Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review

The review department of the Military history WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope. Requests for B-Class assessment, which any reviewer may assign, can be made here.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

• Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)
• A-Class review (a formal review of a candidate for an A-Class quality assessment)

It also provides a convenient collection of military history content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:

• Featured article candidates
• Featured article review
• Featured list candidates
• Non-article featured content candidates

Peer review

Please add new requests below this line

BTR-90

I recently got this article to B-class, and I'm thinking of improving it further if possible. I haven't done anything higher than B before, so I'd appreciate any comments, suggestions and advice on this. Chamal ^Talk ± 00:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Woody

• Some comments, it needs quite a bit of work to reach above B.

MOS stuff

• WP:LEAD: The lead needs expanding so that it complies with LEAD. It needs to completely summarise the article and not contain any text that is not within the body of the article.
• Image:BTR-90.jpg I don't think this qualifies as Fair-use. Free images are available and we have one lower down in the article.
• WP:MOSNUM: In the infobox and throughout, you should convert forms of measurement, {{convert}} is useful for that. It also puts in non-breaking spaces which are needed (30 mm)

Content stuff

• The prose needs a lot of work: Development was commenced in the early 90s... should be Development commenced in the early 90s...
• There are a lot of one and two sentence paragraphs. These should be merged so that the text flows better.
• What does 8X8 wheeled mean? It looks like it has 4 wheels on each side to the layman. Can you explain what this means in the text?
• The "Variants" section seems to be very small. Can it be expanded?
• Some sources also call it the Rostok APS. This isn't discussed in the text.

This is not a complete list, but it should provide you with a start. The article is a very good start, it just needs finishing and expansion in places. If you have any questions, leave them here or on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

SS Mauna Loa

This article passed a GA review but I'm not sure how in-depth it's review was. I'd like to get a more formal review before pursuing any further more-formal reviews. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Despite the strange GAR I think this article could be put up for A-class. I didn't find anything that needed correction. --Brad (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I read through it thoroughly but couldn't find anything wrong with it. Even though it was a thoroughly bizarre GAN which didn't use the instructions, you seem to have covered all the bases. Go to A-Class. Regards. Woody (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

National War Memorial (South Australia)

I'd like any and all advice on how to further improve this article on the memorial, in the hope of eventually getting it up to A-class or featured status. (I've enjoyed working on it, and would like to try and finish it off properly). - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Woody

• A nice article. There are some small stylistic issues with it:
• First World War, make sure is consistent: use First World War or use World War I, just make it consistent. (I suggest First World War as it is the Commonwealth English way) Don't use the abbreviation, it is too colloquial.
• Dates, you use both international and US date format. Pick one and again, be consistent.
• Per the MOS, images should alternate from left to right in the text.
• Other than those, the image licences all check out, it is well referenced with an acceptable style and it covers the topic well. There might be a need for a copyedit in there, but the prose read well to me. Well done. Sorry about the wait, and keep up the good work. Woody (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! That was of great help - in particular, I didn't realise that I'd stuffed up the date formats, but I should have known better on that one. I agree with the need for a copyedit - I find that I'm not a great copyeditor, and I certainly can't copyedit my own work properly, yet a good copyeditor can virtually always improve an article. I guess I'll need to start begging people and see if I can find one. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Try asking someone listed at WP:MHL#COPYEDIT. Regards. Woody (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again - I keep being impressed by how well organised this project is. - Bilby (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Horses in warfare

This article has recently passed an A class review, since when it has undergone some alterations. We are hoping to put it up for FAC soon and would like any feedback on what else should be done to the article in preparation, with attention to content (any gaps? undue weight?), format and so forth. Thanks, Montanabw, Ealdgyth, Dana boomer and Gwinva (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

Fantastic lead image - I believe the minimum lead image size is 350px. The coverage of cavalry tactics is a bit thin, perhaps a bit more coverage of this topic and a link to that article would help to give horses in warfare a bit of context. Dhatfield (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead image a bit, but 350 px is huge, so I haven't expanded it that much! There is already a templated link to cavalry at the beginning of the cavalry section, as well as several other wikilinks to cavalry (as well as variations, including heavy cavalry and light cavalry) throughout the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• Nepal's King's Household Cavalry is a ceremonial unit - as Nepal is now a republic is this still the correct name for the unit?
  • As of June 2008, this is still the correct name. The source we use actually mentions this and says that although Nepal is now a republic, the Cavalry has not had to change it's name yet. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• I have a problem with the related modern uses section - I can not see where Law enforcement and public safety fits into an article on Horses in Warfare , mounted police and mounted s&r could be articles in their own right.
  • Actually, they do already have their own articles, at Mounted police and Mounted search and rescue. The brief section on Law enforcement and public safety fits into the article because it is a "related modern use" as the main heading states. Mounted police and s&r riders, with many of their tactics and training, have evolved from mounted warfare. Dana boomer (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is there any infomation on Mounted Infantry that could be included alongside the Cavalry and Horse Artillery
  • We will look into our article's cross-linking with Dragoon. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• What makes this web site reliable ? http://www.medieval-castle-siege-weapons.com/history-of-medieval-armor.html
  • Replaced. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aleksei Brusilov

I undertook a major rewrite utilising Russian sources, in particular detailing his early career. I was not able to exactly source the quotations used (they each come from one of several sources added to the References), and recognise that, as such, they are probably not appropriate. I've left them in for colour, but they can be deleted if they fall outside WikiStandards. Most of the quotes can be sourced to a Russian online resource, but I'm reluctant to because, along with masses of great info, that site also gave me a nasty virus. Can these be referenced in some other way?

It seems to me that the overall quality of the article is a B-Class now (with the above riders on quotations), and would appreciate comment/assistance on dealing with the aspects that are holding it back.FrankDynan (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

The major issue which will hold the article back from B-class is the lack of inline citations, which means the article doesn't fulfill requirement B1. The article requires that someone with those sources use them to reference the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Triarii

This article recently passed a GA review, but I am unsure of how to improve it further. My hope is to eventually make this A class, and I know it needs expansion and some copyediting to get it there. I'd like ideas for expansion and to be pointed to places where the prose could be improved. Thanks a lot.--Serviam (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield

I think that this article would benefit from an image of the equipment of the Triarii. Can you source some images online that could be used as reference material for original work? If so, post a request on my talk page or at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop and I'll try to help out. This will add depth and impact to the article. Dhatfield (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Some things could be improved.

1. The lead could be expanded to two or three paragraphs, per WP:LEAD.
2. If there was any way of getting those sources, they could probably lead to an expansion of the article and the creation of something that is suitable for FA.
3. Is there any information on how the removal of the Triarii as a class during the Marian Reforms effected the legions? I.e. in flexibility, tactically, et cetera.

Just some comments. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Maralia

I've given this a quick copyedit. Some comments:

1. Make the timeframe more obvious in the lead, please. Currently, it only explicitly says when their use was phased out.
2. Parts of the article are hard to parse—especially where, within a single sentence, commas are used both to set off definitions and to join phrases ("They fought as hoplites, usually carrying clipei, large round Greek shields, and bronze helmets, often with a number of feathers fixed onto the top to increase stature"). Rephrasing, using emdashes, and even using the dreaded parentheses are all options, to wit:
   • They fought as hoplites, usually carrying large, round Greek shields known as clipei and wearing bronze helmets often topped with feathers to increase their stature.
   • They fought as hoplites, usually carrying clipei—large, round Greek shields—and wearing bronze helmets often topped with feathers to increase their stature.
   • They fought as hoplites, usually carrying large, round Greek shields (clipei) and wearing bronze helmets often topped with feathers to increase their stature.
3. Are you sure about not italicizing 'hoplite' and 'maniple'?
4. I see some missed wikilinking opportunities: Scipio, war elephants, Sallust.
5. Sallust's Jugurthine War is available at Project Gutenburg in English and in Latin. (Note the quote you used is spelled with Paligna, not Paeligna.)
6. The Mommsen book doesn't have a publisher listed, so I started looking into it. The citation said that it was published in 1903, but also gave an ISBN, which clearly isn't the 1903 version. The citation should describe the exact edition of the book that you used as a source; if that edition does not have an ISBN, then we should not give an ISBN, but instead give an OCLC number (if one exists) for the precise edition used. Further, I noticed that on this particular Googlebook, the 'About' information is wrong: if you look at the cover page of the Googlebook text, you'll see that it was published in 1864, not 1903; the OCLC entry can be viewed here. In summary, please double-check the citations to make sure (1) that you haven't inadvertently repeated any Googlebook errors, and (2) that all the citation information is about the precise edition of the book used to source the article text.

Thanks for an interesting article. Maralia (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Murray Maxwell

Hello, I present for your enjoyment an article about one of those doers of derring with which the British Empire seems to have been so crammed full (what we wouldn't give for one now). In his eventful life, Maxwell was a career naval officer who fought in two wars, commanded a sucessful frigate action, was shipwrecked three times, captured by the French twice and once marooned on a desert island. He even conducted his own private war with the Chinese Empire. He eventually died after being made governor of a Canadian island that he never visited from the effects of wounds recieved twelve years earlier when he was beaten up by political opponents in Convent Garden. To find out more please read on and then come back and tell me what needs improving in order to take a shot at FA. All comments welcome and many thanks in advance.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

The article looks very good, overall. A few points that could use some work:

• There is a lack of commas in some sentences (e.g. "being sent to sea at 14 in 1790 on board HMS Juno commanded by Samuel Hood", "Maxwell, the last to leave Alceste arrived at the island on the morning of 19 February", etc.); some thorough copy-editing would probably be helpful, as that sort of thing will certainly be spotted at FAC.

Will give this a good look soon.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first time that Amherst is mentioned, you might want to indicate his position at the time.

At the time, Amherst was "unemployed". He had been ambassador to Sicily between 1809-1811 and of course was a member of the House of Lords, but he had no official position at the time he is first mentioned.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• The caption on the Gilbert painting should really be in italics, with the ship names in normal type, as it's the formal title of the work.

