to join them himself. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Brown graduated from this school as the salutatorian in 1944". I suggest removing "from this school", as it is a bit repetitive, having been used in a similar form in the previous sentence also;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There is a punctuation issue here: "Brown moved into an on-campus boarding house at 61 E. Eleventh Avenue in the primarily black neighborhood of Columbus' University District.[16] and majored..." (before the citation);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • there is some repetition here: "In spite of this, he maintained top marks in his classes.[4] In spite of the difficulties with his...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the capitalisation here: "by the US Navy to commission Naval aviation pilots", probably should be a lower case "naval" IMO, but I open to being convinced otherwise;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "In spite of resistance from recruiters, Brown passed entrance exams." Perhaps try, "In spite of resistance from recruiters, Brown passed the entrance exams";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "in Glenview, Illinois for Naval Flight Officer training". Second comma;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "and Brown reverted to the rank of midshipman". This sounds like a demotion, but surely it was a promotion from seaman apprentice? Or am I misunderstanding something?
    • It's neither, really. Midshipman isn't a standard military rank, it's more of a title for people in training, similar to cadet.
  • "transferring to Ottumwa Naval Air Station in Ottumwa, Iowa". Second comma;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Pensacola Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida". Second comma;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • irregular capitalisation: "training for Carrier-based aircraft aboard". Probably should just be "carrier-based";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "moved to Jacksonville, Florida for his final..." Second comma;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "author Theodore Taylor later wrote Brown had broken the "color barrier" which had been longstanding for blacks in naval aviation". Might sound smoother with "that" before "Brown had broken";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • irregular capitalisation: "taking place at Quonset point". Perhaps try: "taking place at Quonset Point";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • irregular capitalisation: "Brown was commissioned as an Ensign in the..." Probably should be lower case "ensign";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • there is a mixture of date formats, e.g. "25 June 1950", but also "August 8" and "October 8";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "carrier arrived in the area and the Leyte ordered to Korea", probably should be "carrier arrived in the area and the Leyte was ordered to Korea";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "and so needed in the theatre". "Theatre" is British English, it should probably be "theater" as the rest of the article uses US English variation;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • is this a typo: "The ship sailed from the Strait of Gibraltar across the Atlantic Ocean and to Quinoset, them through..."? Specifically "them through";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • seems at odds with the earlier statement: "The Leyte was eventually ordered to Korea, arriving in October 1950". The previous paragraph you've already said that the ship was ordered to Korea;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Task Force 77" is probably overlinked, as is US Seventh Fleet at its variations;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Brown and other pilots on the Leyte were flying dozens of close air support missions..." Perhaps try, "Brown and other pilots on the Leyte flew dozens of close air support missions";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "wintery weather to the vicinity of villages Yudam-ni and Hagaru-ri". Perhaps try, "wintery weather to the vicinity of the villages of Yudam-ni and Hagaru-ri";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "before intentionally crash landing his vehicle to..." Perhaps replace "vehicle" with "aircraft";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "engine fire with a fire extinguisher and tried in vain to free Brown...". There is some repetition of "in vain" in this paragraph, perhaps replace it here with "unsuccessfully" or something similar;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "likely thanks to heavy air presence of Brown". "Thanks" sounds a little informal, perhaps change to "due";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The pilots observed his body looked to have been disturbed and his clothes stolen, but still stuck in the aircraft". Perhaps tweak to: "The pilots observed that his body looked to have been disturbed and his clothes stolen, but was still stuck in the aircraft";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "As word of his death spread, Hudner inspired numerous other African Americans to become pilots". Was it Hudner that inspired them, or Brown?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the capitalisation here: "the first US Ship named in honor". I think it should be "the first US ship named in honor..." but I'm not 100 percent sure in this case;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Present at the commissioning ceremony in Boston, Massachusetts". Second comma;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "author Theodore Taylor, who had also served in Korea at the time of Brown's death, which he said moved him greatly". Perhaps try, "author Theodore Taylor, who had served in Korea, and who later said was deeply moved by the news of Brown's death at the time...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Notes, "In 2000 this award was made retroactive to all US military who served in the Korean War". I think this should be "...to all US military personnel...". AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Made all the fixes. Thanks for your review. —Ed!^(talk) 11:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

John Francis Jackson

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

I don't seem to be creating many new articles these days but rather expanding/improving existing ones as I come across new sources. This is a case in point, one that's been GA for some time but which I feel now has the detail to reach A-Class. "Old John" Jackson, who at 34 was quite ancient by fighter-pilot standards, achieved notability not just as an ace but as the commanding officer of No. 75 Squadron RAAF in the Battle of Port Moresby in 1942. From what I've gathered (not explicitly enough to put it in the article, admittedly) he didn't even have to take this assignment, he just wanted to defend Australia when things were looking particularly grim. He was also independently wealthy, yet there was still something of the country bumpkin about him -- witness his Crocodile Dundee moment in the Alexandria hotel... ;-) Anyway, hope the article does him justice -- tks in advance for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. It occurs to me that this might make a good TFA for 28 April, which of course would mean taking it to FAC after a successful outcome here, so any thoughts on those (related) possibilities are also welcome...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Minor comments follow:
• "His brother Arthur (born 1919), also a pilot and keen to join the Air Force, was killed in a flying accident later that month.[6][7] Two other brothers, Edward (born 1915) and Leslie (born 1917), joined the RAAF in November." - I found the dates of birth for the brothers broke up the flow a bit, and they might be unnecessary in this context.
• "Jackson's first taste of action " - felt a bit "boy's own" in tone!
• "essentionally" - "essentially"? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Tweaked/corrected things -- tks for review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: looks good to me, Ian. I couldn't find anything to pick fault with. I read it for prose and presentation/style. I didn't check images, though, as I've only got limited download on my new plan. Apologies if I missed anything, but it looks like an A-class article to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Tks mate -- FWIW, I personally uploaded all the images so will vouch for their (pre-1955) licensing... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments Great work with this article - it was an interesting read. I have the following comments on it though:

• "Jackson returned to Australia in November 1941 to serve in the South West Pacific." - I'm not sure about this. The South West Pacific Command wasn't set up until several months after this date, so the terminology seems wrong. It also implies that his return was part of the build-up to the Pacific War, which is likely, but not in the ADB entry.
  • Fair enough, that was a hangover from an earlier version that pretty well cut straight from the Middle East to New Guinea, so it's kind of redundant now anyway; even then, the region rather than the command was intended, but the link probably confused matters.
    • To clarify, simply removed "to serve in the South West Pacific". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• The use of Jackson's file in the NAA seems OK to me, but can you please add the relevant page/scan numbers?
  • Will do.
    • Done -- conveniently, everything I used was contained on one page, and a type-written one at that! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That seems to be the way with NAA files: they're either really easy to use or a total mess. I'd suggest that you update the access date though, as I've seen some instances where the NAA has added extra pages to files. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Done. Added pages? Either that or mysteriously removed the digital version entirely, like they did to me in the middle of developing Brian Eaton. Fortunately before it disappeared I'd taken note of the publishing details of an excellent post-retirement newspaper interview that appeared in the file and was able to locate it at the State Library on (god help us) microfiche -- the lengths we go to for nought but the satisfaction of writing a decent article, and some kudos from colleagues who are just as dedicated (or mad)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I try not to think in terms of cost-benefit ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• The references to the World War 2 Nominal Roll should include publisher details
  • Invoking precedent if I may, this is the usual way I cite online refs like the roll and it's always been accepted at A/FA to date. I don't think it's any different to say note #11 (23 Squadron RAAF at Australian War Memorial).
    • OK fair enough. FA reviewers seem to be getting a bit more thingy about publisher details, but if this style works then there's no need to change it (and its an easy fix if someone does raise it at FAC anyway). Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• All images are PD (no action required)
• I've checked the references to Johnston. While they're OK, you could add more from the material on page 158 about how Jackson was the opposite of a stereotypical fighter ace (eg, he was "balding, ambling and no extrovert")
  • Done.
• The ADB entry needs to have author, publishing date and publisher details added
  • Ditto WW2 Nominal Roll response, given its the online version of the ADB I'm using.
• I've spot checked the ADB references, and they're also OK. You might want to tweak the sentence which begins with " In 1936 he competed in the South Australian centenary air race" though, as its wording is very similar to that used by the ADB (though there's not really much scope to word things very differently)
  • I've tweaked a bit; the only other version I could think of was "In 1936 he competed [or "took part"] in an air race to celebrate South Australia's centenary" but it sounded a bit contrived to me...
• Should 'Murdoch Book' in the Ewer reference be 'Murdoch Books'?
  • Yup, tks.
• 'Osprey' should probably be 'Osprey Publishing' (which is the name used in the publishing details pages of its books) Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed - please see my extra note above though. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

HMS Argus (I49)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe that it meets the criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright check: Both images have dead links as sources. Can you find their current location? Cambalachero (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The link to the image in the infobox is valid. I fixed the other one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about this, both are dead when I try them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Both are valid and working.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Why not add File:Aircraft in hangar of HMS Argus (I49) c1942.jpg to the article? It's a fairly rare photo of the inside of a carrier hangar, which I think would be a useful addition. It's also fine copyright-wise. Parsecboy (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• The dazzle camo image appears to be from the IWM database there are several othere there which could be suitable. [79] Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not really seeing anything there that offers something we don't already have.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, conditional on the image links being resolved. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Copyedited so pls check I haven't stuffed any meaning by accident.
• Happy with structure, prose and detail now, only caveats are:
  • While I understand what "flying off" means and it might even be intuitive to a non-military audience, the term "launching" may be better if you're taking to FAC. I'm pretty sure it's also a term used in military literature re. carriers and might be better for the population at large...
  • What does "power-worked" mean? Do you simply mean "powered"?
    • Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Citing and referencing look okay to me; no spotchecks as there are no online refs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Apologies, I'd read this ages back and thought I'd added my support in! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Another first rate article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas J. Hudner, Jr.

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose at this time, regrettably. I'm seeing a fair amount of awkwardness in the prose - as a quick example, "Thomas Jerome Hudner Jr. was born 31 August 1924 in Fall River, Massachusetts his father, Thomas Hudner Sr. was a businessman of Irish descent who ran a chain of grocery stores, Hudner's Markets" is missing either addition words or punctuation. If this article is thoroughly copy-edited I'd be happy to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll copy edit this in the coming days and get back to you. —Ed!^(talk) 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given it a thorough looking over and made quite a few changes. The article definitely needed a major copyedit, particularly in the initial sections. Take a look now and tell me what you think. —Ed!^(talk) 12:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Much better, but I still think improvement is needed. Some examples:

• Last sentence of lead begins with lower-case letter
• "Three younger brothers would later be born" - unless younger brothers can be born before older brothers, there's redundancy here
• When introducing someone, should use either no commas or two commas - so "His father, Thomas Hudner Sr. was" should be either "His father Thomas Hudner Sr. was" or "His father, Thomas Hudner Sr., was"
• "which he later said inspired him with an interest in the military" -> "which he later said inspired his interest in the military"

Stopping there. There are far fewer grammatical errors, but wordiness and awkward phrasing remains an issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Made the fixes you suggested. I've looked it over for additional things to fix. —Ed!^(talk) 18:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments: I've made a couple of tweaks, please check my edits and adjust as you see fit. I also have the following suggestions:
  • query about "years of service" in the infobox. Currently it says "1946-1973". 1946 was when Hudner graduated from Annapolis. Surely he was serving in the navy upon entry? That is how it works for officers in Australia. For instance, one who goes to Duntroon straight off civvie street in 2004 will be appointed into the Army on that date, holding a "temporary commission", accruing long service leave and being subject to the Defence Force Discipline Act from that time, even though they won't graduate as a lieutenant for another 18 (hopefully) or 24 months (if unlucky/injured/or does something silly). I'm not sure about the status of US Naval Academy cadets, but it might be something to consider.
    • I believe American officers are considered in service only upon commissioning, since they aren't trained or assigned a unit yet. —Ed!^(talk) 18:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment This is a policy consistently followed with all articles on West Point and Annapolis officers, except for officers like Chick Hayward who were already in the Navy when they entered Annapolis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • probably need a second comma here: "prestigious Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts in 1939" (after "Massachusetts");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • the duplicate link checker reports possible overlink of "Task Force 77", "executive officer", "San Diego, California", "Harry S. Truman", and "Massachusetts". Please check that they are all necessary;
    • Fixed all of them. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • incorrect capitalisation of ranks: "squadron executive officer lieutenant commander Dick Cevoli, lieutenant George Hudson, lieutenant junior grade Bill Koenig, ensign Ralph McQueen, and ensign Jesse L. Brown, who was Hudner's". These ranks are being used as titles and should therefore be presented in capital letters. E.g. "squadron executive officer Lieutenant Commander Dick Cevoli, Lieutenant George Hudson, Lieutenant Junior Grade Bill Koenig, Ensign Ralph McQueen, and Ensign Jesse L. Brown, who was Hudner's...". The policy link is WP:MilTerms;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "During this flight, Brown had the call sign "Iroquois 13."" As this article is on Hudner, I'm not sure if this is relevant;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • this seems repetitive: "Brown crashed into a bowl-shaped valley at approximately 40°36′N 127°06′E", followed a couple of sentences later by: "Brown had crash landed near Somong-ni, 15 miles (24 km) behind Chinese lines..." They could probably be consolidated somehow;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • incorrect capitalisation: "lieutenant Charles Ward" (per above WP:MilTerms);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "likely thanks to the heavy air presence". I suggest tweaking this to: "likely due to the heavy air presence...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • probably need a second comma here: "ceremony in Boston, Massachusetts were Daisy" (after "Massachusetts");
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the Notes, I think this should be tweaked: "In 2000 this award was made retroactive to all U.S. military who served in the Korean War." I suggest: "In 2000 this award was made retroactive to all U.S. military personnel who served in the Korean War."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • in the References, should # 3 have "retrieved" date information? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • My comments have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • No dab links [80] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [81] (no action required).
  • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [82] (suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals an error with reference consolidation:
  • "Will62" (Multiple references are using the same name)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The images used are all PD and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • This seems a little awkward to me: "...Arriving near Korea in October 1950...", perhaps consider "...Arriving in the waters off Korea in October 1950..." or something similar?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a little repeatitive: "U.S. Navy aboard several ships and with several aviation units...", perhaps "...U.S. Navy aboard several ships and with a number of aviation units..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This also seems awkward: "...including as first officer of the USS Kitty Hawk during a brief tour in the Vietnam War...", consider perhaps: "...including a brief tour as first officer of the USS Kitty Hawk during the Vietnam War..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Consider rewording here: "...which was operating off of the coast of...", perhaps: "...which was operating off the coast of..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The pilots observed his body looked to have...", consider instead "The pilots observed that his body looked to have..." Anotherclown (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 17:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Image check Done - see above.
• Support Looks good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Werner Hartenstein

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe to have covered all aspects of his life, at least to the degree that is documented. Please review carefully and let me know how to improve the article further. Thanks and season greetings to all. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: I made some copy editing tweaks, please check that you are happy with my edits. Additionally, I have the following comments (happy to discuss anything you don't agree with):
  • there are no dab links, the external links all work and images have alt text (no action required);
  • "File:U-156 37-35 Laconia 1942 09 15.jpg": the licence for this is a little confusing to me, but I'm not an image expert;
    • appears to have been addressed below. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • if you are wanting to take this to FAC, I think someone there might question the fair use claim on this image: "File:Pedernales sinking.jpg". Given that it is already used on one article, the argument might be that it is overuse to put it in this one. I'm not sure, to be honest, so I'd love to get someone else's opinion (it might pay to ask some of the image experts about this before FAC. The ladies and gentlemen over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions might be able to help);
    • this appears to have been addressed below. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
  • this seems awkward: "Attached to commanding torpedo boats before the war, he completed". (I'm not quite sure what is being said here. Are you saying that Hartenstein "had his mind set on commanding torpedo boats", or that he was "assigned to the torpedo boat arm of the navy"?);
    • reworded, please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, that works. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "37 mm (1.46 in) flak gun" as opposed to "the 3.7 cm cannon";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the time format currently used is inconsistent with the guidance in WP:MOSTIME. It requires a colon, e.g. "04.30" should be "04:30";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • are all of the promotions covered in the body of the text? If not, you might need citations for the dates in the Promotions section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I believe to have them all in the body of the text but I cited them again for ease of reference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I believe that you've addressed all my comments above, so I've added my support with the caveat that I don't really understand image copyright policies well enough to provide a more thorough review than I already have. Personally, I find Wiki's image policies to be very confusing and hard to apply common sense to (having seen a lot of variation in their application). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Copyright check File:Werner Hartenstein with KC.jpg does not have an acceptable non-free rationale. A non-free tag is not a wildcard for just everything that can't be used under a free licence. The exact source of the material is the 10º Non-free content criteria, and thus mandatory. Obviously, a modern blog is not the original source of this image. Does it come from a newspaper? A magazine? A government source? A private collection disclosed at some point? File:Pedernales sinking.jpg is not acceptable either: the fair use for historical images is not for images of historical events, but for when the image itself is historical (for example, this is a correct historical image). The source for File:USS Blakeley ohne Bug.jpg is a dead link. File:RMS Laconia.jpg must mention the original publication dates, not the upload dates to some wikimedia project. That's four out of five images with problems, so I have to oppose this nomination, until the problems are either fixed or the images removed or replaced. I did not check the whole article, but a failed copyright check is severe enough Cambalachero (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Edit-conflict with the previous review. I did not intend to step over AustralianRupert's review, but I'm admin in Commons, and I can confirm his concerns, the article should not be approved with the images as they are licenced now) Cambalachero (talk) 02:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding image File:Werner Hartenstein with KC.jpg it is also published on page 257 in the book (among others) from Busch, Rainer & Röll, Hans-Joachim (2003). Der U-Boot-Krieg 1939–1945 – Die Ritterkreuzträger der U-Boot-Waffe von September 1939 bis Mai 1945 (in German). Hamburg, Berlin, Bonn Germany: Verlag E.S. Mittler & Sohn. ISBN 3-8132-0515-0. I added this to the non-free rationale. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Historical images don't have to be iconic for use - see point 8 in the "Images" section here. I think in the case of the Pedernales sinking, the photo meets the requirements: no one else was there to take a photo.