Done--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• A translation of Napoleon's comment (probably in the accompanying footnote) would be helpful for non-French-speaking readers.

I can't work out what is meant exactly, it translates as "You are very malicious. Eh well", but unless Maxwell had pulled Napoleon's chair out from behind him I don't think this is an adequate translation.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the great work! Kirill ^(prof) 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney

• As more people would be aware of the Black Watch then the 42nd Regiment of Foot I would have included it in the text

along the lines of: A British Army office in the 42nd Regiment of Foot the Black Watch or which became better known as the Black Watch.

Will do.

• There is a link to Frigate in the text so I would also have provided one for Sloop-of-war HMS Cyane.

Will do.

• Is Martello Tower the correct term as the article states they are small defensive forts built in several countries of the British Empire and Italy is absent on the lits of locations.

In the origins section of that article, it says: "Martello towers were inspired by a round fortress, part of a larger Genovese defense system, at Mortella Point in Corsica" - Genoa is in Italy and the British towers were based on the original Italian defence system (known in English as Martello Towers). It is unlikely that the Italians knew them by that name, but English naval officers of the period would definately have used the term.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the Voyage to China section link the East Indiaman General Hewitt.

Will do.

• Provide a link for rajah.Fourteen proas appeared later in the day, led by a large vessel which carried a rajah.

Will do.

A good article and character who could have come out of any number of books about the navy of the period. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

At the Last B Class Review, this article failed for lack of referenced information. It also failed for lack of suitable referances. I have added at least 2 clear references. As well as followed the Military History Project's Style Guide. I have made sure all the information required by the template is present and properly cited. I think this article deserves a B now. But before submitting it, I'd like to have a Peer Review so if its not suitable for B, at least I'll know what to work on. So Can I please know what it lacks to get a B ?

Yes I am aware that this article has 7 Bibliographical references of which only 3 are being used. I don't have access to the rest.. :(

Thanks. perseus71 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bedford

Too many "citations needed" tags for B class. Another English-language-source or two wouldn't be a bad idea.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81

• Expand the introduction, a one liner intro is not really acceptable for any article above Stub-class.
• Is there really a need for Disambiguation here? Could the names of the different units be used instead of the WWI/WWII designation?
• A lot more references and external links are needed for this to be a good B-class candidate. Have asked the aviation people for help? I'm sure they could suggest places to find info on the group. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (1)

• Consider changing the article name. The 1939-45 war is usually referred to hereabouts as either "World War II" or the "Second World War". "World War 2" fits into neither camp.
• Cut down the huge number of blue links. You don't need to link, for example, "hauptmann" every time it's used: just the first time. The same applies to the other rank titles.
• You only need to use the "authorlink" section in {{:tl:cite book}} if the author has a Wikipedia article. It's often neater to dispense with the template altogether, but format and list the same info yourself.

..More later ... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Headers: these should not be capitalised (ie Unit Emblem and Color Schemes > "Unit emblem and color schemes")
• Is this article in US English or UK English? If US, Defence > "Defense"
• Expand the lead (per the other reviewers)
• Close copy-edit required. Examples: Modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland > "modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland"; of Germany from the final Allied offensives (missing closing bracket);
• De-link dates ie [[[January 1|1 January]].
• This note {Note - Eric Mombeek, in "Defenders of the Reich" actually describes it as being a red circle, in volume 2. But then goes on to show it as a black circle in every plate and photograph.) needs to go into a footnote.

Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the scope of my comments goes further than the simple question about B-Class you asked (it now easily meets B-Class). Perhaps you should try to work this up to A-Class? If you need a hand, just ask, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

jackyd101

I agree with all of the above, especially regarding the article's title. However my biggest problem was the standard of prose. Firstly, the prose is very broken up into short sentances and paragraphs which makes it difficult to follow the text. This is worsened by the very heavy use of jargon and the failure to explain clearly early on in the article what exactly the subject is and what it did, partly the result of a very poor lead. I recommend that the lead be expanded to explain clearly what the article covers and the article written in a coherent paragraph structure with limited jargon and that which is used explained clearly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies (2)

Outstanding from earlier

In specific response to your requests about A-Class, the following (raised above) seem to be outstanding and need fixing:

• Another English-language-source or two wouldn't be a bad idea. I see you have added titles but not citing much to them.
• Cut down the huge number of blue links. You don't need to link, for example, "hauptmann" every time it's used: just the first time. The same applies to the other rank titles.
• Headers: these should not be capitalised (ie Unit Emblem and Color Schemes > "Unit emblem and color schemes"). A few remain left to do. I've fixed these.
• Citations can just have the author's surname, year of publication and page number.
• Page numbers are needed for most of the books cited.
• Is this article in US English or UK English? If US, Defence > "Defense"
• Close copy-edit required. Examples: Modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland > "modern Chernyakhovsk in Poland"; of Germany from the final Allied offensives (missing closing bracket);
• De-link dates ie [[[January 1|1 January]].
• This note {Note - Eric Mombeek, in "Defenders of the Reich" actually describes it as being a red circle, in volume 2. But then goes on to show it as a black circle in every plate and photograph.) needs to go into a footnote.
• Prose: Very broken up into short sentences and paragraphs which makes it difficult to follow the text.
• Prose: Very heavy use of jargon and the failure to explain clearly early on in the article what exactly the subject is and what it did,
• Poor lead: needs to explain clearly what the article covers.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Refs and sources

• 5. ^ a b Weal (1996)

• Page number?

• 6. ^ Weal & Laurier, 2001.

• Missing from book list. Page number?

• 7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Schuelke (1995).

• Page number? Chapter? Date of publication? See {{Cite journal}}

• 8. ^ a b Reimer, 2007/08

• Page number?

Reimer is actually a hobby website in the detailed refs section. I question its validity. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

• 10. ^ a b c d e f Goebel (2001).

• Page number?

• 11. ^ Weal (2003).

• Which book (two for 2003: 2003a or 2003b). Page number?

• 12. ^ a b c d e Mombeek (2003).

• Page number?

• 13. ^ Mombeek, in Defenders of the Reich (Vol. II) describes the emblem as a red circle but photographs depict it as a black circle.

• Page number?

• 15. ^ Williamson & Bujeiro (2004).

• Page number?

• 16. ^ a b c Weal (1999).

• Page number?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey

Brought here by Roger.

• I do not see how Reimer's website is a RS. is he a certified pundit?
• "II.Gruppe Jagdgeschwader 1" appears to be a website about a computer game and not a military website at all. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• The lack of references in some places and the somewhat informal prose is a worry. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• The short paragraphs need dto be better integrated. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

North Yemen Civil War

I have expanded this article, including references and pictures. Since this is my first serious article, I would like some feedback on how I can improve it. Please keep in mind that this conflict is not exactly World War II - sources are relatively rare and hard to come by. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cam

Excellent and well-covered article. Just a few suggestions.

• In the infobox, the casualties for the royalists side are listed as "100,000 dead". For the republicans, it's listed as "26,000 killed". I'd stick to one or the other.

• Good point. The 26,000 figure refers only to the Egyptian army. I'll clarify that.

• There's a lot of jargon and weasel-words throughout the article. I'd recommend a good prose copyedit. If you wish, you could put in a request at the logistics department.

• Sure, why not.

• It wouldn't hurt to have someone do a quick checkover of the footnotes & refs. As an example, refs 7 & 12 should be combined, the Schmidt book (which sounds like a good read, I'll try to get my hands on that one) needs an ISBN #, Time Magazine's publisher needs to be listed in the footnotes as well, etc.

• Schmidt's book does not have an ISBN#, probably because it's old. It does have an ASIN#, but I'm not sure what that is.[1] What do you mean by "Time Magazine's publisher?

• Would it be possible to expand upon the long-term political ramifications of the conflict (did it affect Arab League dealings in the future? did it affect the policies of the world superpowers towards those states? what was the response of the western world? How did the rest of the world respond (condemnation/support)?)

• That would be nice, but I don't know if and where I can get sources for that.

Excellent work developing a well-covered article. All the best, Cam (Chat) 04:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

An extraordinarily good and comprehensive read, for which kudos! A few general things:

• Section headings do not usually take an article (ie The royalist offensive > Royalist offensive)
  •  Done
• The citations have linked dates, these should be de-linked for consistency.
  •  Question: How do I do that? Consistency with what? Also, the citations were auto-generated using Zotero.

Consistency with the rest of the article which uses US format dates, unlinked.

To de-link citation dates, you replace the parameter |accessdate = 2008-08-28 with:

• either | accessmonthday = August 28 | accessyear = 2008 for month/day/year
• or | accessdaymonth = 28 August | accessyear = 2008 for day/month/year. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Consider capitalizing "ulema"
  • I did, but most textbooks don't.

Again it's for consistency within the article. The President, the Colonel, the Ulema etc.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Bulleted list: start all entries with a capital letter?
  •  Done
• All quotes need a source immediately following them.
  •  Done
• I too think a copy-edit would be a good idea.
  • I agree. Since English is not my native language, I could use some help with that. Following Climie's advice, I've listed it in the logistics department. No results so far.

Good luck! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Next stop, A-Class? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is it possible for an article to be nominated for A-Class without passing GA first?

Anyway, thanks again for the positive review. Cheers -- Nudve (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure though many editors go to GA because it gives them another layer of review and counts towards a Triple Crown barnstar. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I'll nominate it for GA. If that goes well, I'll move this peer review to A-Class review. -- Nudve (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Basil W. Duke

I am thinking of nominating this for GA, but I thought I'd give MILHIST an opportunity to look thru it for any problems.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kresock

Clean up

Did some work to the page, mostly trimming the intro, section naming to be more consisent with other ACW pages, and other format changes. I removed the redundant parts and put some of the details lower. Here are the things I noticed:

Early life

• "Both of his parents died in an early age." What age? Died at the same time or separately?

 Done--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Attended the colleges in what years?

 Done--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• "...and there were already a multitude of lawyers in Lexington." doesn't sound right to me. Maybe something like "In 1858 he left for St. Louis, Missouri, to practice law with his older cousin (also named Basil Duke) due to an over-abundance of lawyers in Lexington." or such. But I do like the word multitude for some reason.

CW service

• "...after so many pro-Northern politicians were elected in St. Louis, he and four others created Minute Men, a pro-secession organization, with Duke quickly becoming the leader, despite being only 23 years old." entire sentence seems jumbled. What significance was his age? To whom?

• "...indicted for arson and treason." By Whom? Trial?

• "Duke would return to Missouri to help Confederate forces in Missouri, but would eventually return to Kentucky..." too many returns close to each other.

• "By October 1861, he would enlist in his brother-in-law's (Morgan's) command as a private, but would be elected as a Second Lieutenant." I know electing their officers was common in those days, but dates for both ranks would be nice, and "By" should be "In" or "On" if dated.

• "He was twice wounded." I would word this like " During bla bla battle he was wounded in the bla bla on such & such date." for each occurrence and lose that short sentence.

• "Duke was the principal trainer for mounted combat for Morgan's Raiders." Where did they train? Why was Duke chosen to train them?

• "He participated in Morgan's Raid. During this raid his troops would dub him "The Little Whalebone"." Too short, and what inspired the nick? Maybe "On such date Duke participated in Morgan's Raid into bla bla locations" or the like.

• "He was captured at..." Captured alone?

• "..leading troops which gave a chance for others to escape across the Ohio River with Adam "Stovepipe" Johnson, or further into the state of Ohio with Morgan." Should be broken into two sentences, with the second describing how his actions/capture led to the two possibilities.

• "Duke would remain in captivity until August 3, 1864, where he was exchanged." Should be "When he was exchanged" and dated. And this should come after the bit describing the Penitentiary senario.

• "...could have escaped from the Ohio State Penitentiary with Morgan and Thomas Hines, but felt that to do so would hurt the chances of the escapees, as Morgan was easily replaced in his cell by his brother, but no similar replacement was there for Duke." I don't understand this at all. Chances hurt how?

• "...assumed command of Morgan's forces on September 15, 1864, being promoted to brigadier general." Made a BG the same date? I would word it "assumed command of Morgan's forces on date and was promoted to BG on date if they are not the same.

• What was Duke's fate after parting with Davis? Captured elsewhere (and date)? Surrendered and/or paroled (and date)? Fate of his command?

Postbellum

• "Duke would move to Louisville, Kentucky, after the war, and would return to practicing law in 1868..." Should be "After the war Duke moved to Louisville, Kentucky, and in 1868 he would return to practicing law."

• What did he do from 1870 to 1875?

• "Duke died after having surgery in New York City." Died from what? What type of surgery?

Overall

• The citing. I was gonna start combining the cites from the same page(s) of the same source, but then noticed they all are placed together at the end of a paragraph. I'm familiar with in-line citing, but not with in-para citing. Shouldn't they follow the punctuation mark after the words they cite?

I dealt with much that was bothering me before doing this breakdown, and put the rest here. I have a source for most of the relevant ACW dates/assignments and can add them if you wish, after the cites are cleaned up a bit. Just let me know. Kresock (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can add anything, feel free.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 06:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some facts and dates that could be included

• Duke was related to future Confederate general A. P. Hill (brother-in-law) and to future Union general John Buford (cousin-in-law).

• Ranks: First Lieutenant (CSA) Nov. 1861; Lt. Col. (CSA) Aug. 1862; Col. (CSA) 7 Dec. 1862; Brig. Gen. (CSA) 15 Sept. 1864.

• all of his commands during the ACW, including dates

• exact dates of woundings, exchange date, and parole date & location. (parole wasn't from a prison, but from the U.S. government at the end of the war)

• My source wasn't sure of his birth year, and lists both 1837 and 1837 as possibilities. Anyone come across this before?

• Four of his post-war writings and dates.

After any rewriting/adjusting I would be happy to add all of this where appropriate and cite it (using whatever ref system) and link the relevant military ranks to the American use of them at the time. Kresock (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Guyinblack25

I hope you don't mind an outside review by a video game enthusiast. It looks like Kresock had a lot of good suggestions, I'll try not to repeat the same comments. Here's what stood out to me.

The lead

• This seem awfully short. I would try to expand it to at least two paragraphs. The lead should summarize the whole article, but right now it mainly focuses on his Civil War service. I would add in some content from his early life and postbellum.
• Incorrect verb tense:
  "...Duke would later wroIte a popular account..."

Early life and career

• Trimming redundancy:
  "Both of hHis parents died..."
• Same thing. Also did he attend them concurrently?
  "He attended both Georgetown College and Centre College..."
• I agree with Kresock, the sentence about his move to practice law is too long to decipher.

Civil War service

• MOS:IMAGES suggests that images be staggered. I would do that here by aligning the marker image to the left and moving it down from the top to above the third paragraph in this section.
• I noticed several instances of citations with some spaces between them; for example, "[5] [6] [7]". They should flush against each other; like "[5][6][7]".
• Agree with Kresock again on the "pro-Northern politicians" sentence. It's hard to interpret.
• I would wikilink "companies" to Company (military unit) for the militarily ignorant. "He formed five companies..."
• "Acquire arsenal" and "secure artillery" seem redundant to me, but the difference may not be clear to me or the layman. I would either trim or clarify.
  "He formed five companies, and sought to acquire the federal arsenal in St. Louis for the secessionist movement, securing artillery for secessionist forces."
• I assume "Brig. Gen. William J. Hardee" is "Brigadier General William J. Hardee". I would write this out for the layman.

• • Most editors for the ACW pages use User:Hlj/CWediting standards (also recommended & linked on the MILHIST project page), and here the abbreviation use is correct; but we don't wanna confuse so change it if you think it's best. Kresock (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would use emdashes here instead of commas. The extra information breaks the flow in such a way the reader should know.
  "At Elizabethtown, Kentucky during Morgan's Christmas Raid of 1862,—by this time a full colonel,—he was..."
• I would trim the word "surely", unless it's directly taken from the sources. Even then it doesn't really add much:
  "...his men thought he was surely dead."
• These two sentence could be combined:
  "He participated in Morgan's Raid. D, during whichthis raid his troops would dub..."
• It seems like something is missing from this sentence as the meaning of him leading troops isn't apparent to me. Was he captured leading troops? "...on July 19, 1863, leading troops which gave a chance..."

Postbellum

• There were several sentences in this section that used "would". I would put these sentences in a simple past tense to simplify and trim them. See some examples:
  • "After the war, Duke would moved to Louisville, Kentucky, after the war, and in 1868 would returned to practicing law in 1868..."
  • "He would briefly served in the Kentucky General Assembly from 1869 to 1870, and then he resigned"
  • "Duke would also beserved as the Fifth Judicial District's commonwealth attorney from 1875 to 1880."
• The last paragraph is only two sentences long. I would expand it to balance it out with the others.

Personal

• This section seems too small to stand on its own. I would remove the heading and move the content to the lead.

• • I added this section when I went through the page initially, before writing my summary here. It was in an even worse location then, but didn't want to gas it completely as it was the only part describing the man directly. Kresock (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps some. It was a good read and looks close to GA quality. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

David Fuchs

It looks like most of my comments were taken by Guy and Kresock, but I'll give it a good review tomorrow (this is so I don't forget.) One point is that usually the notes are put before references when done in a split format (see Chicxulub Crater, for instance.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Due to changes is WP:MOSNUM which befuddle even me, complete dates are generally not to be wikilinked unless of some importance- I'll leave you to figure out what that means, but just make sure date linking is consistent throughout (you have one full date wikilinked and a few paragraphs later have it plain.)
• Generally, you want to leave out precise sizes (300px, et al) for images so that the thumb parameter changes based on local user settings.
• In case it hasn't been stated above, the lead should be expanded to two paragraphs and detail more of his post-Civil war career. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review

Instructions

Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an article:

1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
4. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

Restrictions

1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

Please add new requests below this line

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

---

Clarence Smith Jeffries

I am nominating this article to be reviewed for A-Class as I believe it meets the criteria. I have greatly expanded this article over the last few weeks, and it was reciently passed as GA. Any and all comments welcome. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, the article passes the A-class guidelines, in my opinion. I, unfortunately, don't feel that I can leave you comments on the prose. Otherwise, as I said, it passes the A-class guidelines, and from what I can say, this also includes the writing. Perhaps someone else can leave you more useful suggestions in regards to the writing. Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments

• "Jeffries was born in the Newcastle suburb of Wallsend, New South Wales, on 26 October 1894. The only child of Joshua Jeffries, a colliery manager, and his wife Barbara, née Steel, he attended Dudley Primary School before moving onto Newcastle Collegiate and High schools." I would split up the school part into a separate sentence.
  • Done. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• What was "the compulsory training scheme." Could we have a bit of explanation or a wikilink. At the moment it is currently assumed that the reader knows what the scheme was.
  • It was a compulsory military training scheme for all males aged between 12 and 26 years of age starting from 1 January 1911. Have added a link to Conscription in Australia#Boyhood conscription. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is meters Australian English?
  • Oops. Fixed. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• The images should be alternated left to right. I would move the second image of Jeffries to left alignment.
  • Typically, yes, however, as Jeffries is gazing and has his body slightly angled to the left, I believe it was suited better to be alligned to the right. I will leave the image as it is for now, and see what others think. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• Other than that, looks good. All seems factually accurate, the prose seems good to me, the images are all free, all referenced correctly. Woody (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Support, passed this for GA and see no reason not to promote to A-class in our project. Structure, tone, prose, citations and supporting materials are all fine. Minor comments:

• Prefer not to see "Victoria Cross" repeated in consecutive sentences in intro - perhaps abbrev. to "VC" in the second?
• Prefer not to see "was to" repeated in three consecutive sentences in Victoria Cross - first two are okay but how about just "Jeffries commanded" in the third one?
• I share Woody's preference for alternating pics but in this case the direction of the subject's gaze also leads me to go with keeping the second one as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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