The photo of Hartenetein may be too large (the actual image, not how it's displayed in the article) and should probably be reduced.

done MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The source for the Blakeley photo is problematic; the ship does not have an entry in the US Navy's online collection (see here). The original uploader should be contacted to determine the source of the image.

I have conacted the uploader commons:User talk:Gonzosft on commons and de:Benutzer Diskussion:Gonzosft and on the German Wiki. I fear that I cannot make myself well understood. Maybe one of you could also leave a messenge trying to explain what the problem is. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message on Gonzosft's talk page as well. Parsecboy (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the image. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The Laconia postcard is also a problem, as Cambalachero points out.

It states circa 1921. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

We need the actual publication date of the postcard (or at least some proof that it was definitely pre-1923, like a postmark date). Parsecboy (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the image. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

As for File:U-156_37-35_Laconia_1942_09_15.jpg, there's no proof that the uploader is the copyright holder. S/he needs to contact OTRS to prove that s/he has the right to release the image under the CC license. Parsecboy (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What is missing? I had contacted OTRS and they told me that nothing more is needed (I copied final OTRS comment into the talk page on wikimedia: (Stifle (Diskussion) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)) M colorfu (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you quick response. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen that on the talk page - should be fine then. Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note - the Blakeley photo has been sorted out on Commons and should be fine to use now. Parsecboy (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
• General comments Support - images should be fine now.
  • The article seems to mainly use British English (honour, organise, etc.) but there is some mixture - I saw one "harbor", there may be others. Please check the article to ensure the style of English is consistent.
    • done I think MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Is Segelschulschiff typically abbreviated as "SSS"? If so, that's fine, but if not, it shouldn't be in the infobox.
    • In German it is, what do you recommend? MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What was the result of the bombardment of the Lago Oil facility? Anything destroyed?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Where did the 3rd patrol go? Are the 12 ships sunk all merchantmen? More specificity would be good here.
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hartenstein was at sea for 3 weeks before sinking the Laconia. Did anything else happen on the patrol, or was that the only ship sunk up til then?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Dates for the last patrol? You give the date span in parentheses for the others, why not this one?
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• All for now. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good now, nice work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 13:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Caldera Bay

Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. Caldera was promoted to GA not too long ago in November, and I think it meets the A-Class criteria at present. RL will have a hold over me for most of next week, but after that, I'll be able to quickly respond to comments. Buggie111 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: G'day, to be honest, I'm not sure that this will have the legs to make it through FAC, as the main part (the Battle section) is quite short. Nevertheless, I've reviewed the article for mainly presentation and prose. I will leave content to others with more knowledge. Hopefully you will find these comments helpful. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with:
  • in the image caption, the ship name should probably be presented in italics for consistency of style;
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • are the redlinked commanders in the infobox notable enough for articles? I don't know, but you should probably consider it carefully and remove if necessary, or prior to FAC (if you are thinking that way), consider creating stubs;
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • there is information presented in the lead, that doesn't appear elsewhere: "although a Turkish armed steamer, named the Intibah, had been sunk earlier during the Russo-Turkish War". You don't mention the name of the ship in the Aftermath where you mention in the incident. Also in the lead it is an armed steamer, but in the Aftermath a merchant ship. Is that the same thing?
    • I've added the name of the ship to the Aftermath. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Chilean Navy" is probably overlinked in the Background section;
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't really know what this means "after a series of struggles with multinational nitrate interests". What is a nitrate interest and how does a person have a struggle with one? Do you mean "struggles about multinational nitrate interests"?
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think you need a second comma here: "and Commander Juan Fuentes of the Almirante Lynch were informed" (specifically after Almirante Lynch);
    • I've added this. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "built the Confederate raider Alabama thirty years before", might need a wikilink to explain "Confederate";
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "including Almirante Condell and Almirante Lynch". It probably needs to be stated what type of vessels these were here. In the infobox you say torpedo boats. Perhaps try: "including the torpedo boats, Almirante Condell and Almirante Lynch,";
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • there is a mixture of date format in the article, for example "23 April 1891" but also "April 18". Either is fine but it should be consistent;
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistent capitalisation: "others to the President" and "equipped than the forces loyal to the president";
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • there is a mixture of US and British English variation. For example "armoured" (British), but "maneuver" and "realized" (US);
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "informed of the possibility that the Blanco Encalada was going to be in Caldera Bay in five days". Informed by who?
    • this hasn't been actioned yet. If the sources don't say, then that is fine, but please let me know. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Don't say. Buggie111 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "informed of the possibility that the Blanco Encalada was going to be in Caldera Bay in five days." It probably should be stated that the Blanco Encalada was a Congressionalist ship here. Perhaps try: "informed of the possibility that the Blanco Encalada, a Congressionalist frigate, was going to be in Caldera Bay in five days";
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "arrived at Caldera Bay on 22 April". (Probably could add a wikilink to Caldera Bay here);
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Blanco Encalada arrived at Caldera Bay on 22 April, under the command of Captain Goni; escorting several transports" (I'm not sure about the use of the semi colon here. A comma would probably do IMO);
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • sometimes you say "the Blanco Encalada" and sometimes just "Blanco Encalada", seems inconsistent. I believe that the ships writers on Wiki have a rule, but I can't really remember it (I suspect they would say to drop "the");
    • this is still inconsistent. Can you please action this one? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thought I did......... could you tell me where it's wrong? I think the title won't sound right if changed to "Sinking of Blanco Encalada"
        • for instance: "lasted seven minutes, and Blanco Encalada" and "from Blanco Encalada, both boats" v. "The sinking of the Blanco Encalada led to an attack", etc. It's a minor point, and I won't oppose on it. Maybe we should get some opinions from Dank, Parsecboy and Sturmvogel, about whether to use "the" or not? To be honest I've really got no idea, it just seems inconsistent the way it is currently done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Although it was known that Balmacedist torpedo boats were nearby, it was believed that they would not attack the transports". Believed by whom?
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "set out toward Caldera Bay". (How far away from Quinteros Bay was Caldera Bay? It might pay to add this in somewhere to provide some context about what was required for the torpedo boats to close on the Blanco Encalada;
    • this hasn't been actioned. Do the sources give any information in this regard? If they don't then that is fine, but please let me know that you have checked. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Will do. Buggie111 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Update. Sources don't say, but Google maps would. is that good enough? Buggie111 (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I think that that would be okay. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "at the Congressional ironclad" but then elsewhere you call it a frigate (infobox);
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath: "the Congressional cause, the battle of La Placilla" (probably should add a wikilink for "Battle of La Placilla", even if it is red);
    • I've added this. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • probably need a second comma here: "her sistership, the Almirante Cochrane which" (specifically after "Cochrane" to denote the subordinate clause);
    • I've added this. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • these two statements seem a little at odds: "The battle affected the remainder of the Chilean Civil War" and then "Although the sinking did hamper the Congressional cause, the battle of La Placilla on 28 August sealed the fate of the Balmacedist government";
    • this has been fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "and three days later, Congressional forces marched into Santiago". Which resulted in what exactly? As the article is quite small, it probably wouldn't hurt to provide a bit more context on the periphery at either end;
    • this hasn't been actioned. Do you think it important? If not, please let me know. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Will do. Won't be much, just "ended civil war".
  • "Navies of several major powers realized the potential of torpedoes". Was this as a result of the Battle of Caldera Bay? If so, it should probably be made more clearer, e.g.: "News of the attack spread and as a result of the action, navies of several major powers realized the potential of torpedoes..."
    • this has been done. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd be tempted to just roll the "Aftermath" and "Impact on torpedo use" sections together, deleting the "Impact on torpedo use" header;
    • this has been done. The header could probably just be "Aftermath", IMO, but its not a warstopper. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this needs a citation: "Torpedo boats also sank two armoured cruisers and two destroyers during the course of the war";
    • this has not been actioned. Can you please add this in? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Will do. Buggie111 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • in the Notes section, the two web links should be fully formatted, providing publisher and accessdate information. You might consider using the {{cite web}} template, but it is not a requirement;
    • this has not been actioned. Are you able to obtain these details? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Will do. Buggie111 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • in the References, this title seems strangely punctuated and capitalised: "Dark Days in Chile; an Account of the Revolution of 1891". It should probably be "Dark Days in Chile: An Account of the Revolution of 1891". AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I've done this for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • G'day, I've gone through and marked the comments that have been completed. I've done a couple for you also. Please check my edits and make sure that you agree. There are a few that I couldn't do, because it requires knowledge of the sources and or personal editorial judgement, so I've left them to you. I also have a couple more questions which came to me when reading again. Please review and let me know your thoughts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • in the Battle section, "Only fifty-six men, including Captain Goni, survived out of the 268 that were aboard at the time". Do the sources say how these men survived? Were they rescued by another vessel, or swam to shore, etc? If the sources say, it might pay to provide this information given that the Battle section is quite small;
    • They don't say. I'd assume they swam. Buggie111 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries, if the sources don't say anything in this regard, don't worry about it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath you mention "sinking of the Blanco Encalada led to an attack on her sistership, the Almirante Cochrane, which failed..." It might pay to state when and where this took place. Was it undertaken by the same vessels that attacked Blanco Encalada? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Will do. Buggie111 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
      • All above is done. Buggie111 (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Cheers, I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • No dab links [83] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [84] (no action required).
  • Image lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it [85] (suggestion only).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors (no action required).
  • The image use is PD and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • Do we know Goni's first name?
  • I would consider moving the 4th paragraph of the "Background" section into the "Battle" section as it seems relevant there. Also I would then split the single large paragraph in the battle section into two as I think this would improve the narrative flow and balance (fairly minor almost cosmetic suggestion I agree).
  • This seems a little awkward gramatically: "The sinking of Blanco Encalada led to an attack on her sistership by Condell and Lynch, the Almirante Cochrane, at that time moored at Iquique." Consider rewording to something like: "The sinking of Blanco Encalada led to an attack by Condell and Lynch on her sistership, the Almirante Cochrane, at that time moored at Iquique."
  • Where is Iquique? Can this be wikilinked?
  • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of citations, specifically "Hervey, pg 198". All other citations use the format "Hervey, p. 198".
  • This needs an endash in the date range: "Wilson, Herbert (1897). Ironclads in Action: A Sketch of Naval Warfare from 1855-1895, With Some Account of the Development of the Battleship in England". Anotherclown (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay :p. All done. Buggie111 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Too easy. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
• I'm pretty confident this was not the first ever successful attack by a torpedo boat against an enemy warship. Based on a Google Books search, Sondhaus' Naval Warfare 1815-1914 says the first warship sunk by self-propelled torpedo was in 1880 but the ship that fired the torpedo might not have been a torpedo boat type ship. Based on what you wrote about the Turkish steamer I don't think that's what you meant but it might have been what the source meant; I suppose you can be first at anything if you slice and dice the facts enough! Also, your source for this little tidbit is pretty obscure, is only for this one fact and I can't verify it - maybe you could use Sondhaus or another source? Removing the assertion would be an easy fix as well. Kirk (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I noticed this was on the talk page as well - change it to "The first ironclad warship sunk by a self-propelled torpedo." Source:[86] and I think its good. Kirk (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry 'bout that. Thought I had added that a long time ago. Doing. Buggie111 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Easy enough.Kirk (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • Technical: reflinks, dablinks and checklinks throw up no issues
  • Copyright: text spot check shows only WP mirrors; image status is good
  • Sourcing/factual accuracy: spot check of sources against article looks good (obviously online sources only); ISBNs accurate
  • Prose: generally good, though it may benefit from a light copyedit for narrative flow in places. I only have one question (not affecting this review outcome): "The two commanders consulted with one another and sent their proposal to attack Blanco Encalada to the government, which was approved." With congress and the presidency on opposite sides, who was "the government"?

    That's it from me :) Congratulations on an interesting article. EyeSerene^talk 11:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

7 Independent Company (Rhodesia)

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk)

This article just passed GAN, and was reviewed by Nick-D (talk · contribs), who was very complimentary of it. He suggested that I nominate it here, saying that it should pass. This is my first A-class review, but I am quite experienced at FAC and FLC and don't suppose that this will be very different – please tell me if I am wrong. I look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [87] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [88] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [89] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
  • The images used are all PD or licenced and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • A couple of minor suggested changes/improvements (hopefully) to prose:
    • "...it was dissolved on 13 May 1978...", might "disbanded" be more appropriate? (suggestion only)
    • "...with several times that number in preparation abroad...", perhaps "...with several times that number in training abroad..." (suggestion only)
    • "...Major L'Assomption, an ex-officer of the French Army's crack...", do we know L'Assomption's first name? If so it should be included.
    • "...and Major Laviola, once a non-commissioned officer...", as above.
    • "...Beneath them were the Antillean Captain Toumi, who became the first black...", as above.
    • "...were still loyal and eager to go on serving...", perhaps "...were still loyal and eager to continue serving..." (suggestion only)
  • Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• We don't know the first names for L'Assomption, Laviola or Toumi, unfortunately (at least not from the sources I have so far). I will add them if I am able to find them, of course. I have implemented all of the other changes you suggested. Thanks for the support! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• No problems at all. Anotherclown (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support As noted above, I recently reviewed this article for GA status and I think that it also meets the A class criteria. It's an excellent article. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, and thanks again for being so complimentary of the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Question: is Backmann a single man's account? (Bit hard to tell - but it sounds like a memoir.) If so, are we happy with it being used so extensively? (Other than this the article looks good.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The Backmann article is a third-party account written by René Backmann, a French journalist and humanitarian. A large part of the article takes the form of an interview with a former member of 7 Indep Coy, who Backmann refers to as "X". Although parts of the interview may be taken as the former soldier's opinion (and I have marked these parts as such in my writing), I would say it is pretty reliable – the vast majority of the interview does not actually talk about 7 Indep Coy, and actually focuses on Backmann asking the guy about other units of the Rhodesian Army, Rhodesian doctrines and equipment, and so on, all of which he describes with accuracy and detail. It is quite difficult to find sources for this subject (I have personally spoken to several former Rhodesian servicemen who could tell me very little, or even nothing about it), and I had little alternative but to refer to this interview quite extensively when writing about the unit's composition and structure. However, I don't personally think that it is relied on unduly. The same section is backed up by a book source and two other journal articles, though not in so much detail. —Cliftonian (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

That's fine - thought it was worth checking. Support on all but prose (which I don't feel able to judge). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Nominator(s): —//Halibutt 12:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Procedural renomination, as the last one did not generate the minimum of three reviewer comments needed; only two reviewers commented with a support. So here we go with round two, hopefully the last round. In the meantime all the issues from the previous assessment have been addressed and the article was also nominated to GA status.