---

Stanley Goble

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Self-nom for this article on a significant figure in Australia's military aviation history, as I believe it meets the criteria. Was a B-class article for some time, after which I reviewed and made some enhancements, nominating for GA which it's just passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Comment

• Allegiance = Commonwealth of Australia would this not be the Crown ?
  • "Commonwealth of Australia" (or simply "Australia") seems to be an accepted way of rendering it in similar articles.
• Is Federal Govenment the correct term the link take you to The Commonwealth of Australia is a federal constitutional monarchy under a parliamentary democracy.
  • May not be ideal but closest thing to an Australian Federal Government article I've seen. If it seems confusing, an alternative might be to just use "Australian Government" and lose the link entirely.
• Any more details on his early life section, Born then went to work with the Victporian Railway leaves a lot out schooling etc ?
  • Agree but, as discussed in the GA review, none of references consulted include schools, or much of anything else in his early life.
    • Expanded the section somewhat.
• Why did he fail the strict medical criteria?
  • Again the sources are not too precise but will review and see if I can add any more useful detail.
    • Done.
• Why and for what did he win the Croix de guerre ? i presume it was not for being promoted to Flight Lieutenant Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, brought up in GA review - unfortunately nothing in any current sources I've seen. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Reworded slightly to minimise any suggestion of direct connection between promotion and Croix. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Please format references according to this referencing style.
  • Not sure about this, the style employed here is the same as for other related articles I've worked on which have passed ACR or FAC, e.g. George Jones (RAAF officer), Richard Williams (RAAF officer) and Morotai Mutiny, and I think broadly follows guidelines. Would prefer to stay consistent with these similar articles, but happy to discuss.
• Use endashes for page ranges in citations. Example: p. 31-32 -> p. 31–32.
  • Done.
• "Early career" section needs expansion and more references in my opinion.
  • Done.
• Same for 1st and 2nd paragraphs, "World War I" section; last paragraph, "Circumnavigation of Australia" section and 1st para, "World War II" section.
  • World War I done.
  • Circumnavigation of Australia & World War II done.
• Per MOS:IMAGE, text shouldn't be sandwiched between two images (Circumnavigation of Australia section).
  • Done.
• It would be nice if you'd add some references in the infobox, especially within "Unit", "Commands held" and "Awards".
  • My reading of things has always been that we don't clutter the infobox with citations unless absolutely necessary; rather that, like the intro, it should summarise referenced info in the body of the article. I believe everything in the infobox is cited in the main body, so do you still consider this an issue?

Good job and keep up the good work! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks mate, will address all the other points you've raised in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that all my above comments would make your life easier through a FAC, it's up to you whether you apply them or not. I will support this article now as it meets all our A-class criteria in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article for GA, and in the few short days since it's passing the article has been enhanced even further in standard. This is a well written article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment There's something vaguely disturbing about an article that leaves me with questions rather than answers.

• I'm also curious about what was wrong with his physique that caused his rejection by the AIF but not the RNAS. The most common cause was height - but this is not the case here.
  • You and me both - at the outset I'll just say that Goble does have one of the most intricate rank and service histories of anyone I've written on. On this point, only snippet I haven't already put in is from Alan Stephens, who mentions "minor medical grounds". Didn't think that added anything I could put it in if you think it's an improvement.
• "That year [1919] he returned to Australia a Lieutenant Colonel". But Goble returned to Australia on the Gaika on 8 November 1918, as major.
  • The 1919 date was from the ADB entry but you must have another source - can you supply the details?

NAA (Vic) MT1487/1 2001/00494397 [2] Digitised, so you can read it online. Just a page on his coming home. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Brilliant, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• In what capacity was he seconded to the RAN?
  • No info on that - ADB just uses that expression, Gazette from 6 August 1920 says "empld. with the Commonwealth Government of Australia (Royal Australian Navy)".
• "On 9 November 1920, Goble, like Williams, dropped the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and became a Wing Commander". But the RAF changed over to its new ranks on 1 August 1919. Why didn't he change then? Wasn't he still an RAF officer?
  • Stephens suggests both Goble and Williams were Lt Colonels in the Australian Air Corps, a branch of the Army, at this point. I can put that in to make it clearer.
  • Well the ADB says "Thus, although he received a permanent commission in the Royal Air Force as a squadron leader on 1 August 1919, he was at once made an honorary wing commander and seconded for service with the Royal Australian Navy." Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, and that's also backed up by the Gazette. Also found another Gazette entry that we don't yet have in the article which notes that he resigned his commission from the RAF the day the Australian Air Force was formed (to join the AAF). I think I'll put that in and drop entirely the LtCol to Wingco bit. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• "the Federal Government allegedly had a policy of ensuring that they were never in the country at the same time" But the article makes it clear that this was not the case. (Also note Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words)
  • I think the article makes pretty clear that they were rarely in the country at the same time. I used "allegedly" since there appears to be no actual evidence of such a policy, simply that many commentators have suggested it. Can reword a bit.
    • Done - believe the expression used now is consistent with cited source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
• "Newspapers reported that Goble had resigned "on a matter of high principle" " What high principle was that? The abandonment of the concept of an autonomous Air Expeditionary Force? The hare-brained EATS? Conflict with Air Commodore John Russell? (Over what?) The article does not make it clear at all.
  • I can add some more from that news report.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you've made me look it up. I discover that it was the conflict with Air Commodore John Russell. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• That's one of the reasons noted by the sources, but the abandonment of the AEF is also part of it. If you're not sure about my latest version of this, can you suggest wording? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• There's a Featured Article on the Morotai Mutiny. Why isn't it linked to?
  • Yep, I know that article quite well and don't normally need an excuse to link to it, but it didn't seem particularly appropriate in this case. Caldwell was court martialled for alcohol trafficking on the island, not for the "mutiny" (some have implied a connection of course but I wasn't going to get into that here).
• "Many other senior RAAF commanders who were veterans of World War I, including Richard Williams, were also retired at this time, ostensibly to make way for the advancement of younger officers." The article details the difficulties involved if there are too many senior officers left at the top after a war. But Jones' actual words seem to be recommending Goble's discharge on medical grounds, and Goble dies of hypertension a couple of years later.
  • No disagreement but not sure what you're recommending. Jones said what he said, but Goble's exit should also be seen in context of the other forced retirements of his fellow high-ranking officers at the same time.

It seems on the face of it that things are the other way around; that Jones ostensibly removed Goble on medical grounds, but actually to get rid of another annoying officer more senior than himself. I take your point. Leave it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "cerebro-vascular disease" be Cerebrovascular disease? And linked?
  • Thanks, will do.
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• You credit Goble with seven victories but [3] lists ten:

        Date            Time    Unit    Aircraft                Opponent                Location
1 	21 Jul 1916 	1750 	1W 	Nieuport (8517) 	C (OOC) 	        E of Dixmude
2 	15 Aug 1916 	0720 	1W 	Nieuport (8517) 	Seaplane C (DES) 	Off Westende
3 	22 Sep 1916 	1530 	1W 	Sopwith Pup (3691) 	LVG C (OOC) 	        Ghistelles
4 	16 Nov 1916 	1055 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	LVG C (OOC) 	        Gommecourt
5 	17 Nov 1916 	1535 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (DES) 	        Bapaume
6 	27 Nov 1916 	0950 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (DESF) 	        SE of Bapaume
7 	04 Dec 1916 	1100 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	Halberstadt D.II (OOC) 	SE of Bapaume
8 	11 Dec 1916 	1010 	8N 	Sopwith Pup (N5194) 	C (OOC) 	        E of Bucquoy
9 	16 Mar 1918 	1100 	5N 	D.H.4 (N6001) 1 	Albatros D.V (DES) 	Bohain-Le Catelet
10 	16 Mar 1918 	1100 	5N 	D.H.4 (N6001) 1 	Albatros D.V (OOC) 	Bohain-Le Catelet

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, it's an impressive list - but how reliable is this site? I see it quotes a book but I don't know Frank's accuracy vs. Cutlack and Stephens. Perhaps a footnote to the seven victories we mention in the article already, saying he has been credited with as many as 10 and citing this? (I was hoping the two figures could be reconciled by assuming Cutlack and Stephens only credited him for victories as a pilot but according to this table that'd give him 8, not 7.) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Reviewed everything and found - mea culpa! - that Cutlack did not give a figure after all, leaving it between Stephens with 7 and The Aerodrome / Frank with 10. Have rejigged the article to accommodate both, and of course am open to further discussion or suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on references: (this version)
  • What makes #11 and 37 reliable?
  • That's all. Otherwise they look excellent. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks Ed. Re. #11, The Aerodrome, I'm primarily relying on the site - which has been used in many WP articles - because it shows evidence of robust sourcing, in this case a book by Norman Frank which I've since located and found agrees with the representation on the web. Of course I could just use the book but I prefer to include online references where possible for ease of verification. To be fair, I was initally dubious myself in this instance (see above) but that was when I thought I had two reliable references claiming 7 kills vs. the The Aerodrome / Frank with 10, when in fact it was only one claiming 7 vs. one claiming 10. Re. #37, Powerhouse Museum is a major Australian museum so I think its web site is as reliable as say the Australian War Memorial. Last thing, re. your arbitrary change to the references section format - I'd prefer to return to the earlier style as it's consistent with similar RAAF and other Australian military biography articles, and is within MOS guidelines. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
      • No objections then, but watch Aerodome if you go to FAC...you might will get questioned by Ealdgyth if you go there, so make sure that it passes WP:V. :)
        • Tks for the warning - and appreciate your faith referring to FAC but don't want to get ahead of ourselves, still got to get through ACR...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • After I changed the section names, I made this, which will explain why I did that much better than my edit summary.....but yes, they pass MoS either way. =D
        • For now I'll opt for consistency with similar RAAF bios but many tks for further explanation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
      • If there is still a problem with 7 vs. 10, see what Maralia and I did on USS Nevada (BB-36) when a question about the number of torpedo tubes appeared...(in the infobox). You might be able to do the same.... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 14:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That looks like a pretty elegant way of dealing with multiple viewpoints of similar reliability, Ed. With just the two sources in this case I'll stick to how it is but if more arise then your method makes a lot of sense. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Elegant? Noooo. Practical? Yes. :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 01:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Woody

Oppose for now I can't see much wrong with the article, though I have a few lingering content concerns. It seems comprehensive to me, though there are a couple of issues.

• Heh, poor ole' Jimmy - he seemed to have a hard time getting unqualified approval during his life, and his ACR's no different...! No prob, that's what we're here for - hopefully all objections addressed below.

MOS stuff

• The images at the bottom should be staggered and not all in a line. It is overwhelming the text and I think there is something in the MOS about left aligned images above level 2 section headers. If you have to, remove one to make way.

• As you may know, Woody, I also prefer staggered images. However Eurocopter pointed out earlier that when arranged that way in the original version that I submitted for ACR, text ended up sandwiched between two images on left and right, hence my moving one of those to the left. Have now rejigged the section so it should satisfy all prefs.

• If they get sandwiched, remove them. It looks fine to me now. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• May-June 1942 should have an endash.
  • Done.
• I'm not sure, but I thought Commonwealth English was First World War / Second World War as opposed to World War I / World War II.

• I know the former style is often used in Commonwealth-related articles and I don't change it in articles where it's already in place but hadn't understood it to be 'Commonwealth English' per se. I'm just going on precedent since it hasn't been raised as a concern in other ACRs/FACs I've nominated. It doesn't fuss me either way particularly but if I change it here I'd feel kind of obliged to change it in all the other similar articles I've done. However if you think we should standardise this way then I'm happy to do it - let me know.

• I'm not one for all this mumbo-jumbo about correct usage. You might find some reviewers who are vociferous about this, but I'm not one of them. If it is consistent within an article, and this one is, then I'm happy. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Content stuff

• You don't mention that he was shot down twice during WWI.
  • Done.
• There seems to be little to nothing in this article about his personal life. His wife is only mentioned when you talk about his legacy. There is no mention of when he got married.
  • Done.
• Was he buried or cremated?
  • Done.
• That's it from me I think. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support now. I have replied to some of your comments, but it looks A-Class to me. Well done. Woody (talk) 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

---

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

---

Third Battle of Kharkov

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

After two days of excruciating pain, scouring through sources and looking for information, I have expanded this article over five fold (from 7kB to 40kB). I'm interested, right now, in taking the article through an A-class Review. Ultimately, I will also put it through a FAC, but I know and feel that it isn't ready for that yet. Hopefully, the A-class review will improve it to the point where whatever does come in the FAC will be painless to fix (well, relatively painless... FACs are always painful). Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Add some more links. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried wikilinking what I could in the lead; unfortunately, there isn't much to link to. :( JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - "Recommended reading" just doesn't sound right, and has a slightly POV slant. Perhaps change it to "Further reading"? Also, consider delinking the dates in the infobox to maintain consistancy with the body of the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The map is of a very large scale can it be replaced with a better one showing more detail.

• A Soviet drive, spearheaded by four tank corps organized under Lieutenant General Markian Popov, tore through the German front - Tore through sounds very POV.

• Likewise attacked the Second Panzer Army's right flank, making insignificant gains - in who's opinion were they insignificant.

• In the First stage 19 February – 6 March section The Red Army's 3d Tank Army began to engage German units Is 3d correct or a typo ? as earlier in the article we have the 40th Army and the 69th Army for russian forces.

• On 12 March The divisions II Battalion was able to surround the square - there are three II Battalions in the Division one each in the 1st SS Panzer regt,1st SS Pz-Gren Regt and the 2nd SS Pz-Gren Regt. can this be made clear which Battalion

• Likewise with III Battalion under the command of Piper, this is easier as it must be the 3rd Btn of one of the 2 Pz-Gren regiments.

• In a bid to trap the city's defenders in the center, I Battalion of the 1st SS Panzergrenadier Battalion re-entered the city this does not make sense should it be I Battalion of the 1st SS Pz-Gren Regiment ?

The points above aside this is a good article which i enjoyed reading Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support now well done Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to draw my own map, and failed pretty badly. That map I found on one of Wikipedia's user's gallery, as he had also drawn the map for the Second Battle of Kharkov. I don't have any maps that are not copyrighted. The only option would be to have one drawn. I changed the two instances of tore to "broke" and "pierced". In regards to "insignificant gains" I don't think that's POV, just matter of fact. The Soviets couldn't break through the German defenses. Those words are taken from the reference that it's attributed to. I think it's a dangerous game to play to change words like that, just because they may sound as if a Russian reading the article wouldn't agree with them (when it's true—it would be like a Spaniard attempting to claim that the Battle of Annual wasn't a disaster for the Spanish Army).

In the Order of Battle, not all Soviet armies are listed because there were many of them. The 40th and 69th are used as examples (since they're the only ones provided in my references) to the average strength of a Red Army division on the sector, at the time. The 3d Tank Army is actually introduced in the first paragraph of that same section; On 22 February, alarmed by the success of the German counterattack, the Russian Stavka ordered the Voronezh Front to shift the 3d Tank Army and 69th Army south, in an effort to alleviate pressure on the Southwestern Front and destroy German forces in the Krasnograd area.

I made it clear who that battalion belonged to by adding "2nd Panzergrenadier Regiment"; the same for the III battalion, which belonged to the same regiment. And, finally, "Battalion" -> "Regiment". Thanks for catching that. Thank you for your comments! If you can think of something that is more "neutral" than "insignificant gains" I'd be happy to discuss it. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I exchanged "insignificant" for "minor", as suggested. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor question I haven't read the entire article yet, although it does look very good on overview. Small question: One of the sources is "Margry, Karel (2001). The Four Battles for Kharkov. London, United Kingdom: Battle of Britain International Ltd." Is Margry the first or last name? because in the references he is cited as Karel. -- Nudve (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Margry is the last name. I mixed them up when writing the references. I'll fix them. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with comment: I really like it, a nice and clean article! Perhaps the only issue I could find would be that some references are needed within the first two paragraphs of the "Fight for the city 11 March – 15 March" section. Well done! --Eurocopter (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Yea, those two paragraphs are unfortunately scarcely referenced. They belong entirely to those three references; there is a lack of sources on the fighting which took place inside the city itself, thus the reliance on Margry. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • I've fixed a couple times where the same thing has been linked to twice and fixed a couple stylist errors, however I think it could stand a copy-edit, mainly for writing style, especially before FAC.
  • I am especially concerned about this sentence. I've changed it a bit, but it still sounds awkward, mainly because of the use of the phrase "long-run." "Hitler immediately flew to von Manstein's headquarters at Zaporozhe, where the German general informed Hitler that while an immediate counterattack on Kharkov would be fruitless, he could successfully attack the Soviet overextended flank with his five Panzer Corps and recapture Kharkov over the long-run"
  • "where as a Panzer Division could not normally count on more than 100 tanks and most likely was composed of only 70–80 tanks in serviceable conditions at any given time." also sounds especially awkward.
  • The title "Order of Battle" should be changed, I would recommend creating a second article with the actual OOB, and renaming that section "Comparison of forces" or something, as that is not the traditional Order of Battle, just a listing of the units and commanders.
    Otherwise it looks good though, good job. The only major problem I forsee for FAC is the need for a copy-edit and awkward writing throughout. Joe (Talk) 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I rewrote those two sentences and changed the heading. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Well constructed and well written article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I put this through a GA Review and found only a few things wrong with it, and after another run-through I can't see anything to object to. Skinny87 (talk) 09:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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

---

Frederick III, German Emperor

Passed --Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 16:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested this article to undergo A-Class review because over the past few months I have been improving this article greatly, culminating in receiving Good Article status and beyond. I'd like to eventually get it to FA status and feel a review by other project members and getting it to A Class would help on the way and massively improve the article. Thanks. --Banime (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Describing the Emperor as a "war hero" in the lead sounds rather POV, consider changing it. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to how he was celebrated as a war hero because of his leadership in the wars, amd added a source with those sentiments that I cited at the end of the sentence. If you think the citation should go immediately after the claim, let me know. --Banime (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Better, but it still just doesn't sound right to me. Perhaps something along the lines of: "Celebrated for his military successes and leadership during the Second Schleswig War, the Austro-Prussian War, and the Franco-Prussian War before his reign as German Emperor, Frederick III became popular due to these achievements and his liberal ideals." What do you think? Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I like that, I added it in. Things may shift around as I look at expanding/changing the intro, but the sentences themselves more or less will stay the same. I like that wording better anyway. --Banime (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—the lead is too short. The lead should probably be expanded to about two or three paragraphs, and should cover each topic discussed in the article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I edited it, you can see the full reply below. --Banime (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments in relation to the five AC-Criteria
  • A1 - Citation & Verifiability - this is mostly fine, there's a few things that need to be cited that aren't, which I have fact-tag-bombed. References are all formatted fine, all from reliable sources

    Quick question on this one, I can't see any fact tags and I tried ctrl+f searching... can you point me to the right sections? --Banime (talk) 09:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  • A2 - Comprehensive & Accurate - this one's alright, although, as Catalan mentioned, the lead could use some rewriting and restructuring.
  • A3 - Structure - Lead warrants some expansion. Other than that, the remainder of the article is structured very well.
  • A4.1 - Prose - Generally good, although it could use a general tweaking from someone new to the text.
  • A4.2 - MoS Compliance - this one was very good. No issues here.
  • A5 - Images - this is also good. All copyright tags check out, images are well-placed and well-used.

Excellent work so far, just a few improvements and this will be good to go. Cam (Chat) 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot to everyone who has looked at it so far, I'll get to work on the lead improvements (prose, expansion, and npov) and work on the citations needed. Finally, I'll try to improve the prose but I've read it so many times its hard for me to pick up on what's awkward and what isn't. Thanks again so far. --Banime (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments from Lazulilasher First: this is great work. Since you are on the path to FA, I am going to try and provide critical feedback; more so then I would for an article of lesser quality.