The previous attempt at A-class is located here. //Halibutt 12:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Few minor remarks:
  • I am seeing the "¶" symbol in references. I doubt it should be there.
  • The yearly re-enactment is organized by who?
  • The article seems to be missing some redlinks. For example, Northern Front is mentioned, but not linked, whereas it has an article on pl wiki: pl:Front Północny (1920). Similarly, military units mentioned in text are not linked, even through I am sure some if not all have articles (and are linked in the infobox, ex. "the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions, with the 1st Lithuanian-Belarusian Division"). Villages are notable, yet Ruda and Zawady are not linked. Those are just the missing links from the first section.
  • At the same time, there is some overlinking; Vistula for example is not linked upon its first mention in text, then is linked several times, including at least twice in one section. I'd recommend at the very list checking if terms are linked on their first use in body, and that they are not linked more often than once in each section.
• Captions should not introduce new, unreferenced information. It seems to me that the second part of File:Polish-soviet war 1920 Polish defences near Milosna, August.jpg caption introduces unreferenced information not present in the article, and mostly irrelevant to the picture anyway.
• Good job otherwise, please ping me when the above issues have been addressed, or a reply is expected. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• "¶" symbol was introduced after User:Fifelfoo explicitly pointed out that it should be there to mark paragraphs during the first round of A-class assessment. I could replace it with the word "Paragraph" if you prefer, but I believe it's ok as it is. ω Awaiting
• "organized by who" [90]  Done
• Underlinking -  Done (at least those you mentioned)
• Overlinking - [91]  Done
• Captions - now sourced. In general wiki seems to be in conflict over what a good caption is. Some prefer to have short, informative captions with info only on the picture while others prefer to use the pics pretty much like historical books do: to carry additional info. I sourced the captions, but feel free to shorten them should you feel the need to.  Done
• Feel free to add more comments. //Halibutt 01:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Great. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments: I reviewed this last time. Its changed a little bit since then, so I've gone over it again. I have the following suggestions:
  • slightly inconsistent: "counter offensive" v "counter-offensive"
  • "47th Kresy Rifles Regiment (Lt. Colonel Szczepan)". Some readers won't know what "Lt." means. It is probably best to spell it out in full "Lieutenant Colonel". I think generally in the past most ACRs/FAs have asked for ranks to be spelt out in full rather than abbreviated;
  • "Combat value of Polish units". Probably should be: "The combat value of Polish units...";
  • why is this presented in italics: "as the number of bayonets and sabres, that is to..."?
  • this could probably be tighter: "One of the officers of artillery noted". For instance could just be: "One of the artillery officers noted...";
  • "the 85th regiment retreated...". Should this be: "the 85th Regiment retreated..."? AustralianRupert (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    •  Done (diff): ranks linked and/or expanded, changed to counter-offensive, definite article added, italics changed to quotation marks (it's a term of the epoch, not used in modern times, hence the graphic distinction), artillery officer tightened, capital letter corrected. Good spotting mate :) //Halibutt 13:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • My comments have been dealt with, so I've added my support. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - good content and references (although I know no Polish). I trust the copyediting done by others is satisfactory. Were the images all published before 1923? I'm not quite sure what "published" means in this context. I think we can assume they were passed around the Polish military, is that satisfactory for the license? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Took a closer look at old pics used in that article. All of them are under Polish pre-war copyright law (and the post-war act of 1952). That is the {{PD-Polish}} boiler plate. Which means the American rule of "published before 1923" is not really relevant here. What is relevant is whether a clear copyright notice was published (or stored) along with the picture. As it was neither obligatory nor customary back then, we're safe to use {{PD-Polish}}. In most cases {{Anonymous-EU}} is also applicable, as the military archives didn't care much for authorship of pictures back then, neither did the news agencies. //Halibutt 22:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

For an image to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, it has to be appropriately licensed in its country of origin and the Untied States. The files' status within the US should be made out. If the file is in the public domain in the US because publication occurred before 1923, then we do need to know if the file was actually published at the date mentioned, rather than merely taken. If the file is in the US for another reason, such as publication between 1923 and 1977(or 1989) without US formalities, well, again, we need a publication date. If it was only published when the files were put on that particular website, then, as I understand it, the author might become important. Most of this I imagine you were already aware of, but I couldn't think of a way of laying it out without making it seem slightly patronising to the informed. I think further clarity is needed. (Also, thanks for pinging me. Worth doing so in the future, as well.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not an expert in current Wikimedia Commons practices. Judging by the fact that the {{PD-Polish}} has been there for 8 years now and nobody ever questioned it as a valid copyright template, it's all ok. If indeed dual licensing for the US is needed, then either {{PD-1996}} or {{PD-US}} are also applicable. Is there any particular problem with any particular photo you're having, or is this just a "just in case" discussion? Anyway, I'll poke Piotrus, who uploaded some of the pictures I added to the article, he might have more info here. //Halibutt 22:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, commons:Commons:Licensing makes the dual licencing part clear "that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." I accept the Polish licence, it's the US status I'm worried about.

The point in hand is that I'm not entirely satisfied that these files (all of them are the same, I think) tell us enough about their "publication" to establish that they are in the public domain in the US. If, when they were taken, they were publicised - put in a newspaper, journal, that sort of thing, then we're fine. The files don't say that they are. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"If it was only published when the files were put on that particular website...". By "that particular website" I assume we mean Commons? So what if this is the case? Is publishing a public domain photo for the first time in US somehow removing it from public domain?? I smell copyright paranoia raising its ugly head :( PS. {{PD-1996}} (commons:Template:PD-1996) was already mentioned and seems quite helpful here. Add this to the relevant photos and move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

There's really no possibility of the photographs not being considered in PD in the U.S. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 05:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) PD-1996 would be a lot more suitable. Piotrus, I meant archiwa.gov.pl by that "particular website". I think if we use PD-1996 then we can say "or after 1978 without copyright notice" and "it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries)." and we can rely on the publication at archiwa.gov.pl as its first publication, as long as we assume that it was a Polish photographer. I'm happy to accept that assumption, but I think it should be stated. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you adjust one image in a way you would like to see those templates / additional notes added, so we can clearly see what you consider to be the best practice here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image done as an example. I'm not a IP lawyer, but I think this is a lot clearer. Probably worth double checking at Commons if you go to FAC. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I modified all the other pics accordingly (namely: 1, 2, 3 and 4). Thanks for helping guys. //Halibutt 18:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted — MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Ohio class submarines

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think the article has sufficient information and is well-written enough to take the next step. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 08:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments This looks pretty good, but needs a little bit of work to reach A class:

• "of the Russian Navy. The class replaces the Benjamin Franklin- and Lafayette-class SSBNs." - isn't cited and 'replaces' should be, um, replaced with 'replaced' given that this transition was completed ages ago.

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The remaining four had been converted from their initial roles as SSBNs to cruise-missile carriers (SSGN)." - 'had' should be replaced with 'have'.

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The Ohio-class was designed in the 1970s concurrently with, and to carry, the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, of which there are two variants—the UGM-96 Trident I and the UGM-133 Trident II." - there's a bit too much going on in this sentence. I'd suggest having one sentence about the boats and another about the missiles

• Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• What was the "government red tape"? This isn't mentioned in the article on the class or the sub. 'Red tape' is also a rather vague and non-neutral term (eg, no-one is for 'red tape' that holds up a project, but everyone agrees that strict adherence to 'careful paperwork' is important for anything involving a nuclear reactor).

• "Due to a "series of unfortunate problems in Washington D.C."[4] and" --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The total cost to refit the four boats is just under US$700 million per vessel." - this isn't the 'total cost' - it's the cost per vessel. 'Is' should be replaced with 'was' given that the conversions are now complete

• Removed total. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Have the subs ever been swapped between the Pacific and Atlantic Fleets?

• There may have swaps, but there are no documents that clearly log the transfers. I've added a note just above the table saying that the classification is according to the latest updates. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• The use of the † and * symbols seems unnecessary given that you're also using colour coding. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was told explicitly during a previous FLC to provide symbols for th vision-impaired. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support My comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Nick. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I like it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Pesky. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Should the article have its title bolded somewhere in the lead? Other than that it looks good. →Στc. 09:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• A bolded title in the lead is not a requirement if the title is descriptive. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Support:

• Looks good. A couple of minor queries below:
• "The Ohio-class was designed in the 1970s concurrently with, and to carry, the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles. " - the "concurrently with, and to carry," felt ugly. Is the concurrently bit essential, given that the date is also given in the sentence?

• That is the most succinct way, for me, of writing it. Another, longer, alternative is "The Ohio-class was designed in the 1970s to carry the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, with which it was concurrently designed." You don't have to be concurrently designed with another system in order to be compatible with it. For example, the UGM-27 Polaris was designed to in the mid-1950s, but the Benjamin Franklin class submarine was designed and built during the early- to mid-1960s. If the alternative is better for you, I will replace the current version with it. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The Ohio-class was designed to carry the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, also being designed in the 1970s."? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• The second clause I know refers to the SLBMs, but it doesn't sound like it. I will rephrase it instead to "The Ohio-class was designed in the 1970s to carry the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles, with which it was concurrently designed." ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "a "series of unfortunate problems in Washington D.C."[4]"- reads like a euphemism; does the source say what the problems were?

• No, the book doesn't say what the problem is, and there aren't a lot of other readily-available sources which indicate the problems. If this is a big deal, I will remove the reference to D.C. and simply say that a reason for the boat's late schedule was the manufacturing issues. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• How about 'Due to an unspecified "series of unfortunate problems in Washington D.C."'? Keeps the detail, but makes clear to the reader we don't know what they were? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• "The cost to refit the four boats is just under US$700 million per vessel" - the programme was spread over six years - does the source say which year the US$ is costed in? (i.e. is this 2002 dollars, or 2008?) Hchc2009 (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• I would've thought it be 2002 dollars, since the source was published in September 2002 detailing the future costs of the conversion. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 22:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Allowing for inflation/economic growth, a modern equivalent sum would be between $800 and $900m, probably enough for it to be worth clarifying that these are 2002 dollars (e.g. $700m (2002 prices) or something like that. But I'm notoriously specific on historical prices! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added "(2002 dollars)" ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support a few comments:

• " are in service as of 2012," perhaps "is in service as of 2012". Perhaps this is a jargon thing

• No it's not jargon. Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• "series of unfortunate problems in Washington D.C." Would it aid us to know who said this, even if we don't know what they were??

• At least two sources (the cited book and The Naval Institute guide to the ships and aircraft of the U.S. fleet (2005) p. 64.) say that the development of the submarine and its systems lagged behind schedule, but the sources do not disclose who said this. I suspect the government doesn't want to disclose any classified information, although I'm not sure what kind of classified systems could lengthen the class's development period. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• "agreed to rationalise" Wouldn't it be -ize? I would say "reduce" anyway.

• Just wanted to change the vocab a bit, but done :) ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• "sufficient enough" strike "enough".

Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• " in 2029" I would say "for 2029", but this is stylistic.

Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• " to the U.S. Navy " Unless they were decommissioned, I would say "to active service" or whatever the appropriate technical term is.

Done. ✔ --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nicely done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I really appreciate your comments. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 06:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

• Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Roy Dowling

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Another Navy officer hot on the heels of Hector Waller, but more in common with a much older RAN bio of mine, Henry Burrell, i.e. saw WWII service but made his major contributions afterwards, becoming Chief of Naval Staff. Dowling went one step beyond Burrell, however, advancing to Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee -- sort of a poor man's Chief of Defence Force. Anyway, hope you enjoy it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Just some brief notes (one of which was left following the B-class assessment request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests but may have been archived before you saw it). No stance for or against promotion at this time.
  • A bit more detail in the "Later life" section would be appreciated if possible, particularly in relation to the church work alluded to. Also, some context on what organising Queen Elizabeth's 1962 royal tour entailed and why Dowling was picked would be good
    • What you see is pretty well what you get as far as later life goes, at least from secondary sources. I have trawled Trove and GoogleNews archives for anything else and did add a tidbit re. Red Cross chairmanship. There may be more detail on the royal tour as well, however definitely nothing else I can see re. church work. He did only live eight years after leaving the military so I think there's a reasonable amount there considering... cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The Vengeance and company image relating to Queen Liz's 1954 tour: I think I get what you're trying to do with its inclusion, but there's nothing I can find in the body of the article linking Dowling and what's being depicted here, particularly as the image is about four paragraphs removed from where such information would chronologically be in the text.
    • That's why I cited the information in the caption, because I didn't mention/cite it in the main body. As to position, I'd love to have more relevant images at the appropriate spot in the narrative but I've had my discussions with the AWM about releasing post-1955 images with GNU free licenses or whatever, and just been stonewalled. There are a few later ones at state libraries, who might be more forthcoming than AWM about free licensing, but don't hold your breath... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason why all the images in the body are hardcoded at 250px? Wouldn't it be better to remove the size hardcoding and let default/user-preference size settings reign?
    • Rules against hardcoding image size were relaxed a while back, and I like to make things a bit bigger than default size so people don't necessarily have to double-click on images to get a decent rendition of them. It's always been accepted at my ACRs/FACs... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Hope this helps. -- saberwyn 00:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate, appreciate your time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments:
  • no dab links, ext links work, images have alt text (no action required);
  • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • in the lead "expence", shouldn't this be "expense"?
  • in the lead (and elsewhere) "HM Queen Elisabeth II", should this be "Elizabeth", with a "z"?
  • "newly commissioned Grimsby class sloop HMAS Swan". Minor point, but I think the convention is to hyphenate e.g. "newly commissioned Grimsby-class sloop...";
  • typo here: "In December, Naiad particpated in the..." (should be "participated");
  • irregular caps: "against Italian Naval forces"? I think this should be "against Italian naval forces";
  • Henry Wells (general) might be overlinked. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks mate -- heh, nos. 3 and 4 were taking British spelling conventions to the extreme, weren't they...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • No worries at all. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• "Dowling became Chairman COSC" - is that the correct phrasing, or should it be "Chairman of the COSC"?
  • In my readings it's "Chairman COSC", "Chairman, COSC", or "Chairman of COSC"; don't think I've ever seen "Chairman of the COSC". Made it "Chairman of COSC" here.
• "Dowling took charge of the gunnery school at Cerberus" - explain or link Cerberus?
  • Synonymous with Flinders Naval Depot (which was linked) so altered accordingly
• "carrying out duties in the South West Pacific" - is that the official name of the area per the RAN? If not, suggest "Southwest" or "South-west" as appropriate.
  • Official Allied name for the area was South West Pacific Area (SWPA) or South West Pacific theatre -- altered to latter.
    • No, that's not right. The official name was "South West Pacific Area". "Southwest" is the American spelling, which is also valid in an American article. Thanks to the Australian typists at GHQ, the Australian spelling appears in most primary documents. "South West Pacific theatre" is a Wikipedia simulacrum. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Heh, tks mate -- while you're at it, don't be shy about checking on the rest of the article... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• What are "teething troubles"?
  • General term for mechanical issues often associated with new equipment -- I think I picked that term to avoid closely paraphrasing whatever was in the source to that effect.
• Don't bracket ellipses, in general
  • In this case the source used ellipses after "as you know, and" so I left them exactly as they were. Then I left a sentence or two out myself, so I've put the "[...]" to distinguish that. I've no prob altering if you have a better suggestion...
• Does the Allison Report have an article?
  • 'Fraid not, and I don't think Mr (or Mrs) Allison does either...
• Not sure it's appropriate to capitalize "Federal" as you are. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I believe we tend to capitalise Federal in relation to our central government, but happy to get a reality check from my fellow Aussies... ;-) Thanks for reviewing, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
    • G'day, yes that is my understanding too. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Support with comments:

• My first thought was that Dowling was a British air marshal. I think I had him confused with Hugh Dowding. Never mind. I added him to the Dowling (surname) page btw
• Typo: "convoys resupplyimg Malta"
  • Oops, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• I like the quote of the conversation with Lord Mountbatten, which is at once eloquent, poignant, obsequious and dopey. The early part of the article provides a good background to it. A reference might be nice. (Incidentally, certain RAAF types regard the RAN's recent insistence that all equipment must be American as typically ratbaggy.)
  • Yes, I think similar adjectives ran through my mind when I read it, and I felt it just had to go in. As such an Anglophile, it's hardly surprising he enjoyed organising the Queen's tour -- that KCVO must've been all his Xmases come at once... Bit of a contrast to Scherg, who replaced him as Chairman COSC and proceeded to cut even more ties to the Brits and with much less reluctance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, following up, when you say a ref'd be nice, do you mean citing directly after "members of the Empire." in the quote block, rather than after the colon preceding it (which is where it is now)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, because in this case it is preceded by two references. I checked Peter and Jeff, so the source must be the bishop... Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
        • 'Tis indeed... Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• What I don't like is "the only similarly qualified and more senior Navy captain was pronounced unfit for seagoing duty". I hate this sort of stuff where the reader is told "I'm not going to tell a peasant like you". It is one thing to keep referring to "a German U-boat" when you know full well which one it was; this is something else. (My first guess would be Harold Farncomb, the only RAN officer who had previously commanded an aircraft carrier.)
  • Not guilty, Your Honour -- well, extenuating circumstances at least...! The senior captain in question was one John Malet Armstrong, who has no WP article and, given he retired as a commodore 2nd class, appears to have little prospect of gaining one. If the bloke was notable, then no question I'd mention him...
    • I had forgotten about him. He also commanded a couple of British aircraft carriers, although after the war. He has an ADB entry, though, so he may be able to claim notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I didn't notice the ADB entry -- well, suppose I mention him for completeness but forgo the red link, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• "in agreeing a draft directive for the role " sounds awkward somehow. Perhaps a word is missing.
  • I think it's grammatically okay but see what I can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• You use RANC but do not define it.
  • Slack of me -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Why put the abbreviation after all his awards except the KCVO? (Awarded on the final day of the Royal tour, right?)
  • No good reason, will rectify. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Many tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Pusan Perimeter

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

At long last, the greater part of my work for the past few years is ready for A-class review. I apologize for its length (I've started doing more reviews to make up for it) but it encompasses 18 or so other articles, a lot of which have already passed A-class. —Ed!^(talk) 03:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments: I've had a look at this. Most of my comments are mainly style/presentation things. After initially writing comments on typos/grammar errors, I opted to correct the obvious ones myself. Anyway, here goes:

• Infobox: The UN belligerents, how are they ordered? Think the US should be ahead of the UK if done on troop numbers. NZ and the Netherlands only contributed ships to this battle. Assuming the combined complement of the three NZ frigates outnumber the complement of the Dutch destroyer, perhaps NZ should be ahead of the Netherlands.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Lead:
  • Needs to be consistency between usage of United Nations/UN and North Korea/NK, at first mention an abbreviation is provided, but then at times the term is repeated in full.
    • Abbreviations must be provided on first reference, but in the lead "North Korean" and "UN" are used consistently for the remainder of the text. —Ed!^(talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Also consistency between "forces" and "troops".
    • I don't see what difference that makes, the words mean the same thing and aren't proper nouns. —Ed!^(talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Outbreak of war:
  • add (US) after first usage of United States. Shouldn't the United Nations and North Korea have the same treatment, as per the lead? Also (ROK) for Republic of Korea etc...needs to be consistently applied all the way through the article.
    • Once again, the abbreviations are only applied after first reference, and all of them were named in the lead. —Ed!^(talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "...24th Infantry Division soldiers were repeatedly defeated and forced south by the North Korean force's superior numbers and equipment." reads a little strange because of "force's". Maybe rephrase to "...24th Infantry Division soldiers were repeatedly defeated and forced south by the superior numbers and equipment of the North Koreans."?
    • I'd usually agree, but in this case it would actually be incorrect. The North Korean force contained a substantial number of forcibly conscripted South Koreans, so they weren't all from the North. —Ed!^(talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• North Korean advance:
  • the first sentence - "With Taejon captured North Korean forces...". Starting the sentence "With" looks strange (or is it just me!?). Maybe redraft to "Following the capture of Taejeon, North Korean..." or "Having captured Taejeon..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, the "repeatedly" as used at end of 1st para could be moved "repeatedly pushing back..."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 01:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Terrain:
  • Should "P'ohong-dong" be linked?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para - what were the "South Korean forces in the north"?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Forces involved:
  • 3rd para should mention the Dutch destroyer. After all, the Netherlands do appear in the infobox.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• UN logistics:
  • Redlink for Far East Command. Should this be U.S. Army Forces Far East?
    • No. That was a corps-level Army unit in World War II. This one oversaw all US military assets in the area. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "...Eighth Army Rear which remained..." - is there a word missing after "Rear" or is that how it is supposed to appear?
    • That's the formal name for the rearguard echelon of the command. It's a common situation to call the deployed unit "forward" and the people supporting it from its home base the "rear." —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the dashes in the first para could be replaced with commas.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • final para, final sentence - as "measured by" or "compared to"
    • That would imply they were being compared to American roads, when in fact the roads were assessed by Americans based on their military standards and labeled as secondary roads, not compared to anything. —Ed!^(talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• North Korean logistics:
  • 2nd para - "build-up", should that be "built-up"? I wonder if a better phrase would be "urban"?
    • Not in this instance. The supply centers were often moved away from urban centers later in the battle because they were being bombed so often. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent usage of "North Korea People's Army" and "North Korean Army".
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Defensive Position:
  • 2nd para: the sentence following note 77 seems clumsy, perhaps reword to something similar to "The installation of heavy duty cranes at Pusan's docks allowed for easier handling of heavy weapons and cargo, with a subsequent reduction in UN airlifts"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "starting at 230 in July" replace at with "with"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Counteroffensive:
  • 1st para, replace "his" with "Walker's". Otherwise I don't think it is explicitly clear that we are talking about Walker
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Link to William B. Kean?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • last sentence of 2nd para: "Task Force Kean's offensive had collided with one being delivered simultaneously by the North Korean 6th Division", might read better as "Task Force Kean's attack had collided with a simultaneous offensive being delivered by the North Korean 6th Division"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The 83rd division has been previously linked, no need to do so here.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • replace "column" with "North Koreans" to make clear who is retreating
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 4th para, can we replace "aviation" with "Corsairs", or did the Marines have other types of aircraft in support?
    • There were a large variety of aircraft at this point in the war. —Ed!^(talk) 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Naktong Bulge:
  • Reword the 1st sentence? I don't it is necessary to mention the east turning of the Naktong. Suggest "About 7 miles (11 km) north of the confluence of the Naktong and Nam Rivers, the Naktong curves westward..."?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggest mentioning and linking John Church as commander of the 24th so you have context for him later on.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• North Korean crossing:
  • the 2nd sentence, 2nd para probably should be broken down smaller. Suggest the second part be: "Heavy casualties were incurred by C Company, the first unit of the battalion to reach the post."
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para: tanks AND armor? They are not mutually exclusive, perhaps you mean SPGs or halftracks?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para: Cloverleaf Hill sort of suddenly drops in there, maybe "to an elevated feature known as Cloverleaf Hill"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para: "regain the Cloverleaf Hill", delete "the"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para: first mention of Church, see my comments under Naktong Bulge above.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para: the sentence following note 120, suggest adding "as" or "with" after the word "inexperienced"
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 5th para, some switches between North Korean and NK.
    • Standardized per MOS. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• North Korean defeat:
  • 1st para, should Infantry be spelled with a capital I?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para is a little confusing as to whether the Marines attacked Cloverleaf Hill or Obong-ni first
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para, "the force" is unclear - Task Force Hill or the Marines or the US forces? I think it should be the Marines.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para, 1st sentence: force should be plural, and if corrected, the phrase "US forces" is repeated in the same sentence.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • NK/North Korean issues in this section
    • Fixed to comply with MOS. —Ed!^(talk) 03:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Eastern Corridor:
  • 1st para, the reference to the line should be clarified - the Taegu-P'ohang-dong road? And I assume that this is the Eastern corridor?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Triple offensive:
  • NK/North Korean/ROK/South Korea issues in this section
    • Again this complies with MOS. For the South Koreans it isn't really applicable (ROK is a political organization while 'South Korean' is an ethnic group, as it does in this instance refer to government units, and then to people. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para, 2nd sentence: delete far or replace with very or maybe significant, assuming that is supported by your references.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para, 3rd sentence: what is this? Send the guns back or cross the river?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para, 8th sentence: shells could be artillery, reference to the 22nd and 23rd regiments which I assume from the 3rd division. I don't think it is necessary to specify them anyway, a reference to South Korean/ROK troops is probably sufficient.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para, needs context for the ROK Capital Division.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para, last sentence: Town is repeated twice, suggest "fighting moved to the surrounding hills" to get rid of the second usage.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 03:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Fight for P'ohang-dong
  • 1st para: what is the correct spelling for "Yongil Airfield"? It is referred to as "Yonil" in "Eastern Corridor" section.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para, 3rd sentence: suggest replace division with North Koreans or NK troops.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para: Kyongju corridor hasn't been defined.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para: probably no need for usage of NK towards the end of this para
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Taegu: no issues here.
• Taegu advance:
  • 1st para: should Sangju be linked?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 2nd para: shouldn't it be "forcing the North Koreans to scatter into the mountains"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para: the NK 15th division united? Suggest reassembled.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para: Do you mean the 15th, not the 13th? Do you mean "Near" or "in" Yuhak-san rather than "on"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Triangulation Hill:
  • 2nd para: link General Gay?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para, 1st sentence: preparation?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yongp'o
  • 1st para, 2nd sentence: which division?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 1st para: which division did 25th regiment belong to?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 1st para: "back through Yongp'o", when did they first go through Yongp'o?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Carpet bombing
  • source for destruction of artillery batteries? Sounds hard to believe if no evidence to indicate any NKs were killed.
    • Done. And yeah, the UN couldn't directly observe the aftereffects of the bombing except through long-range surveillance, and of course it isn't known if the North Koreans ever documented it as they haven't been forthcoming with tactical information. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• September push: One comment I'll make here is that this doesn't have the detailed discussion of the actions that the earlier sections do, so one is left with an impression that this section glosses over the September portion of the battle. I'm not sure how this would be dealt with other than transferring some of the material (not all of it) from The Great Naktong Offensive - which is what think should happen. I wonder what other reviewers think?
  • The main problem here is that the Great Naktong Offensive article primarily summarizes sub-battles, too. It would be superfluous duplication to add the info to both articles, and the offensive is generally covered as a different, dedicated engagement in sources. Also WP:SIZE is an issue here, with both articles topping 100K. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 1st para: "fewer than 100 tanks by the time the Pusan Perimeter fight" - wording issue here. Is this referring to numbers at start of battle or by late August?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 3rd para: repeated use of "Division". Suggest treating this section the same as 1st para of "Taegu advance" section which also dealt with a number of NK divisions. Does note 179 cover all of these divisions?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 5th para: a number of links here already present in article, e.g. Eighth Army. This is the first time Walton Walker's name mentioned in full with rank, despite being referred to several times previously earlier in the article.
• Casualties:
  • 4th para: link to SU-76?
    • It's linked earlier in the article. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• War crimes:
  • There was one large paragraph which I split, otherwise looks reasonable.
    • Looks good. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Implications: Ignores the first phase of the battle, jumps straight into the goals of the Great Naktong Offensive. To me, this reinforces the need for the "September push" to be expanded.
  • Reworded it more inclusively. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Citations:
  • Note 167 (Paik) checked.
  • Note 232 should be Hanley, not Henry, but I'm not sure what on page 1 of the book is being referenced anyway. I don't have any of the other cited sources to spotcheck.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've done my dash here. Hope it is useful. Zawed (talk) 11:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've responded to all of your comments. Thank you for such a comprehensive review. —Ed!^(talk) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks all good to me :) Zawed (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments: sorry, only a technical review from me at this stage.
  • I wonder if the article shouldn't be named "Battle of the Pusan Perimeter" rather than "Battle of Pusan Perimeter" (probably best to get a few opinions on this);
    • Sources universally refer to it as "Battle of Pusan Perimeter" or "Pusan Perimeter campaign." —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries, that's fine then. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • there are no dab links, ext links all work (no action required);
  • some images have alt text, but some don't. It's not an A-class requirement, but you might consider adding it in: [92];
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Saddle Ridge near Taegu - Pusan Perimeter.jpg, probably needs date and author information to pass muster at FAC;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • File:Marines carrying wounded - Pusan.jpg, same as above;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • File:South Koreans at Pusan.jpg, labelled as US Army, but has a US Marines PD tag, probably should be US Army PD tag;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the duplicate link checker found some examples of potential overlink (please check if they are all necessary): Republic of Korea Army, Eighth United States Army, Japan, Waegwan, World War II, 2nd Infantry Division (United States), Andong, Naktong River, Taegu, US Major General, Inchon,
    • Where is this tool? It would be helpful to use in fixing the problem. —Ed!^(talk) 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
      • User:Ucucha/duplinks. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, wow. That's a very useful tool. Cut all duplicate links. —Ed!^(talk) 00:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • is there a place of publishing for: Catchpole, Fehrenbach, Hanley et al, Hoyt, Leckie, Marolda, Millett 2000, and Stewart?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • there are a few citations to "Appleman 2003", but I don't see this source in the Sources list;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • there is a citation to "Varhola 2004", but in the Sources list there is only a 2000 work;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the time format seems like it might need to be tweaked by adding a colon per WP:MOSTIME. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • there is a citation to "Catchpole 2003", but I only see Catchpole 2001 in the References. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 04:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • minor issue: in your References sometimes you spell out the state in full (e.g. Lincoln, Nebraska), sometimes you abbreviate (e.g. Mason City, IA). Probably should be consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 00:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • All my concerns have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Christ this is a big article, but you told us that up front... ;-)

• Copyedited pretty extensively so pls check I didn't alter any meaning by accident. Further prose/content points:
  • "Troop numbers at the beginning of the battle were initially difficult to estimate for US and North Korean forces." -- Can I just make sure I understand what you're saying here, that it was difficult for US and NK forces at the time to estimate their own numbers at the start of the engagement? Or did you mean it's difficult for historians now to estimate what the numbers were at the start of the action?
    • There are now only rough estimates, especially for the North Koreans. —Ed!^(talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay, think the text needs to change then because what it looks like you're saying in the article currently is that back then it was hard to estimate, when I think you mean it's hard for historians looking back to estimate. Suggest you change the line in question to "US and North Korean troop numbers at the beginning of the battle are difficult to estimate". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the Logistics section needs to be quite so detailed given there's a dedicated article on it. Specifically I found the first para of UN Logistics, revolving around the Eighth Army's role(s), to be heavy going and perhaps not that vital to this article as a whole.
    • Trimmed it. —Ed!^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "strategic North Korean logistics targets behind the front lines" -- Pretty sure "strategic" targets are, by definition, "behind the front lines", so I think you can do without one of those terms.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The North Koreans were also not able to effectively use sea transport to their advantage" -- Likewise, if someone uses something "effectively", it's bound to be "to their advantage", so should be able to drop one term or the other.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Perimeter was the last stand for the UN forces that had seen successive defeats during the first month of the war" -- From memory, "successive" generally refers to two things one after the other. Do you mean the UN had had two defeats, or was it more? If the latter, suggest "continued" or "regular" or some such.
    • Not necessarily, at least as far as online sources state. I take it to mean nonspecific multiple events in succession, not just two. —Ed!^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Under Taegu: "In the meantime, Walker had established Taegu as the Eighth Army's headquarters" -- In the meantime of what exactly? While all the fighting in the Eastern Corridor was going on, or just in the meantime of what was described in the last sentence or two of the preceding subsection? We need a bit more context to open this subsection...
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Trapped between the two fires they started to vacate their positions" -- Sorry, what are "the two fires" exactly?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You include a paragraph on Medals of Honor awarded to US personnel. Do we assume that no ROK or other UN troops received their nation's highest awards for conduct during the battle? What about the top North Korean medal for gallantry? Any of those handed out?
    • I mentioned one British soldier who was awarded a VC shortly after. I know for other UN nations the answer's no because few to none of them saw a lot of combat. The South Koreans didn't establish their highest medal until mid-October, and as for North Korea, it's next to impossible to tell, as only a few Hero of the Republic of North Korea awards are known, mostly for relatively high ranking generals like Lee Kwon Mu. —Ed!^(talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Further, although one-paragraph (sub)sections are generally discouraged, I don't think awards belong under Casualties and probably should have their own heading.
    • Moved it out of that section. —Ed!^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Nothing more to say about Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, and New Zealand in this battle except that they provided ships? I ask out of genuine curiousity, not a loaded question... ;-)
    • They all got ground troops into Korea pretty quickly thereafter, but unfortunately not in time for Pusan Perimeter. —Ed!^(talk) 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Structure looks fine (except perhaps including awards in Casualties, as noted above).
• Supporting materials look okay, all images and the map are US govt as far as I could see.
• References look reliable. Haven't spotchecked as I've done so before on at least one of Ed's articles and was satisfied.
• To summarise, a mammoth effort and one I think I'll be able to support once the above are acknowledged. I suppose my only caveat is that having gone to considerable lengths to correct or improve prose, I may have missed issues with the overall flow. Hopefully such things would've been apparent to other reviewers though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I thank you for your extensive copyedit, I appreciate it. I've responded to everything, let me know if you have any other points. —Ed!^(talk) 22:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No prob, nice work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: The August Push section could use a rewrite to accommodate the narrative/logic flow of September Push section (or vise versa). I have been following Ed's development on the article ever since his first edit, and I have noticed that the August Push section and the September Push section were put together by two completely different approaches. The August Push section were put together by summarizing all the battle sub-articles, while the bigger pictures were only invoked to link those summaries together. The September Push section, on the other hand, were put together by writing about the bigger picture first, then the battle sub-articles were developed once the bigger pictures were explained. Because of the narrative differences between those two sections, this entire article feels poorly structured, if not unfinished. On one hand, the command decisions and strategies of opposing forces were never examined in detail in the August Push section because it was never discussed outside the context of the individual battles. On the other hand, the September Push section feels empty because Ed did a such good job in describing all the sub-battles in the previous section. By my own personal experience I would fix this problem by rewriting the entire August Push section using the top-down approach employed in the September Push section, but I believe other writing approaches could also be used to make the two sections flow better. Anyway, the remedy for this problem is too big for a patch job fix so I will not hold it against this article in this review, but I would deem it a top priority task if Ed intended to take this article to FAC. Jim101 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Jim, thanks for your comments and all your help on this page. I followed along with Appleman's narrative of the battle as the starting point for the content, and I did a lot of considering the options when forming the August and September subsections. Let me know what you think of my rationales:

1. The biggest issue is the nature of the two rounds of attacks was very different. In August it seems more like there wasn't a coordinating offensive for all of the battles, more of a "division vs division" series of simultaneous duels more like four independent little wars than a unified offensive. In comparing the two, it seems like a summary of the September offensive as a single fight is easier, while each August fight requires context.
2. I feel like The Great Naktong Offensive covers the September battles, which are somewhat more complex (eight battles along five corridors) and they're hard to sum up. Adding them here would both make that article redundant and add another 100K to this article. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, given the NK never released any battle records like the Chinese, this does seem to be a research problem than a writing problem. I can only suggest that a detailed study of NK invasion into SK before the battle should be invoked in the context of August Push section...if sources are available. I can think of few things that can provide more contexts in the "division on division" battles:

• Before the invasion, did NK ever released a timetable for reaching Pusan, or timetables for reaching each sites of the August battles? Did any battle happened before Pusan battle significantly altered those timetables? Did NK forces took the timing of UN reinforcements into their timetable?
• Naktong River and Taebeak Mountains are two dominating terrain features in South Korea, so did NK ever considered those terrain obstacles in their invasion planning?
• Did NK assumed that the UN forces is already disintegrated before the battle? If not, what weak points in UN defense did NK forces identified before the battle?
• Did the UN interdiction campaigns affected the NK forces before the battle?

Those are some of the ideas I can think of to provide more context in the August Push section. My overall suggestion is to provide more context in the August Push section while trimming down the details of the individual battles, and this will help readers to better understand the battle as a whole while cutting down on the article size. Jim101 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Of your first note, I have been considering expanding Operation Pokpoong into a large campaign article to cover the beginning of the war to the end of this battle. (Similar to how UN Offensive, 1950 will in theory cover the war from Inchon to the Ch'ongch'on River) As to the rest, I mention in "September Push" that Kim Il-Sung ordered victory by September 1 and seems to have left it up to Choi Yong-kun, Kim Chaek, and their Corps commanders to make it happen. I believe they just sought to attack the four main inroads to the Perimeter (Masan, Taegu, the Naktong River and P'ohang-dong) and hope one would break, essentially a less coordinated lead-up to the Great Naktong Offensive. I've tried to include all of this in the article, where appropriate. —Ed!^(talk) 22:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

No consensus to promote at this time - Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Helmut Wick

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Helmut Wick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this article for A-Class re-assessment because it recently underwent a GAR after which is was delisted, mainly for using an unreliable source. The GAR is at Talk:Helmut Wick#Individual reassessment. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delist. Per my vote at GAR, it fails A1, "all claims are verifiable against reputable sources". buidhe 09:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist unfortunately, though I would think once those refs are replaced there's room to reconsider. —Ed!^(talk) 23:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delist per the comments at GAR, one of the sources isn't very reliable. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

---

Promoted --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hall XPTBH

Nominator(s): The Bushranger _{One ping only}

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I believe it covers the topic to the full extent that the available, reliable references allow, and that it meets the criteria required for A-class. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: do we have anything more on "delays in design caused by Hall relocating their production facility, difficulties with the contract, and doubts about the aircraft's performance potential led to a redesign" - sounds interesting and would make for a suitable substitute for information missing since it was never put into production. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I don't think there's much more that can be said about that, actually, but I'll see if I can find anything. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment:

• An interesting plane. Some thoughts below:
• Could be worth linking seaplane, aluminium and hurricane in the lead.

•  Done

• "Eight companies submitted ten designs in response, evenly split between monoplanes and biplanes" - might be worth adding "ten designs in total", to make clear it doesn't mean 80 designs.

•  Done

• "twin-float seaplane" - worth linking twin-float?

• There isn't a link for it, but I've piped "seaplane" in the lede to the more precise link "floatplane".

• "powerplant" - this seems to mean the engines, but I'd usually visualise powerplant as a generator, a truck engine or something like that, rather than aircraft engines.

• Re-worded this a bit

• "radials" - worth linking or saying "radial engines" or something like that.

• radial engine is linked just before that, where the R-1820s are mentioned.

• "Hand-traversed mountings " - I know what this means, but it is a fairly specialist term.

• I've linked to Weapon mount#Pintle there.

• "dorsal and ventral" - I'd bet that many readers won't know these mean (although dorsal will be better known than ventral, thanks to sharks)

• I've clarified that a bit.

• "a lack of roll authority" - really needs explaining or a link. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've added a bit of explanation, hope that helps. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - good stuff. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments on sourcing & citations: Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• replace hyphen with n-dash: Windrow 1970, pp.28-29.

•  Done

• Source formatting and quality seems fine. I'd suggest double checking ASIN documents to see if they don't actually have an ISBN. ASIN is a less open format than ISBN; so ASIN should be treated as the fall-back when ISBN(/ISSN) is unavailable. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Double-checked; the Naval Aviation one doesn't have an ISBN per Amazon or WorldCat, while the 1st edition Wagner predates ISBNs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments: I'm unable to comment on content as I don't know much about the requirements of aviation articles. As such, I've mainly limited my comments to technical issues and prose:
  • the featured article tools reported no disambig links, external links work (no action required);
  • there images seem correctly licenced to me (no action required);
  • the images lack alt text and while it is not a requirement, you may consider adding it in (suggestion only);
    •  Done
  • in the lead: "The Hall XPTBH was an American twin-engined seaplane, submitted to the United States Navy by the Hall Aluminum Aircraft Corporation in response to a 1934 specification for new bomber and scout aircraft." Perhaps try: "The Hall XPTBH was a prototype American twin-engined seaplane, submitted to the United States Navy by the Hall Aluminum Aircraft Corporation in response to a 1934 specification for new bomber and scout aircraft". I would then change the next use of the word "prototype" to "airframe" or something similar;
    •  Done
  • I suggest slightly tweaking this: "a single prototype was ordered by the Navy for evaluation on June 30, 1934 as the XPTBH-1,[6] the only case in which..." Perhaps try: "...a single prototype was ordered by the Navy for evaluation on June 30, 1934. Designated as the XPTBH-1,[6] it is the only case in which three mission letters have ever been used in the U.S. Navy's designation system."
    • Reworded slightly differently, how does it look?
  • this seems contradictory to the sentence in the preceding paragaph: "The only "triple-mission" aircraft acquired by the Navy prior to World War II". Was it the only triple-mission aircraft ever, or the only before the war? Additionally, it seems repetitive to the previous paragraph (are they the same thing, they sound similar to me as a layman, but I might be wrong), so I'd suggest dropping it altogether;
    • Well, it was the only one ever designated for three missions, but during and after the war other types were used in multiple missions (either undesignated, or with other designators "expanding". It does seem a bit redundant, though, so I've taken it out.
  • "contractual requirements for top speed and attack speed". Do we know what these were? How far behind these requirements was this aircraft?
    • Unfortunatly, none of the references I have state what the Navy's desired specs were - just that it fell short.
  • in the Reference section links to Google books generally don't need the retrieved dates (that is at least my experience of what is said at FAC. Its no big deal to me if you leave them in, though).
    • Well, I use those because sometimes the amount you can view changes with time - for instance, the Boyne book was fully viewable when I worked on the article, but not even a snippet view now!
  • regarding the work by Baugher, can you please confirm whether this is considered an RS? I seem to recall a number of discussions around this issue but am not sure of what the outcome was. Given that it is citing only the serial number of the frame, I don't think it should be an issue for you to use it here (I certainly don't have an issue with it), but you may just want to consider the possibility that it might be discounted at FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the last big brouhaha about that ended with no real consensus at WP:RSN. I think it's "it's reliable, sometimes, for some things". If this goes to FAC I'll see if I can replace it with something everybody agrees on. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
      • No worries, I've added my support. Thanks for making those adjustments. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments everone; I'll try to address them tomorrow. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support My only issues would be links for dorsal and ventral, but that's not enough to hold off on supporting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I looked for links, but the dorsal and ventral links strictly refer to anatomy at this time, and seemed like they might be off-context here. I can add them anyway though if others think they're fine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bastille

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a popular article on a major French fortification. It has an unusually high number of French inputs for one of the articles I typically work on, and advice on whether I'm compliant with style guidance etc. would be helpful. I'm also not convinced it is yet as easily readable as it could be - opinions on this would also be particularly valued. Many thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: sorry it has taken so long to review. Overall, I found the article easy to read, well referenced and illustrated appropriately. I believe that it meets A-class criteria, but have a number of copy edit suggestions below. Feel free to query anything you don't agree with:
  • on my machine there is a large amount of whitespace due to the table of contents, it is only a suggestion but you might like to limit the size of the TOC to just display level two headers. This can be done by adding {{TOC limit|2}};
  • something missing here, I think: "The Bastille was built in response to threat to Paris during the..." (perhaps try: "The Bastille was built in response to threats to Paris during the..." or "The Bastille was built in response to a threat to Paris during the...";
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • sounds awkward: "on the west of the capital" (perhaps try "in the west of the capital" or "on the western side of the capital");
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • probably needs commas: "and in his absence the Provost of Paris Étienne Marcel took steps to improve the capital's defences" (specifically either side of "Etienne Marcel");
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "formed a broad, crenellated walkway" (I wonder if "crenellated" could be wikilinked - is there a Wikitionary entry maybe?)
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "being awarded 1,200 livres a year" (I wonder if "livres" could be linked to something to allow readers to gain some further understanding")
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • slightly repetitious: "continued to develop. Early modern Paris continued to grow..." (specifically "continued" close together. Perhaps reword slightly);
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • slightly repetitious: "successfully retake Paris. By the time he was eventually successful" (specifically "successfully" and "successful");
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • is this the same thing: "a raid on the Parlement de Paris" and "The Parlement of Paris" (if so, the wikilink probably should be moved to the first mention);
    • Not done: can you please action this one? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • slightly repetitious: "across the city and the royal government fled the city in September" (specifically "city", perhaps try: "across the city and the royal government fled in September");
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • not sure that the punctutation is correct here: "most famously including Nicolas Fouquet, his supporters Henry de Guénegaud and Jeannin; Lorenzo de Tonti" (specifically the final semi colon);
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • are "the Parisian lieutenant generale of police" and "the lieutenant general of police" the same thing? If so, the wikilink on the second one should probably be moved to the first;
    • Not done: can you please action this one? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Moved. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• • "By 1711, a 60 strong French military " (I think this should be "By 1711, a 60-strong French military");
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "services of a local midwife for dealing with pregnant prisoners" (sounds a little harsh, perhaps "services of a local midwife for assisting pregnant prisoners");
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • this sentence appears to be uncited and might need a reference: "Despite these changes, the Bastille remained a state prison, subject to special authorities, answering to the monarch of the day and surrounded by a considerable and threatening reputation";
    • Not done: can you please action this one? AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'd edited it out at some point while moving text... I've added it back in. Good spot! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• • the wikilink for "Voltaire" in the Criticism and reform section should probably be moved to the section above where they are first mentioned;
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • the wikilink for "despotism" in the Criticism and reform section should probably be moved to earlier in the section where it is first mentioned;
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Revolutionary crowds began to arm themselves during the 13 July..." (probably doesn't need "the" before "13 July");
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "but nonetheless, by the 14 July de Launay was very" (as above);
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "On the morning of the 14 July" (as above);
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • repetition/typo here: "connotations of the Place de la Bastille, and considered initially considered building" (specificially "considered");
    • I've done this. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • this needs a possessive apostrophe: "This body of work influenced historian Simon Schamas 1989 book on the Revolution" ("Schama's 1989 book..."). AustralianRupert (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Will get onto these, Hchc2009 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day, I've done most of these now. I wasn't able to do a couple which required access to sources and or specific knowledge. I will leave these to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comments - I made a few style and layout edits. Please check my copyediting and feel free to revert any of them. I'm wondering if the multiple subheaders under "History" are necessary – it may be simpler to have a "Construction" section followed by the centuries and the other sections. You also have multiple chapter citations to a "Dutray-Lecoin and Muzerelle (eds) (2010)", but I don't see an entry for the main book, nor do these chapters have page ranges, which is customary for this sort of citation. Last, I'm not sure what citation style you are using, but I think it's typical to have the period after the year, not the author. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've added the missing volume - sorry about that! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note The ACR has been opened for 1 month and 7 days, and so far, there is only one support. I will close this in three days as non consensus if substantial dialogue does not resume. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm going to review today so perhaps we can leave it a bit longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments -- Wow, this is a massive article and seems to me to cover its subject from every conceivable angle -- nice work!