• • The Lead: This was mentioned earlier. Remember, if you get this to FA and the article goes on the main page: this is what millions will read. Thus, the lead needs to concisely summarise the entire article, draw readers in; the lead should be able to stand as a briefer, standalone article.
  • Marriage and Family: The marriage was a great love match.: Is this an oft-used historical term? Or is it colloquial? I don't understand what the implication is: did the two love one another? Were they merely a match-made?

    I added a new source with this in it. Both sources state the term "love match" but I changed it so it was easier to understand. The couple loved each other despite having an arranged marriage. Hopefully it's clearer now. --Banime (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

    • Same section: Relations between both parents and William would prove to be difficult throughout the years.: why?
  • Franco-Prussian War I'd be interested in reading just a bit more about his involvement.
  • Vaguaries: Try to be precise, especially when making claims. For example, this sentence from the Legacy section: Many historians have considered Frederick's early death as an end to the course of liberalism within the German empire. Be clear who considers/posits/claims/asserts what: Try Lazulilasher, Saarland historian, considered...
    • In the same section: Given a longer reign and better health, many historians and scholars believe that it is possible that he would have moved Germany towards a more liberal democratic course, possibly preventing Germany's militaristic path towards war Claims, and can we expand this more? This is a WOW! Is there an argument for a "personal/political beliefs" section? Frederick's political beliefs are frequently referenced: might they merit their own section?
  • The Dr. Bergman bit is fascinating.
  • Closing: This is a good read. I would suggest just a bit more expansion on some points, but otherwise: great job. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reply Thanks for the tips Lazulilasher. I made a few changes as you'll see. I'm still working on the perfect introduction and other things, but I'd like to mention my thoughts so far on some of your comments. Another editor suggested merging all of this political beliefs into one section as well too, and I'll look into it. And yes, the claim that he could've potentially stopped both world wars is a big one which is why I was really careful when writing about it. It's a big part of his life and how he is studied. Many people at the time thought he could move Germany into a liberal direction (more like England) and when his father continued to live and then he got sick it spelled doom for that idea, since his son William II was obviously not as liberal (read more about how many historians think that William II's war mongering started World War I, etc.). Many historians today write about that as well (I'll go into it and try to cite specific authors more clearly). But the fact is theres also historians who believe nothing would have changed. And no one really knows anyway, since he died so soon. His shorter life is one of history's big "what ifs" and I want to give weight to why historians still study him today but I don't want to stretch it into a long essay about how he potentially could have stopped World War II before it began (liberal>no war mongering leader>no ww1>no treaty of versailles>no depression etc>no ww2 or something like that). I'll look into it and seeing what I can do to expand it without giving undue influence to either side. --Banime (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  Right, that's going to be tough. Without being an expert on the subject, I recommend: prepare an education/philosophy section investigating his beliefs, opinions, and how those were formed. I wouldn't tread too heavily on what-if-scenarios, but if it is widely enough-held I would cite it (or maybe in the notes section? and have an external link/rec reading part for those looking to read more). All in all, I think this is a well-done article and does service to the subject. Maybe a little expansion as we've discussed above to provide a broader understanding of who the man was (and in what context). Good work, again. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to everyone who has commented so far, especially about the lead. I have updated the lead and expanded it, but I know there must be a few problems with it. Can anyone take a look, let me know if its the right direction, and what else I may need to do with the lead? Also, everything in the lead is cited specifically later in the article, but let me know if anything should be cited again in the lead just in case. Thanks for your help so far. Once this is done I'll attempt Lazulilasher's new sectioning idea, but I want to get the intro great first. --Banime (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The lead is much improved. It summarizes the entire article and provides an adequate overview for the new reader. I prefer uncited leads, as I loathe redundant citations. This is, however, my opinion--others might disagree. I'll keep checking in and take a deeper look at the article/prose over the weekend. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the reply. I also don't particularly like cited leads, at least heavily cited. I also will keep it pretty general (such as the claims that "historians feel this...") and later in the article when I expand and try to work in your sections I'll try to put individual historians in and so forth. Thanks for looking at it again and I'll still be updating it. --Banime (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

  Ok, another thing I was wondering: perhaps the education section could be expanded and somehow "linked" to a political philosophy section. I am trying to picture who this man was—and why. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  I'm doing a major rewrite now. I did the introduction, and would welcome more thoughts on improving it. Right now I'm seriously reworking the "legacy" section to get it close to perfection. I really want it well cited, specific, and yet showing all sides of his legacy (the potentially stopping world war i, world war ii, etc) both good and bad (he wasn't liberal enough, he wouldn't have changed things, etc.). I welcome tips on the legacy section as well. After that I'll try to go through and expand the military section until that is much improved as well, I'll try to better highlight what he accomplished during the wars. Finally, I'll have to rewrite all of the rest to better explain his education, and perhaps add that section on his personal beliefs to better condense all of that. I'm not sure where to put that yet though and what to include in it, so I'll be working on intro/legacy/military first. Also, I'm not quite sure how this works, but since there is a lot of work to be done should I close this A-Class review? I really appreciated getting feedback from all of you though as it helps a lot, would keeping it up be a problem? Thanks for all of your help. --Banime (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  (undent) Excellent. First, I am not an expert on MILHIST's process: but, this type of dialogue is what I imagine A-class' purpose to be. The article was brought here in good shape; what we are doing now is pushing it beyond good. Our intention should be excellence. I think these in-depth discussions are part of that process. Hence, I would support keeping the review open; you are working quickly and the article is improving each time I look at it. A-class critera mirror FA criteria. The more prepared the article is for the FAC process, the better.

  On to the content: great work so far. The key is to balance between detail and summary style (I am notoriously poor at this). I agree, an expanded military section would be useful; I am particularly curious about his involvement in the Franco-Prussian War. It appears you are working on the education/legacy/philosophies section, so let's take a look at that next. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I find it helpful to look at FAs of similar subject matter, for use as a guide. Looking in MILHIST's showcase cabinet, I found these. Perhaps they would be helpful: David I of Scotland, James II of England, and William III of England. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for those tips. I really like how the legacy section and intro are right now so they're definitely in the right direction. I expanded the military commander section a bit so far. I cited the Illustrated London News twice I think for quotes, does anyone know of anyway that I can find an author for that? It's not on the picture of it and I'd really like it, since right now the footnote just says "Illustrated London News" and in the reference section it has just the title, newspaper, page, and date.--Banime (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after a decent bit of work on all of the sections that I thought needed the most help, I come to the concern of adding a new section entitled "Personal beliefs" or something. How do you think, if at all, that should be executed? As I look at it now I feel like it progresses nicely through his life, showing how he gained his beliefs on the way, and it culminates with his short reign and then the large legacy section. However I'm open to other suggestions but I'm not sure exactly how it should be implemented, if at all. Thanks for everyone's help so far. --Banime (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go read the article in one moment; I've been busy trying to start up my new project. I'll try and help in after I reread the article (I've not read it in a few days, and from my watchlist I can tell you've been working a lot on it). Lazulilasher (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't expect you to have as much time with your new admin duties now anyway. Take your time. --Banime (talk) 00:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, adminning (what was I thinking? :) Well, the article looks great: imo very close to FA standards. I've done some minor copy edits, mostly removing redudancies (feel free to revert my changes). I like the Legacy section; it balances both sides of the "liberal" philosophy. I'm thinking that political philosophy could be sandwiched under the Legacy part? However, I'm having a change of heart--maybe they shouldn't be included, as the augmented article already adresses these questions. Not sure; what do you think? Lazulilasher (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot, I support this article's promotion to A-class; although, I would work on eliminating redudancies (also, etc) from the copy before submitting to FA. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. If there should be another section, I don't think it should be after the legacy as I like that at the end. If anything I'd put the political philosophy right after his death and before the legacy I think. However as of now I think it works well without one. I wanted it to go through his life and accomplishments and when appropriate say what things affected his development (politically and so forth) and then have that culminate with his unfortunate early death and never really being able to actually do anything. Then I think that sets up the legacy section perfectly since it shows that he's sort of the big "what if" with ww1/ww2 in many historians eyes. But I've been working this article for months so if any fresh eyes have any ideas I'll look into them of course. And yeah I'm going to go through it more, perhaps submit it to a peer review later and such before going for FAC. Thanks for all of your help so far.--Banime (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support with the improved lead. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • In the second paragraph of the lead, consider linking [[Revolutions of 1848 in the German States|Revolutions of 1848]], as the way it is now sounds awkward, and makes it sound like the Revolutions of 1848 were only in the German states.
  • "or could not because of the German political climate being unfavorable to liberalism at the time." in the lead sounds awkward. Consider changing it to "or could not because of the German political climate at the time, which was unfavorable to liberalism."
  • Revolutions of 1848 should only be linked the first time it appears.
  • So should liberalism. I would recommend making sure there's nothing else linked twice that I missed.
  • "Emperor William, seeking to raise the capital of Berlin to a great cultural center, appointed Frederick as Protector of Public Museums." makes it sound like he was trying to improve the capital of the province, country, etc. of Berlin, not a city. It might sound better as "seeking to make Berlin, the capital city, into a great cultural center..."
  • In the Illness and brief reign section, it might be better to write the full names of the doctors the first time they appear, instead of just "Dr. Bergman" and "Dr. Virchow."
    Besides those problems it looks good, although I would suggest a more through copy-edit before you take it to FA, as there were a couple of awkwardly worded places that I didn't mention here. Joe (Talk) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for the tips, I've made all of those improvements and will definitely get a thorough copy-edit before going to FA.--Banime (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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

---

Battle of Jenin

Closed but not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this article, and it has since been rated as B-Class. I think it could make an A-Class, and would appreciate some input on how it can be improved. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments—I'm not sure on the specifics of WP:LEAD, but I am a fan of either an entirely unsourced lead or an entirely referenced lead. That way there is no confusing on whether the rest of the lead should also be referenced (the referenced material should just be repeated in the main body of the text). It is a well referenced article on a touchy subject, given the widespread nationalism found on Wikipedia. There are some MoS issues, as outlined below:

Thanks for your comments!