• Prose- and detail-wise, performed my usual copyedit, a couple of outstanding things:
  • Marcel was subsequently removed from his post and executed in 1358 -- Did this have anything to do with his part in the Bastille's construction? If so, that should be mentioned; if not, his fate doesn't seem that relevant.
  • You italicise French terms very occasionally, e.g. cachot at one point, but not for the most part -- should be consistent throughout.
• Structure appears appropriate for the subject.
• Re. referencing and images, that'll have to wait for tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Now checked every image -- licensing appears okay, though I note that alt text is not present.
  • References look reliable enough to me though I haven't checked that every one of them is cited.
  • No spotchecks done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Support – very good, had a quick read as earlier reviews seem to have caught a lot of issues already. Two very minor comments:

• Coordinates are showing the top right near the GA icon and in the infobox. Given that these are very close together, is the duplication required? Personally, I'd be tempted to drop it from the infobox, as it doesn't "fit" with the other historical data as neatly, imo.
• Might I recommend also adding Portal:History to the Portalbar in the footer? Unfortunately, many of our portals don't get a great deal of attention, would be nice to see them linked more often, even if the relevance is minor. Although the closest we have is Portal:Napoleonic Wars, but I've added this article into its random GA generator box anyway.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Support great piece of work. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 08:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

This article covers a regimental-sized diversionary operation conducted by the United States to draw Japanese forces away from western New Britain prior to the Battle of Cape Gloucester in December 1943. The article recently passed a GA nomination, and has since been further improved. As such, I think that it may now meet the A class criteria and would appreciate other editors' views on this. If this review is successful I'm planning on nominating the article for FA status in the future, so suggestions for ways to further develop the article would be much appreciated. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Well researched and readable - enjoyed it.
• Minor thoughts, with FA in mind:
• Arawe - it isn't linked in the lead, and it isn't clear that what it is (an island, a peninsula, etc.) from the surrounding text.
  • Tweaked. The usage in the histories is that 'Arawe' is the general area
• "Japanese air units heavily raided" - "heavily raided" in conjunction with air unit read oddly to me (I'd think of "air raids", but not "aircraft raiding" somewhere - might just be me though!)
  • Yes, that was a bit awkward - I've tweaked it
• "western and central pacific" - is the capitalisation here right?
  • No, I've added a capital P
• 'L'- under the MOS, should this be "L"?
  • Probably - fixed
• the 236th Anti-aircraft Artillery Battalion (Searchlight) less elements," - I found I had to read this twice, because I read it as "searchlight-less elements" the first time around; don't know if the ordering could be tweaked?
  • Translated into plain(er) English
• " two batteries of the 470th Anti-aircraft Artillery Battalion (Automatic Weapons), A Company, 1st Amphibious Tractor Battalion " - again, the A company bit needed reading twice to connect it with the tractor battalion: would semi-colons rather than commas help?
  • Tweaked (by changing it to "A" Company of the 1st Amphibious Tractor Battalion) - how does that look?
• ", two patrol craft and two submarine chasers and a service group with three LSTs" - are both "and"s necessary here?
  • Tweaked - that sentence was awfully long, so I've had a go at splitting it into two sentences.
• "A company from the 54th Infantry Regiment" - wasn't sure if this was "a company", or "A" company.
  • A generic company - no source identifies what it was called. I've tweaked the wording so this is clearer
• "the remarkably formidable" - it wasn't clear to me who this quote from from.
  • Powell. I've tweaked the wording to avoid needing to quote him
• "However, Samuel Eliot Morison judged" - wikilinked, but might be worth saying "However, historian Samuel..." just to make it clear. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that should be clear from the start of the para, which specifies that it's about the differing views of historians. I wanted to briefly summarize Morison's position, but this is surprisingly difficult (he wasn't really an official historian, but he wasn't a freelancer either as he was personally appointed by FDR to research and write a semi-official history of the USN in World War II and ended up with a staff of naval officers!). Thanks a lot for taking the time to review this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Edit: I've just added some context for Morison which should make things a clearer. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments/suggestions:
  • slight inconsistency: "en-route" and "en route";
    • Standardised to 'en route'
  • "so that convoys could safely pass through it en-route to further landings along New Guinea's north coast". Might sound better as: "so that convoys could safely pass through it en-route to conduct further landings along New Guinea's north coast";
    • Fixed
  • this sounds a little awkward to me: "this was the earliest date by which the air bases needed to support the landing that could be made operational" (specifically the "that");
    • It took me a while to write that sentence, and I haven't been happy with it. I've split it into two sentences which I think work better - what do you think?
  • not sure about the capitalisation here: "One landing was to capture Pitoe Island to the Peninsula's south" (specifically "Peninsula");
    • Fixed.
  • not sure whether this is an issue "Dreger Harbor" but then "Arawe Harbour". I understand that when it comes to places names, we don't adjust for English variation, but it does seem inconsistent. How do the sources handle it?;
    • They're mainly American, and use 'Harbor'. I've standardardised on this.
  • "148th Field Artillery battalion". Should this be "148th Field Artillery Battalion";
    • Yes, fixed
  • seems inconsistent: "U.S. Navy personnel" v. "US Navy's Beach Party Number 1";
    • Fixed
  • platoon, company, battalion etc. might need wikilinks where used for the first time as improper nouns;
    • Done
  • inconsistent date format: you mainly use ddmmyyyy, but there was is one example of mmddyyyy: "December 8";
    • Fixed
  • I think that there is something missing here: "The delays meant that landing area was". Perhaps try: "The delays meant that the landing area was...";
    • Fixed
  • "scorted by 56 A6M5 Zero fighters". I wonder if "Zero" should be presented in double quotation marks like "Val", "Betty" and "Sally". Not sure myself;
    • Probably, for the sake of consistency, so I've changed this. As I understand it, "Zero" became the standard Japanese-language name for these aircraft, so it's a bit ambiguous.
  • typo here, I think: "were able to complete them though improvising and making use". I think "though" should be "through";
    • Fixed (replaced with 'by')
  • seems inconsistent: "..."A" Company of the..." but then "...A Troop..." and "...B Troop..." etc. I wonder if they should all use the double quotes for the designators. Not sure, myself, sorry;
    • Standardised with quote marks for consistency.
  • typo here, I think: "his command being designed the Komori Force". Perhaps: "his command being designated the Komori Force...";
    • Fixed
  • inconsistent: "counter-attack" v. "counter attack";
    • All changed to 'counterattack' (which looks a bit odd to me as an Australian, but is the usage in the US Army and USMC official histories)
  • "patrol from the 2nd Battalion 5th Marines" (there should probably be a comma between "2nd Battalion" and "5th Marines");
    • Fixed. This was the way all our articles on Marine battalions are named though, but it's not in line with the usage in the sources consulted in this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• • I think that the casualties for the Japanese are inconsistent. The prose says: "304 men killed and three captured", but the infobox says: "304 killed / 4 captured ";
  • in the Bibliography, should the location for the Krueger source be "Washington D.C." so that it is consistent with the Coakley source?
  • (very minor nitpick) in the Bibliography, sometimes you have "Washington D.C.", but then also "Washington DC";
  • the {{cite book}} template has a "|volume= |" parameter which you might consider using for some of the works in the Bibliography which are volumes of series;
  • there is a {{cite thesis}} which might be used for the Powell work;
  • the Advisor script reports that the ISBN for the Drea work might be incorrect. Could you please check this and adjust if necessary? AustralianRupert (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. All concerns addressed.Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Comments: I will list comments/suggestions below as a I work through the article, which may take me a little while.

• The intro, as currently written, appears to be from the point of view of the Allies. For example, it mentions Operation Cartwheel right off the bat before even mentioning who the adversaries were in the battle. In fact, Japan isn't even mentioned in the first paragraph. Cla68 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point; I think that I've now fixed this. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps a "See also" with links to the New Guinea and Solomon Islands Campaigns should be placed at the beginning of the "Background" section? Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Done Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Do you think that an explanation on why the Allies were after Rabaul in the first place should be in the opening paragraph of the background section? That it had roots in the Allied strategic plan put in place immediately after the Battle of Midway and loss of the Philippines? Cla68 (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• I think so. I'll follow up on this and the above points I haven't responded to tomorrow, as well as any further comments (of course!). Thanks for your comments so far. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• Added an extra paragraph of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• After seeing mention of Coastwatcher involvement, perhaps a check of Eric Feldt's book should be done to see if it contains any relevant information? If you don't have easy access to the book, I can check it. I was fortunate enough to obtain an unabridged copy of it. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• That would be great. I don't own anything specifically on the coastwatchers. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I did find some useful, relevant info and will add it. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• It appears evident that the Japanese air forces at Rabaul were severely over-tasked. From December 1943 to February 1944 they were conducting aerial counterattacks against Allied forces in New Guinea and Bougainville, as well as western New Britain. This must have affected how much effort they were able to put forth against the Arawe landings. Do any of the sources draw this conclusion? Also, were there any Allied air raids against Rabaul during this time with the express purpose of disrupting Japanese air attacks on the Cape Gloucester and Arawe landings? I don't know if bears mentioning in this article that IJN air forces were withdrawn from Rabaul to Truk near the end of February 1944, almost eliminating the air threat in the New Britain/Solomons theater. Cla68 (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've just added lots of material on this topic - how does it look? The USAAF official history attributes the drop-off in attacks to the heavy casualties the Japanese air units suffered during this period. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No dab links [93] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [94] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [95] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals a number of errors with refernce consolidation:
    • Powell (2006), p. 79 (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • Fixed
    • Morison (1958), p. 377 (Multiple references contain the same content)
      • Fixed
    • Powell_79 (Multiple references are using the same name)
  • The images used are all PD or licenced and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
  • "The Battle of Arawe was a battle during the New Britain Campaign of World War II between Allied and Imperial Japanese forces." Specifically "The Battle of Arawe was a battle..." Could this be better written as something like: "The Battle of Arawe occurred during the New Britain Campaign of World War II between Allied and Imperial Japanese forces..."?
    • That's much better; changed as suggested.
  • Although I know of no policy to the contrary - is there a requirement to list the co-ordinates in both the infobox and in the title (they both appear close together on my screen so it seems redundant). Suggestion only.
    • Fixed
  • Is there a requirement to list the rank of the commanders in the infobox as you have? AFAIK we didn't do that per the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict (which states "Ranks and position titles should be omitted.")
    • Fixed
  • This is a little repetitive: "...were in favor of securing Cape Gloucester to secure...", might it be reworded?
    • Fixed
  • "...and make contact with the marines once they landed...", should "marines" be capitalised?
    • Yes, done
  • "...to land at five minute intervals...", should "five minute" be hypthenated as an adjective?
    • Probably, done
  • "...and personnel from the squadron Headquarters...", should "squadron Headquarters" be capitalised (as a proper noun, being the name of force element)?
    • I don't think so as this isn't the sub-unit's formal title (which would have been something like 'Headquarters Company', which I've not used here as doing so is unnecessary and I think - possibly wrongly! - that this wording is clearer to people who are unfamiliar with military terminology)
  • "The force under Major Komori was ordered to make haste...", pretty sure this should just be "The force under Komori was ordered to make haste...", rm rank at second instance per WP:SURNAME.
    • Fixed
  • There may be a comma missing here: "On 6 January Cunningham requested further reinforcements, including tanks to tackle the Japanese defenses." Specifically should this be: "On 6 January Cunningham requested further reinforcements, including tanks, to tackle the Japanese defenses."
    • Fixed
  • Some inconsistent presentation of "US" (in at least one place you use "U.S.").
    • All changed to 'U.S.' per WP:MOS's guidance on what's most common in American English
  • "The marines secured the airfields...", caps here too? (as above)
  • "...when the marines advanced south east..." (as above)
  • "Major Komori fell behind his unit, and...", should be "Komori fell behind his unit, and..." (as above). Anotherclown (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks a lot for your careful review and comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Support

• On 22 September 1943, General MacArthur's General Headquarters (GHQ) directed General Walter Krueger's Alamo Force to secure western New Britain and the surrounding islands. First, you should probably drop the "General" before "MacArthur". (Hard because the primary documents call him that all the time.) Second, I would prefer "Lieutenant General" for Krueger.
  • Done
• The second objective was to secure the straits between New Guinea and New Britain The Vitiaz Strait and Dampier Strait (Papua New Guinea). You should name them.
  • Done
• Major General George Kenney—commander of the Allied air forces in the South-West Pacific—opposed the landings Capitalise Allied Air Forces, as it was the name of the command. Also, Kenney was a lieutenant general.
  • Fixed
• The Arawe landing was scheduled for 15 December as this was the earliest date by which the air bases needed to support the landing could be made operational. These were the ones around Nadzab. There was a delay opening the Lae-Nadzab Road.
  • Done
• The 112th Cavalry Regiment was smaller and more lightly armed than U.S. infantry regiments as it had only two battalion-sized squadrons compared to the three battalions in infantry regiments. Not quite. An infantry company had 25 more men than a cavalry troop, but there were four companies to each infantry battalion but only three troops per cavalry squadron, making a cavalry squadron somewhat smaller than an infantry battalion.
  • • Done
• transport ships HMAS Westralia and USS Carter Hall, Westralia was an assault transport (LSI) but Carter Hall was an LSD.
  • Done
• Aircraft flying from U.S. Navy aircraft carriers also attacked Rabaul on 5 and 11 November in support of the USMC landing at Bougainville. You need to define USMC.
  • Fixed
• Carter Hall launched her LVTs and Westralia her landing craft Well, yes, but a reader might think that the landing craft were her landing craft, but these had been left behind. The landing craft were from the 592nd EBSR.
  • Tweaked

Great article! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your review, as well as your earlier comments on this article. Nick-D (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ray Farquharson

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk)

Though Ray Farquharson was likely better known for his contributions to medicine, he served with distinction in the two World Wars, and was granted the Order of the British Empire for his service. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, and is one of the most comprehensive accounts of his life available online. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support -- Heh, I saw the article before the nom and as soon as I read he was Canadian I thought of you... ;-) Looks good, a few points...

• Is there a reason you haven't used an infobox? Can't think of a decent military bio here that doesn't have one and I think they do help as a snapshot of the subject's life and career.
  • Not particularly; I've never gotten into the habit of adding them on most of the articles I create, though I wouldn't object if someone else did. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• He had at least one sister, Jessie, and at least two brothers, Charles (who also became a doctor) and Robert (managing editor for The Globe and Mail and a minister at the Canadian Embassy to the United States). -- Couple of things: 1) I'm assuming no source says exactly how many siblings he had but the "at least"s don't read too well. Think it'd be better as simply His brother Charles also became a doctor while another brother, Robert, became managing editor for The Globe and Mail and a minister at the Canadian Embassy to the United States. If Jessie did something interesting by all means include her too, my point is that this way you look less equivocal while not pretending you know all the family details, i.e. you've picked some notable points/people only. 2) What sort of minister? Of religion or government? Seriously, because I think one tends to associate political ministers with a country's home government, not its embassies.
  • Taken your suggestion on the first point. On the second, the source gives only "minister", although political is implied; it's not entirely clear what the actual role is. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Considering the declaration above that he "served with distinction in two World Wars", is there no more available anywhere on his time in the First?
  • Perhaps not as I've just noticed while spotchecking that the Hall of Fame source says his WWI career was "brief"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Brief" would be an understatement, in this case. I'd be happy to add more info if I had it, but I don't, and I'd be surprised if someone found more. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Does "acid" really need linking?
• Helen, a hematologist should perhaps be Helen, who became a hematologist, so it doesn't read as though she was born that way...

That's it for first part, I'll do a bit of copyediting in the rest and then report back... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

• Back again after a brief copyedit -- there may be other places to improve the prose but I'm sure Dank will stop by some time... ;-)
• Structure, detail, referencing and images look okay.
• Spotchecked all instances of citations #5, #8, #13. Interpretation/reporting of source info generally seems accurate and w/o close paraphrasing, however:
  • Re. #8, is "assistant to the professor" actually the same as "assistant professor"? I ask out of genuine curiosity/ignorance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, a couple of other sources explicitly said "assistant professor", so I assumed ref 8 just had a more idiomatic way of phrasing things. I have heard that phrase used, although it is somewhat ambiguous. Thanks for the review and the copyedits! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
      • My last outstanding point re. an infobox has been actioned so happy to support. I wouldn't have minded seeing the original lead image retained there in the infobox, even at the expense of a picture in the relevant part of the main body, but not that fussed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• An interesting article. some thoughts below:
• " a treatment for cord degeneration" - may be an unfair question, but what is cord degeneration?
• " in which he was known as a "doctor's doctor"" - unclear if this is "within which" (i.e. the practice called him this) or whether he was externally, or professionally known as this.
• "continuous exogenous hormone doses" - is there a link or footnote that could help explain this bit?
• "laboratory studies in the evaluation of illness" - I wasn't sure what this meant; is this the same as doing laboratory tests to diagnose a patient's illness?
• " Farquharson concluded that government support for research was inadequate because it failed to specifically address medical research as a separate discipline and because it was financially insufficient" - "both because" might work better, as otherwise the second explanation might seem self-evident.
• Bibliography: I wasn't sure why there's only one book mentioned; there are quite a lot in the references. The references should be consistent: in one case you've got "Horlick, Louise (2007). J. Wendell Macleod. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 29.", for example, and another is "Best 2003, p. 401."
• A really minor MOS point, but the titles of the books etc. in the references/bibliography need capitals throughout for the longer words. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments! I think I've addressed most of them. I've still got some books in footnotes only, but those are largely "special" books (dictionaries, almanacs, etc). Let me know if anything needs to be clarified further. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comments This looks pretty good, but needs a bit more work to reach A class:
  • One of the people infoboxes would be helpful. I used Infobox person for John Treloar (museum administrator), who was also a person who had notable military service in both world wars but this wasn't his main claim to fame.
  • Can 'endocrinology' be linked or explained when it's first mentioned in the lead?
  • Did Farquharson serve overseas in World War I?
  • What was No. 1 Air Command, and where was it located? - from the text of the article it appears that this was a Canada-based unit - is this correct?
  • "Farquharson discovered what is now known as the "Farquharson Phenomenon": the introduction of continuous exogenous hormone doses suppresses the natural production of that hormone in the patient and causes temporary atrophy in the producing organ." - the second half of this sentence reads a bit oddly. I think it would benefit from a 'that' after the colon, or a re-arrangement to the same affect.
  • "he was known for advocating both this and understanding of potential psychological issues in his medical teaching." - the "understanding of potential psychological issues in his medical teaching" reads oddly. I think I know what you're getting at, but it's a bit unclear as worded.
  • "government support for research was inadequate both because it failed to specifically address medical research as a separate discipline and because it was financially insufficient." - this also doesn't read well. As written, it basically states that he found that government funding was inadequate because it was inadequate. I think that you could simplify this - how about "Farquharson concluded that the existing government support for research failed to specifically address medical research as a separate discipline [separate from what??] and was financially insufficient" or similar.
  • "Farquharson advocated for progressive medical education taught by practicing physicians[23] and for research as continuing education for doctors" - this is written in the passive voice and is unclear. How about "Farquharson advocated for practicing physicians to deliver progressive medical education as well as for doctors to undertake continuing education through conducting research" or similar?
  • When did he become Regent of the American College of Physicians?
  • "He was also appointed a Knight of the Military and Hospitaller Order of St Lazarus of Jerusalem and an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine in London." - needs a reference Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi Nick, thanks for your comments! I think I've addressed most of them. I haven't used an infobox, and couldn't quickly locate the ref for the Order of St Lazarus so have removed that for now. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: G'day this looks generally fine to me. There is not a lot for me to comment on, I have just a few minor points (feel free to disregard if you disagree): AustralianRupert (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the portrait of the subject in his uniform might not be better in the Career section as currently that doesn't have any images to break it up? If it was moved, the top right could be taken up by an infobox, if there is an appropriate one (the {{Infobox person}} that Nick mentions would probably work). Its not a warstoper, though, if you aren't keen on it;
    • I'd just as soon keep the image up there; I haven't another to use in the infobox, and I quite like the effect. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • regarding the image of the subject "during the First World War", I wonder if the caption shouldn't be tweaked a little. As it is that he did not serve overseas, saying "during the First World War" will for most readers lead them to think that he fought in France or Belgium. So what I am suggesting is to tweak the caption to "Farquharson while training in Canada during the First World War" or something similar. Just a suggestion;
  • "before enlisting in the Canadian Field Artillery (67th Battery) in early 1918 as a gunner, though he did not serve overseas." Was his rank "gunner"? If so, it could probably be wikilinked to "Gunner (rank)";
  • "Recalled from the war to..." Does this mean that he was requested by someone? For me the term means that he came back upon request, but it is also possible that you mean that the war ended and so he returned to civilian life, in which case it might be tweaked to clarify this. How do the sources describe this?
    • They say "recalled" and don't elaborate - sources on his WWI service are quite sketchy. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • related to the above (and depending upon the cause and effect issue that this suggestion creates), "before enlisting in the Canadian Field Artillery (67th Battery) in early 1918 as a gunner, though he did not serve overseas. Recalled from the war to..." Perhaps this might sound smoother: "before enlisting in the Canadian Field Artillery (67th Battery) in early 1918 as a gunner. He did not serve overseas, though, as he was recalled from the war to..."? Or, depending on whether there was a cause and effect, perhaps this: "....He did not serve overseas, though, and he was later recalled from the war to..."?
  • "gaining a reputation as a "doctor's doctor"". Is it possible to elaborate on what this means? Sorry if I've missed something;
  • "Farquharson enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF)..." A very minor point regarding terminology, as an officer, one is usually "appointed" rather than "enlisted". That is, at least the terminology used here in Australia. Not sure about Canada, but something to consider maybe. What word does you source use?
    • "enlist" is in the source; I got the impression that he was not initially an officer, but I could be quite wrong on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, are there ISBNs or OCLCs for the Creighton and Horlick sources?
  • in the Bibliography, I think the titles should be tweaked for capitalisation. For instance, this: "The forked road: Canada, 1939–1957", should probably be: "The Forked Road: Canada, 1939–1957". AustralianRupert (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Except where noted these have been addressed. Thanks for reviewing! Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• Per above, I think it really would benefit from an infobox to make things much easier to read at a glance.
• "In 1934 he became the head of the therapeutics department at Toronto, and in 1947 was appointed to the Sir John and Lady Eaton Professor of Medicine chair.[13] He continued to publish research findings on various topics, including anorexia nervosa.[14] Farquharson was a charter member of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, which oversaw all Canadian postgraduate medical education; he served on its council from 1939 to 1943, and was the council's president from 1945 to 1947." - I would suggest moving these things into a chronological format like the rest of the text it's disjointing to see things go from here to "On 25 August 1943..."
• The section covering his activities in World War II are very slight compared with the rest of the text.

I'd be happy to support if these are addressed. —Ed!^(talk) 18:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing, first two addressed. I'm on holiday and away from some of my sources at the moment, so can't look into the last until January. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. If the coords are willing to keep the review open the extra week I'm happy to support once it's been expanded. —Ed!^(talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've added a bit, though not much more was available. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Everything is now in order to me. Excellent work. —Ed!^(talk) 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

May Revolution

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it's ready. It's already a good article, and I have referenced all (or almost all) sentences and check the MOS point by point. Prior nomination here Cambalachero (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Partial support at co-ord's discretion, on A1, A2 and A3. I agree that the article meets the criteria in those respects, with a good range and use of sources. Only ref #220 needs work, but this shouldn't take a second to fill out properly. As regards A5, usage is good, but I haven't done a thorough copyright check. The chioce of public domain declaration at File:Invitación al Cabildo Abierto.jpg seems a bit odd, though. Would PD-art not be more appropriate? Perhaps I'm wrong. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. As for the image, a simple hand-written text with no pretensions of poetry or literature is unlikely to receive copyright protection, thus the "Ineligible" tag (I'm admin in Commons, I have some idea about this). But PD-Old works equally well, so I included it as well. Even if a handwritten invitation could get copyright protection, this one would be expired anyway. Cambalachero (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments: I have taken a very superficial look at this as I found it a little difficult to engage with the article fully (more due to my lack of knowledge, but also because I'm feeling a bit crook at the moment and can't think straight). Anyway, I hope some of these suggestions will be helpful to you. Happy to discuss anything you don't agree with;
  • in the interests of achieving a result for this ACR, I suggest contacting the reviewers from the last ACR and seeing if they are willing to re-review/discuss whether their previous concerns have been addressed.
  • there are no disambig links, ext links all work, images have alt text (no action required);
  • on my screen there is a large amount of whitespace caused by the long table of contents. You might consider placing a limit on the table of contents so that it only displays level 2 headers. This could be achieved by adding "{{TOC limit|2}}" just below the lead (suggestion only, has no bearing on the review);
  • the duplicate link checker tool reports potential overlinked articles: criollo people, British invasions of the Rio de la Plata, Juan Jose Castelli, University of Saint Francis Xavier, Manuel Belgrano, Martin Rodriguez (politician), mutiny of Alzaga, Juan Jose Paso, Antonio Beruti, Royal Audiencia of Buenos Aires, Upper Peru, Francisco Javier de Elio, Bartolome Mitre, Juan Bautista Alberdi. Please check if they are all necessary;
  • between the lead and the infobox there is a slight inconsistency. The lead says "took place May 18 to 25, 1810", but the infobox says "Date=May 25, 1810";
  • I suggest splitting citations and explanatory footnotes/notes, for example see: German battleship Bismarck, which is also currently under A-class review;
  • in References 166 to 168, the capitalisation of "independencia" probably should be "Independencia", that is assuming that it is the same work as "Luna, Independencia";
  • I suggest collapsing the May Revolution template at the bottom of the article for consistency with the other templates;
  • in the International causes section, is there a citation for: "Until then, Spain had been a staunch ally of France against Britain, but at this point Spain allied itself with Britain against France instead. Sevilla was eventually invaded, and the Supreme Central Junta was disbanded and replaced by a Council of Regency based in Cadiz"?
  • in the Legacy section, is there a citation for: "An image of the Cabildo during the Revolution appeared on the back of the 5-peso banknote of the former peso moneda nacional."
  • "the British war schooner HMS Mistletoe". In my experience, the prefix HMS is generally not presented in italics. It should probably be HMS Mistletoe;
  • same as above for HMS John Paris; should be HMS John Paris;
  • I think the block quotes should be presented with quotation marks, for instance in the Tuesday, May 22 section; this makes it clear that the words are being quoted;
  • please check for English variation. I found some inconsistency, for example "favor" (US) and "favourable" (British);
  • the ISBN for the Scenna work titled "Mariano Moreno" reports as potentially incorrect (using the Advisor script), could you please check that this is correct? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Done (except the contact and the 2 refs, which I'm leaving for tomorrow). I removed some extra links, but most entries reported had very few links anyway. Have in mind that links in image captions and navboxes should not be counted, which may be what causes the false positives. The seeming inconsistency can be understood by further reading the article: the series of events took a week, but the key event (when the viceroy resigns) was on May 25. I left the "May Revolution" navbox uncollapsed and the others collapsed because it's the topic navbox, while the others are just about related topics; but I can close it if you think it's better that way. The use of quotation marks is rejected at WP:MOSQUOTE, I would like to use cquote (and I did at an earlier stage), but I accept the current preferred style. Yes, the ISBN of Scenna's work is correct. Finally, all footnotes are references, I did not use any explanation notes (and I don't like them, they disrupt the natural reading if they contain important info, and if it's not important to be mentioned in the text, then it's probably not important, period). The footnotes with longer texts than the others are the quotes: I include both the source and the quote in the original language. Cambalachero (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

G'day, interesting point about MOSQUOTE. You are indeed right. To be honest, I think that that is a strange policy, but I certainly won't hold that against the article. Fair call with the footnotes. I've added my support as you've addressed all my concerns. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've tried using <span style="font-size:90%;"> with the blockquotes as a means of distinguishing them from the main text. I've used this method with a few of my FAs. Feel free to revert! 05:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - the piece feels well researched and covers the period well. Minor bits:

• International causes: you link criollos, but in "National Causes" later you both link and explain what they are - I'd advise explaining what they are the first time you use the term, in this section.
• "Liberal ideas expanded" - expanded (which could mean an increase in the number of ideas, or their geographical expansion) or "spread", which could only mean the later?
• "either in Europe or at the University of Chuquisaca" - implies that the University isn't in Europe, but might be worth adding "...in X." at the end to make the location clear.
• "The May Week is the period of time in Buenos Aires " - I'm not certain, but I'd have thought "was" rather than "is" might read more naturally here.
• " He based his speech on two main ideas:" - repetition of "main" - you could perhaps say "key ideas" as an alternative.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Done The expansion of liberal ideas was both ways, but I clarified it even more. Cambalachero (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Article promoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hector Waller

Nominator(s): Ian Rose 15:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a pattern here...? First I present for your consideration at ACR a non-Australian ace, then I give you a non-flying RAAF officer, now it’s a Royal Australian Navy captain -- in the immortal words of Pink Floyd, "Wot's... uh, the deal? Well, no, haven’t forsaken the RAAF flyboys, in fact my latest FAC is another of them, but as far as this nom goes I’ve long observed (sometimes out loud) that while Australian military pilots are, if I say so myself, well served in terms of quality WP bios, as are Australian soldiers thanks to Hawkeye and also Bryce Abraham, the same can’t be said for RAN personnel. So putting my time where my mouth is, this is one of the Navy’s legendary commanders, who earned the admiration of Admiral Cunningham during the North Africa campaign and who, had he not been lost with his cruiser HMAS Perth in the Pacific during the Battle of Sunda Strait, might have challenged John Collins as the RAN’s pre-eminent officer of the post-war period. The submarine HMAS Waller was named in his honour.