• About the lead: one ref is for a quote, which includes the word "terrorist". It could be problematic per WP:TERRORIST. If you think its important, it could be rephrased. Actually, I'm discussing this lead with another user at the talk page now, so I'll see how that develops.

Update: Following a discussion, the lead was slightly changed. -- Nudve (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Numbers between parenthesis (conversions) should not have the units spelled out.

I've removed the "pounds" conversion.

1. In all instances there should be a   between the number and the unit (whether abbreviated or not).

I'm not sure I understand. Can you clarify? It looks like space.

1. If possible, dates should be delinked—this is becoming the preference.

I found one outside the lead, and delinked it.

Overall, however, it looks good. You will probably be asked to get someone to copyedit the article, although I'm not sure if this will be a requirement for the A-class. I would see if anybody is interested, regardless. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agains, thanks a lot! -- Nudve (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, there should be conversions, but the units of the converted numbers should be abbreviated. For the second point, apparently the no wiki tags didn't work for that. Basically, the space should be created by a & nbsp ; (all together), instead of a physical space (this way the number and the unit will remain on the same line; otherwise, there's a chance that they will break lines). Hope this is clearer! JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Nudve (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to retract my support, due to neutrality issues. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some MoS comments:

First, don't start headings with 'the' or 'an' or any words such as those.

Next, put in-text citations after, not before, punctuation marks. Other than that, looks pretty good. I'll read it through later and leave more in-depth comments. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment-clarify what type of boobytraps under 'Jenin' section. It says it was 113 kg, but what was? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, Redmarkviolinist. As it turns out, the article is not quite as stable as I originally thought. There appears to be some dispute over the lead. Therefore, I'd rather wait for it to settle before making minor tweaks. Again, thanks! -- Nudve (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, but these issues still need to be fixed before A-class. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've clarified the bombs issue and renamed the section. I agree on the inline citations, but can you specify where you see them? because a search for ">." didn't find anything. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - this article appears to have been subject to several disputes recently, including a copyright violation, and now contains a neutrality tag; it thus fails criteria A2. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I'd have to oppose because of the neutrality tag alone, that would not even let it pass a GA review, especially with the disputes surrounding the article. I'd recommend working on getting it to GA first then bring it back here for A class review if the article stabilizes. --Banime (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 still meets A-Class criteria - Hawkeye7 (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

This article had an A-class review six years ago. I happened to consult it and found it to be not up to what I would call par, so I've done a considerable amount of work on it. Before bringing it to FAC, I'd like opinions from this neck of the woods. Note that I haven't done one of these in several years so please bear with me and give me a chance to make corrections.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I made a few tweaks, but nothing too serious; this will probably pass FAC, judging from the first few sections. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep: Given that this is already rated as A-class, I assume that the intended outcome of this review is to determine whether or not it still meets that requirement. I had a read through and I'm happy it still meets our criteria. I have a couple of minor suggestions that might help when you got to FAC:

• watch capitalisation of ranks: for instance "Lafayette as a Lieutenant General, in 1791" should be "Lafayette as a lieutenant general, in 1791", because the rank is not being used as a title. For more info, please see MOS:MILTERMS;
• I probably wouldn't use {{French military}} on this page, as I think it is more appropriate for higher level (broader) topics;
• in the References, "Carlier Jeannie, Lafayette, Héros des deux Mondes, Payot, 1988" appears, but does not seem to correspond to a full reference in the Works cited section;
• in the Works cited section, I suggest adding oclc numbers for the works without ISBNs, for example the Fiske work and Gottschalk's 1939 work (and others). These can usually be found on Worldcat.org;
• Leepson appears in the References, but doesn't appear to correspond to a full reference in the Works cited section (I suggest checking all the others as well);
• watch the English variation: I think you are using US English, but I see some British variation, e.g. "criticised" and "reconnoitre" etc.;
• capitalisation: "redoubt 9" --> "Redoubt 9" as it is taking on the role of a proper noun? Same same for "redoubt 10";
• I think that the punctuation here is incorrect: "country.[175] and a large tract of public lands in Florida...";

Anyway, that's it from me. Good work and good luck taking this further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I think I've caught them all but will continue to check.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Brianboulton

I have been asked to review the article. I am not familiar with MilHist's A-class criteria, so I am treating this as a straightforward peer review. If necessary my comments can be transferred to a more appropriate location. This is my first batch of comments:

Lead

• "With the Bourbon Restoration – give year. If 1815 is the year the sentence should be refashioned to make this clear, e.g. "With the Bourbon Restoration in 1815, he became a liberal member of the Chamber of Deputies, a position he held..." etc

The Restoration seems to be dated fro 1814, so I've played with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Early life

• Give year for the Joan of Arc reference. Incidentally, since you use the French form of names, should this be "Jeanne d'Arc"?

I'm disliking to for fear some readers might misunderstand. I think I'd rather be inconsistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Without getting into the murky world of present values, is there some way of indicating what an annual income of 145,000 livres meant in 1770s France? I guess it made him rich, but how rich?

The economies are so different, esp in the cost of labor, that I don't think a comparison, even if I could find one, would be too helpful. Judge him by buying a ship to further his mission, equipping his troops, etc. Ungar says $1.5 million, but how many peasants would that buy today?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe pipelink sous-lieutenant?

Finding a cause

• "The taciturn Lafayette was not popular at court". You state "The taciturn Lafayette" as though this was a given, yet there has been no previous indication of this aspect of his character. Perhaps enlarge the sentence a little?
• Unger's is a fairly recent book, and I would have thought "notes" rather than "noted".

I'm experimenting with not using the present tense for references. After all, in time they will need to be in the past tense anyway.

• Third paragraph: why bring in Raynal? He is not otherwise mentioned in the article, and his influence on Lafayette is unclear, unless he specifically advocated the American colonists' rebellion.
• Fourth paragraph: Three "ands" in the first sentence.
• Last paragraph: "specifically ordering Lafayette to return" – to return where? Also, the words "In addition" at the start of the following sentence, are unnecessary.

Done down to here.

Departure for America

• Give the date of the initial sailing of the Victoire, i.e. before the turnaround and shenanigans before the actual departure on 20 April.

I've checked a number of sources, and none seems to give it. They may stem from a common source ....--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

American Revolution (preamble)

• "major-general" hyphenated here, not earlier
• The words "To address this" are superfluous.

Brandywine, Valley Forge, and Albany

• "In face of..." → "In the face of" – but surely, Lafayette's wound was not a consequence of facing superior forces? Anyone can be shot in a battle.
• "...received command of the division previously commanded by..." Clumsy repetition: perhaps "previously led by"?
• "the Horatio Gates-led Board of War..." A very contrived adjective; maybe "the Board of War, led by Horatio Gates"?

Instalment 2

Barren Hill, Monmouth and Rhode Island

• First paragraph: overuse of name – "Lafayette...Lafayette...Lafayette"...etc. Judicious use of pronouns requested

Done down to here.

• "The French fleet arrived in America..." – could we have a little more geographical precision?
• "When the fleet arrived, Bostonians rioted because they considered the French departure from Newport a desertion." It would surely be more accurate to say "When the fleet arrived it faced angry demonstration from Bostonians who considered the French departure from Newport a desertion."? To simply say that Bostonions "rioted" rather loses the point.
• "In October 1778, he requested leave of Washington and Congress to go home on furlough, and they agreed, with Congress voting to give Lafayette a ceremonial sword, to be presented to him in France." False use of the preposition "with" as a conjunction. I would split: "In October 1778, he requested leave of Washington and Congress to go home on furlough. They agreed, and Congress voted to give Lafayette a ceremonial sword, to be presented to him in France."

Return to France

• "Spain was now France's ally against Britain, and sent ships in support". Sent ships where? This whole paragraph is bereft of geographical detail and is somewhat confusing, e.g the Spanish fleet was "met" by a faster British squadron that "they could not catch"
• Clarify that the 6,000 soldiers under Rochambeau were for service in America.

Second trip to America

• I'm not sure that "trip" is the right word here, for an extended military assignment extending for the best part of two years.

Changed to "voyage". I can't say "Return to America" after he just did same to France, so open to ideas.

• "the large French force promised Lafayette" → "the large French force promised by Lafayette"
• "that summer": Be more precise, as no year has been mentioned in this section so far.
• "...which when granted would play a crucial part in the battles to come". I think "if", not "when"

No, it says it was in fact granted and did play a crucial part, etc. I'll play with it.

Virginia and Yorktown

• "which had succeeded in containing the British" – superfluous words, as you have just said: "Lafayette's containment trapped the British..."

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And take your time. I'm distracted by some home repair issues that are a bit of a bother right now. Nothing terminal, but time consuming.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

More

Hero of two worlds

• "In 1783, in correspondence with Washington, a slaveowner, he urged the emancipation of slaves; and to establish them as tenant farmers." Something amiss with punctuation and syntax here; I suggest "...he urged the emancipation of slaves and their establishment as tenant farmers."
• "Lafayette soon after addressed..." reads awkwardly, especially to British eyes. Personally I'd lose "soon after", and add a comma after "House of Delegates".
• "Lafayette urged the Pennsylvania Legislature to join in a federal union (the states were then bound by the Articles of Confederation) and visited the Mohawk Valley in New York to participate in peace negotiations with the Iroquois, some of whom had met him in 1778." A few issues here. First, this is the second of three successive sentences beginning "Lafayette..." – a pronoun would be appropriate. Secondly, the two subjects of the sentence are unrelated and shouldn't simply be conjoined by "and". Finally, the first part of the sentence is cryptic; it reads as though Pennsylvania was holding out against joining a federal union, and thus needing special persuasion – was this the case? I'd advise a little redrafting here, for clarity and prose organisation.
• Link "Protestants"

Done to here

Assembly of Notables and Estates-General

• "King Louis XVI called an Assembly of Notables on 29 December 1786..." I think "On 29 December 1786 King Louis XVI called an Assembly of Notables..." reads better
• "the King" should not be capitalised – see following section
• "...and called for reform.[90] He called for..." Repetition.
• "The royalist response..." Is "royalist" the same as the "nobility" previously referred to? You need to make it clear that Lafayette sided with the locked-out faction.
• "Lafayette presented a draft of the "Declaration of the Rights of Man..." etc. Presented to whom?
• "The next day, after the dismissal of Finance Minister Jacques Necker..." You need to say that Necker was dismissed by the king, and also briefly explain why this was a provocative act, thus bringing about Desmoulins' organisation of the mob.