The article passed its GA review yesterday, and I'd like to acknowledge the work of Janggeom, who improved this from a stub to something pretty close to B-Class before I expanded it recently. I think it has the legs for FA, so any comments in that regard are welcome too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: great to see this article get attention. I have a couple of comments/suggestions:
  • according to the featured article tools, there are no dab links and ext links work (no action required);
  • images have alt text (no action required);
  • images appear to be appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • the duplicate link checker reports a few potential examples of overlink in the article: Distinguished Service Order, Medal bar, HMAS Cerberus (naval base);
    • Yep, I think those can be justified 'cos the decorations are generally linked as post-noms as well as when spelt out in the lead and/or main body, plus Cerberus is the link for both itself and Flinders Naval Depot.
  • "formal consideration for the award of the Victoria Cross". My understanding is that the consideration is being made for the award of the new version of the award, the Victoria Cross for Australia. I might be wrong, though;
    • I've seen a couple of news reports mention the VC, the VC for Australia, and "other forms of recognition" as possibilities -- thought that was a bit complicated for this bio and the news report I cited did only mention VC so...
      • Yes, seems fair. I've read the same, so its all a bit confusing. To be honest, I can't see that the VC is a possibility. The Queen has said on many occasions that she wants to honour her father's stance that there should be no retrospective VCs for the Second World War now, as illustrated by Haane Manahi in New Zealand. The VC for Australia, however, might be a possibility. As an aside, I still think they should be reviewing LT Mark Moloney for his actions in Operation Coburg, but what do I know? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "In November 1937 Waller was given his first command at sea, the RN destroyer HMS Brazen". It might be asking too much of a biography, and if so please say so, but I wonder at the mechanisms by which a RAN officer was appointed to command a RN ship. Was this common at the time, was there a formal agreement, etc. (Sorry, I'm talking very clearly as a landlubber here);
    • Heh, the RN and RAN had so many exchange postings in those days they almost seemed like the one organisation (same with RAF and RAAF). I'll see if I can add something along the lines you suggest before sending to FAC, at least.
      • True. I'm seeing the same with the light horse regiments/brigades I'm working on. We have South Africans commanding Australians. Australians commanding French and New Zealanders, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "monitored progress of the Spanish Civil War, duty that included protection of British merchant vessels and rescuing the crews of sinking ships". My understanding is that there was a blockade to enforce at this time, do you know if this was part of Brazen's duties at this time?
    • I think you're right about the blockade but my source didn't mention it specifically re. Brazen.
  • "nicknamed the 'Scrap Iron Flotilla' ". I think that the MOS asks for double quotes here (and the earlier example in the lead);
    • Heh, I thought I did have it as double quotes the first time but perhaps not. I believe you can drop them for a nickname after the first use but not fussed either way -- tks Janggeom for actioning this one.
  • "of the Collins class submarines to..." I think it should be "Collins-class submarines" (very minor point, obviously);
    • Actioned by Janggeom.
  • "named by the Australian government for consideration as possible recipients of the Victoria Cross for extreme valour in combat". Maybe add "as part of a review by the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal". AustralianRupert (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Will do. Tks for your review, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries at all. Hope to see this at FAC sometime. Keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is a very good biography which meets the A class criteria. I have the following comments and suggestions for further improvements though:
  • I don't think that naval captains are usually called 'senior officers'
    • Have you heard that about naval captains specifically? I ask because my understandng is that technically major / squadron leader / lieutenant commander and above are senior officers, while captain / flight lieutenant / lieutenant and below are junior officers. That said, I tend only to use the expression "senor officer" in WP for colonel / group captain / captain, and "senor commander" for general, air or flag officers.
      • No, not specifically. I was more thinking about the largish number of ranks which are above captain. I don't think that colonels are necessarily 'senior officers' either, but I'm not really all that good with the lingo around this (as a total aside, I once rang up Defence as part of a research project at work and ended up speaking with a colonel who said that he literally shared a desk at Russell Offices with the colonel I needed to speak to... )
  • The photo of HMS Brazen is miss-captioned 'HMAS Brazen'
    • Oops, actioned by Janggeom.
  • Was Waller back in Australia when WW2 broke out?
    • Assuming he was in country at the time he was appointed Stuart's captain, then yes, but I'll see if I can confirm...
  • "Waller was appointed to command HMAS Stuart, taking charge of a group of four other obsolete ex-RN destroyers" - was he both the captain of this ship and the commander of whatever unit this was? (a flotilla, I presume). If so this should be stated explicitly.
    • Explicitly state he was ship's captain as well as flotilla commander? Hmm, thought that was pretty clear but can make it more so... ;-)
  • You could add a little bit extra on Perth's pre-Pacific war activities in late 1940 using the RAN's history of the ship: [96]
    • Hokay.
  • I might be mistaken, but I think that Waller commanded the Perth and Houston group as he was the more senior of the two captains.
    • That's correct, again I can make that clearer.
  • You could quote Waller's ADB entry's statement that he was "the outstanding officer of his generation"
    • Heh, I thought it might be in danger of looking a bit hagiographic adding that, but I trust your instincts... ;-)
  • Waller Cresent (and its offshoot Waller Place) in Campbell, ACT are also named for Waller: [97] [98]
    • Tks, actioned by Janggeom.
  • Given that you're progressing to people who served at lower and lower altitudes, will Henry Hugh Gordon Stoker be your next project? (or maybe one of the Army officers who took part in mining operations in World War I!) ;)
    • As Le Chiffre said to Bond before using the latter's balls for target practice, "You are a funny man...!" Actually not that outrageous a suggestion, my next major article is also Navy, Roy Dowling, and I do owe myself an army bio FA somewhere down the track to emulate Bryce's triple header of Raymond Brownell, Otto Becher and Henry Wells...
• I've spot checked the ADB entry and Gill for close paraphrasing and accuracy. While this was generally fine, I have the following comments:
  • "A few months later, in January 1942, the ship was assigned to American-British-Dutch-Australian Command to help defend the Dutch East Indies." - this is sourced to Gill, pp. 616-622, but is actually on pages 579-580. You could also use this to provide further details of the ship's activities (eg, that she departed Australian waters in February escorting a convoy to the NEI)
  • More generally, the range of page numbers used in reference 37 (Gill, pp. 616-622) is probably too broad given that this reference is used three times. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Heh, that's probably the most comments I've ever received with a support but I guess I'll action them... ;-) Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, but based on prior experience I know that you'll take into account my sensible suggestions and point out the problems with the dumb ones ;) Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Those many sensible suggestions should now be more-or-less incorporated. I even found out that the author of his ADB entry is a rear admiral with his own WP article -- I doubt that I would've gone looking for him if you hadn't pushed for inclusion of his "outstanding officer" quote, so tks again... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as I see no reason not to. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow, piling on... Tks Jim (for others, Jim reviewed at GAN). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Copyright check All images have acceptable licences, but File:Hector Waller AWM 005002-13.jpg and File:HMAS Perth (AWM 301166).jpg would benefit from using the {{Information}} template to arrange the information (the template exists in Commons as well, with the same fields). The summary of the first photo is just "Hector Waller", a pair more words would be better. Of course, none of this is a problem for the nomination, just something that may be better. Cambalachero (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Just quick note to say I'll check on these when I have a bit more time -- tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Done. Tks for alerting me to the portrait in particular, as the supposed date of the photo had been miscronstrued from the source file description. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - some very minor comments
  • "...Promoted to lieutenant in March 1921...", should lietuenant be wikilinked to Lieutenant (navy) instead?
    • Good call, tks.
  • "Waller earned the personal admiration of Admiral Cunningham...", generally I believe rank should be removed a second instance per WP:SURNAME. Is there a reason you have chosen this construction here?
    • It was deliberate. I just feel that when you reintroduce a figure who hasn't been mentioned in a while it's worth jogging the reader's memory a bit...
  • "Admiral Cunningham described Waller's loss...", as above.
    • As above... ;-)
  • Regardless, another fine addition to the project. As ever well done (for what its worth). Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Many tks mate, and your "well done" is worth stacks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Too easy. Cheers Ian. Anotherclown (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 08:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

German battleship Bismarck

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Germany's most famous battleship, sunk on her maiden voyage after destroying HMS Hood. I completely rewrote this article in June and it passed GA in July. I feel the article is at or close to our A-class criteria. Thanks to all editors who review the article to ensure it meets our standards. Parsecboy (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)

• Prinz Eugen was commanded by Kapitän zur See Helmuth Brinkmann, please add link
  • I don't know that the captain of Prinz Eugen is really relevant in this article. That and I can't find a place to put it without it being very out of place.
    • He was a Knight's Cross recipient and close friend of Lindemann
      • That's fine, but I don't know that he belongs in this article. If you can find a place to add him that doesn't feel like you're going out of your way to mention him, that's fine, but I could not.
• "but a merchant vessel had been sunk in the Kiel Canal" who sank the ship? If unknown maybe reword slightly
  • Müllenheim-Rechberg doesn't mention who sank the ship, and I don't still have Garzke & Dulin.
• rapid-fire salvos. Von Müllenheim-Rechberg states that Bismarck's delivery system could fire every 18 seconds
  • That type of technical information doesn't really belong in individual ship articles. It is in the class article though.
    • I disagree! According to Von Müllenheim-Rechberg, Schneider had ordered rapid fire on Hood. The flight time of the shells at the combat distance exceeded rate of fire. Combat between Hood and Bismarck lasted only a little over 5 minutes. Grützner argues that the probability of scoring a hit on Hood and scoring a hit on PoW (after shifting fire) was also attributed to rate of fire. Thus it was relevant to the outcome of the battle, thus relevant to this article.
      • Can you give a page name for Grützner's claim?
• please check your citations. His name is Von Müllenheim-Rechberg not Von Müllenheim-Rechburg
  • Fixed, thanks.
• Can you add the link to all the images on Wiki Commons please?
  • Added.
• And as commented on your talk page I am missing crew structure. If you want to defer to the class article at least explain how the admirality staff around Lütjens was organized

The following three books deal exclusively we the crew of Bismarck.

• • Added a paragraph on the organization of the crew.
• Comment. I recall that many years ago, as a kid I was fascinated by the National Geographic pictures of Bismarck's wreck. I am sure they are not freely licensed, but 1) could a fair use person present an explanation why fair use would not be justified and 2) has an attempt been made to contact author(s) of such photos, so we could obtain at least one for our project? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair use should work - the ship is a couple miles down on the bottom of the ocean, so none of us can exactly go take our own pictures ;) I have not contacted anyone related to the Ballard expedition (or others, for that matter) to look into acquiring an image for the article - I wouldn't know where to begin. Parsecboy (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments:
  • there are no dab links; ext links work (no action required);
  • the lead says: "launched nearly three years later in April 1939"; the body of the article says: "The hull was launched on 1 April 1939", and the infobox says: "Launched: 14 February 1939". This seems inconsistent. Does this mean the same thing?
    • Should have been 14 April - must have been looking at Tirpitz's entry when I wrote those.
  • the duplicate link tool reports a few links that might be considered to be overlinked: Gotenhafen; Scharnhorst class battleship; Halifax Regional Municipality; U-boat; Brest, France; Luftwaffe; Ludovic Kennedy; torpedo bulkhead;
    • All removed.
  • "were assigned to the ninth divisions". Probably should just be "were assigned to the ninth division" (no "s");
    • Fixed.
  • "delay greatly frustrated KzS Lindemann". Has this abbreviation (KzS) been formally introduced?
    • No, but it shouldn't be used for him, as he has already been introduced.
  • "At 8:45 on 8 March". Is this in the morning, or at night?
    • Morning, clarified.
  • probably need a second comma here: "were based in Brest, France at the" (after "France");
    • Added.
  • English variation issue: "unmaneuverable" v. "unmanoeuvrable"
    • Fixed.
  • English variation: "ship's command center was killed" (the article seems to be using British English, as such "center" should probably be "centre");
    • Fixed.
  • some of the emdashes are incorrectly spaced, e.g. here: "tube useless — the closest" and here: "claimed one hit — a claim which";
    • Not sure how those snuck in, but they're fixed now.
  • "Two old Revenge class battleships, HMS Revenge and Ramillies" (probably should have a hyphen "Revenge-class battleships...")
    • Added.
  • Note 2 probably should start with a capital and end with a full stop for consistency with the other notes. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks for finding all of these. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - only a couple of very minor points:
  • "...the newly commissioned battleship Prince of Wales...", is there a reason you haven't used the prefix "HMS" here, when you use it at first instance in other places?
  • "At this time, Admiral Raeder finally informed...", should just be "At this time, Raeder finally informed..." removing rank at second instance per WP:SURNAME.
  • "Admiral Lütjens gave permission for Prinz Eugen...", should be "Lütjens gave permission for Prinz Eugen..." (as above).
  • "Admiral Tovey's Home Fleet was steaming to intercept...", should be "Tovey's Home Fleet was steaming to intercept..." (as above). Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Good call, PoW should have the prefix there. Ranks removed as suggested. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support, although I am somewhat confused about "applied a coat of dazzle paint to camouflage her from aerial observers" - I was under the impression that dazzle camouflage wasn't much help against aircraft but was rather designed for naval-naval combat. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what Bercuson and Herwig said it was for - I can provide the direct quotation if you like. I agree with you though, it's mainly to confuse gun-layers as to the direction and heading of the ship. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 08:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

George Mackinolty

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Just to show that not every RAAF bio I write is for a flyboy, say hello to the organisation's top supply officer for 20-odd years, a veteran of the Australian Flying Corps who became one of the earliest recruits to the Air Force in 1921, and died in harness 30 years later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

• What's a Merit certificate?
  • I can't tell you exactly, some ancient Australian school certificate, but it sounded good. Have also seen it referred to as certificate of merit -- would that be an improvement?
• Might be worth adding a parenthetical explaining "Imperial Gift"
  • Okay, will see.
• How Not to Run and Air Force? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oops, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support More great work Ian. I have quite a few comments, but they're all minor and I think that this article is already across the A-class line:
  • "he rose to become " - 'he was promoted to became' or similar perhaps?
    • Well one usually says simply "rose to" but I think "rose to become" is also okay. Can't really say "promoted to" because "chief logistics officer" wasn't an actual position.
      • Fair enough. I imagine that his roles are now filled by several Air Vice Marshals and senior public servants in the Defence Material Organisation ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Merit certificate" - should the 'c' be capitalised, or the 'm' lower case? I don't know what this kind of qualification is either, but they seem to have handed out all kinds of strange-sounding qualifications in schools during this era. I suspect that it's something like a 'leaving certificate' which attested to having completed the amount of secondary education needed to move into an apprenticeship.
    • Heh, I haven't heard back from Nikki yet on "certificate of merit" but I will change the "M" to lower case for the moment, at least.
  • "after its capture by the Allies" - 'Allies' isn't a common term used for World War I forces, and I think that only British Empire forces were in this theater.
    • Yep, British and Indian but "British Empire" works also; there are two refs to "Aliies" re. Kut so I might work in both variations...
  • "With the dispersement of Australian members of No. 30 Squadron" - needs a 'the' between 'of' and 'Australian'
    • There are times when the definite article isn't necessary and I felt this was one, however I may reprhase it anyway.
  • "Following the end of hostilities, Mackinolty became wholly or jointly (with the Business and Finance Members of the Air Board) responsible for disposing of surplus equipment up to an original value of £10,000." - this is a bit confusing - how could he 'wholly or jointly' do the same job? (eg, did he actually have the authority to do this by himself, or could he only do it with the other members of the board?).
    • Yep, fair enough, that was trying to simplify something that wasn't really so complicated anyway, namely that he was wholly responsible for equipment up to a certain value (£500 from memory, will check) and jointly responsible for stuff £500-10,000.
      • Sounds good. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The following month he was given command of an aircraft repair unit in Gloucestershire." - the ADB entry says that this was at Minchinhampton, which was one of the AFC's main bases in England. It seems worthwhile to include this as it must have been an important job.
    • Wasn't it HQ for 1st Training Wing AFC? If so I'd certainly work that in...
      • Yes, that's correct. Two of the wing's four squadrons were also based there. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually looks like Tetbury was the HQ, but I did include Minchinhampton and its Training Wing connection. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ashworth (p. 123) notes that Mackinolty was promoted over more senior officers during the lead up (and early years?) of World War II as an example of merit-based promotions in the RAAF - is this worth including in the article?
    • Could do, but I don't think I've seen that observation anywhere else and felt that one comment from Ashworth was enough (and I think the other one was more intriguing)!
  • Spot checks of the ADB entry, Ashworth and Gillison found no problems with errors or close paraphrasing. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Many tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Think those are pretty well all covered now -- done in a slight hurry so don't hesitate to let me know if you think the wording could be improved... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

CommentsSupport Another blue orchid, although not a flyboy. can I nominate more? I'd still like to see Dale and Mustard. Anyway, some comments:

• My notes have RMS Persia departing on 10 August, but meh
  • Oops, so do mine...
• splitting the logistical functions of the Air Board in this manner appeared to be a "uniquely Australian" experiment The problem here is that it all seems very familiar... perhaps because it's the Army's system, with a Master General of the Ordnance and the Quartermaster General on the Military Board.
  • I gather that's an observation rather than a request for action... ;-)
• Is one sentence all that can be said about his work in World War II?
  • Surprisingly, that's about the size of it. I mean we have a decent-sized paragraph on WWII but it's more about the positions he held rather than what he actually did, and this is after searching the home front, as well as the RAAF, official history volumes, plus the Air Power Development Centre, plus GoogleBooks and Amazon. On top of all that the NAA has only digitised his AIF record. The one thing I did discover was that he supported a move to improve WAAAF accommodation in Victoria but since Drakeford didn't agree to it anyway I didn't think it was really worth mentioning...
• subsequently organised for the RAAF to assume Perhaps arranged for the RAAF would read better
  • Yep, sounds better.
• You can link Springvale Botanical Cemetery instead of the suburb
  • Ta for that.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Tks for reviewing, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links [99] (no action required).
  • External links all check out [100] (no action required).
  • Images all have Alt Text [101] (no action required).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors.
  • The images are all PD or appropriately licensed (no action required).
  • Well cited using WP:RS.
  • All major points appear to be covered without unnecessary detail.
  • Overall, this is a well written and engaging biography and I can find little, if anything, to fault it. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Much appreciated, AC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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