National Guard, Versailles, and Day of Daggers

• You have "On 26 August, the National Assembly approved the Declaration" followed immediately by "The Assembly approved the Declaration in August"
• "At the balcony, King Louis appeared..." → "King Louis appeared on the balcony"
• A few words to explain "Jacobin" would avoid readers having to jump out of the article to follow the link.
• Not sure about the wording "a great assembly", providing a link to a specific event – particularly as the event itself is named in the accompanying illustration. A few additional words in the text would eliminate confusion.
• "The royal family was increasingly prisoners in their palace" – sounds entirely wrong. "Family", referring to the individuals who were prisoners, needs "were" not "was".

Decline: Flight to Varennes and Champs de Mars massacre

• The word "unsuccessful" is redundant, given that the plot's failure is evident from what follows.
• "Lafayette's stature continued to decline" – I'd prefer "standing"; "stature" implies he was growing shorter
• Again, better bto give a brief explanation of "Cordeliers" rather than requiring use of link.
• "such as Danton and Marat" – do you mean "including"?
• "finished a constitution": suggest "agreed a constitution" or "finalised a constitution"
• "In September, the Assembly finished a constitution, and on 1 October, Lafayette resigned from the National Guard." Are these events related?

More to follow Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

(PS: - slightly puzzled note: is it MilHist custom to vote before, rather than after, the review?)

My final comments

Conflict and exile

• "Lafayette returned to his home province of Auvergne" – date?
• "but Lafayette did not" seems an unnecessary statement of the negative.
• "led to the downfall of the general" – if you mean Lafayette you should say so, but compared with that of the royal family, his "downfall" was somewhat of a soft landing.

Prisoner

• The mid-section sentence that begins "They hired as agent..." needs attention; T present it's too long and convoluted.
• "With their help, Lafayette managed to escape an escorted carriage drive in the countryside outside Olmütz." I fear there's a word missing – "during"? – as otherwise the sentence doesn't make sense.
• It would help to know in what capacity James Monroe was able to assist Adrienne and her daughters.
• Is "flabbergasted" an encyclopedic term? It tends to make me laugh (we used to have a British comedian who would say: "My flabber has never been so gasted!" and suchlike). I would recommend a less colourful term.
• "For the next two years, the family spent the days confined together in Lafayette's original quarters, while the daughters spent the nights in an adjacent room." Surely the last ten words are redundant, if the family were confined together. The room allocations within the quarters is not relevant.
• "Due to conflict between the United States and France..." – what conflict was this? Is there a link to provide some understanding?

Gentleman farmer

• I wonder if a more apposite section heading could be found? Although he lived in a chateau, there's no indication that Lafayette practised farming there.

Return to politics

• It would be relevant to mention that the comte de Provence was the brother of the executed Louis XVI, and to mention the Bourbon restoration at
• Odd introduction for Sydney, Lady Morgan. Can you say who this lady was? It's worded as though she was the chatelaine at La Grange
• You mention "Carbonari plots" and Lafayette going to Belfort in the same sentence. Is there some relationship? I thought of the Carbonari as an Italian group.
• Perhaps give a year for the start of the Greek revolution, to assist the chronology.

Grand tour of the United States

• Is Levasseur's age relevant?
• "At arrival" → "On arrival"
• "so many years before" is unnecessarily emotive, for an encyclopedia article.
• The quote beginning "It was a mystical experience..." should be attributed.

Revolution of 1830

• "Unhappy at the outcome, Charles dissolved the Chamber, but Lafayette still won his seat". I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the last six words. Are they not covered by the statement that Lafayette was elected to the Chamber?
• "He made fiery speeches in the Chamber" – so the Chamber was not dissolved after all?
• Some lack of clarity at the end of the section. What happened to Charles? Did he abdicate, did he flee, die, or was he killed? The throne was offered to Louis-Phillipe but his acceptance is not recorded. What was the timescale for these changes?

Apparently Lafayette handed the new king a list of what he needed to do to get republican support, and the king said he supported them, and then did not follow through to Lafayette's satisfaction. I think the current wording is enough detail.

Final years and death

• "his neighbors in 1831" → "in 1831 his neighbors"

Assessment

• "and embodiment of the American experiment" → "and the embodiment of the American experiment"
• "uniting figure" → "unifying figure"

A fascinating character, to whom the article (subject to the minor grumps noted) does full justice. Comprehensive, and engrossing to the end. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think I've addressed all your comments. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Auntieruth55

• This is definitely a keep. I've started going through it as well.
• Two immediate things I've found: the question of so and so notes, or noted: since they are contemporary (or relatively contemporary to us) historians, we should use the present tense. If it were historians of the 19th century, we'd use the past tense. I'd also not use their names in the texts, but change to something like Some historians note x... and others note y.... (which I've done.
• Also, I wouldn't use King Charles, King Louis, etc., but just Charles and Louis.
• More to come. auntieruth (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've never been certain where to draw the line on past or present tense for authors and so I'm experimentally trying all past tense (are articles going to be checked in the future for historians dying, etc.?)--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

---

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

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

---

Anglo–Zanzibar War

Promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a current GA which has recently undergone a copy edit at which I was recommended to nominate it for FA/A-class. I have gone for the latter as although I have exhausted all of my current sources I do have a map which I want to make my own version of and upload before it goes to FA. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 11:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've tweaked some of the footnotes for consistency, but is there anyway you can break the London Gazette template so that it aslo uses "p" for consistency instaed of "page"? Secondly isn't it a convention to use 24-hour clocks on military timing articles? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I can do about the gazette refs I'm afraid, I suppose a request could be made to User:DavidCane to change it but I am not sure what work would be involved as I have no experience of the template system. I wasn't aware of the convention for 24 hour times but I can change them if its a convention. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Should just add that I am not a member of the Military History Wikiproject so the 24 hour thing could have easily have passed me by - Dumelow (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Full disclosure: I have made minor contributions to this article recently. The article is NPOV, comprehensive, well written and well illustrated. Dhatfield (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Looks great so far; excellent work. I am very impressed with the length of the article; it provides an overall summary of the event without over detail. I think the article is close to FA class, but I have a few prose concerns. Here is some brief feedback that I hope is helpful:
  • Perhaps cut back a little on the wikilinks (e.g. barricade, marines, sailors, etc).

 Done, I took out many of the obvious ones which seemed to be concentrated in the lead - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm concerned about the 2nd sentence in the lead: "With..." Maybe: The conflict lasted only 40 minutes, the shortest in recorded history. Not sure about this, though.

 Done, I have changed it to look a little more "sentencey", hopefully reads a little better now - Dumelow (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • This sentence: Hostilities opened with the expiry of the ultimatum at 9:00 am EAT on 27 August and a force of three British cruisers, two gunships, 150 marines and sailors and 900 Zanzibaris under Rear-Admiral Harry Rawson and Brigadier-General of the Zanzibar army, Lloyd Mathews, attacked the palace. might be better broken up. I propose: Hostilities opened with...27 August, when the British attacked the palace. The force consisted of: etc etc...

 Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Perhaps the next sentence should be in the past tense: Around 2800 Zanzibaris defended the palace; the force included recruits from the civ pop,...etc...

 Done - Dumelow (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Work on redundancies in the prose. For example: In all, around 500 of the Sultan's force were killed and the British force suffered just one sailor injured. Consider: The Sultan's forces sustained roughly 500 casualties, while one British sailor was injured.

 Done, fixed this instance, will check for more - Dumelow (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Perhaps break complex sentences into simpler, easier to understand chunks. For example, the following is lengthy: Britain and Germany vied for control of trade rights and territory in the area throughout the late 19th century; in the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty of 1890 Germany ceded its rights in Zanzibar to the United Kingdom and pledged not to interfere with British actions there.

 Done, fixed this instance, will check for more - Dumelow (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, I hope this helps! I'll try and come back later. Good work, Lazulilasher (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that Lazulilasher, they are all good suggestions and I will try to make the changes highlighted later today. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although with a comment:

1. Anything that was checked from a website should have an access date.

JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I have added an access date for the times obituary which, I think, was the only one lacking. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks great. Joe (Talk) 00:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

---

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

---

1964 Gabon coup d'état

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for User:Editorofthewiki. This article recently failed a FAC, although I think it should have passed. This is to prepare it for another FAC (I'm assuming it will go through a FAC again). JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You assumed correctly! I'll deal with all the issues here, as long as they are presented in a constructive manner (We had a problem with that at the last FAC). Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not call a bird a fish. I don't recall seeing any concerns in the last FAC that weren't presented in a constructive manner. In fact, the amount of help you received was way, way, way,way above and beyond the call of duty.. a large table was created to help you check your resources.. an editor sent you sources that you did not have, after spending time researching the topic for you... that same editor corrected nontrivial factual errors in the article... etc.
• I would ask potential MILHIST A-reviewers to wade through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive1, looking at all the omissions in the article that were pointed out, and come to an objective assessment about whether they have been addressed. As for cite check—a wholly separate issue!—feel free to edit the "Gabon" section of User:Ling.Nut/keep...
• Above all, the most important point of reference should be the FA's closing rationale
• I won't have time to participate in this A-review. Good luck! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

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

---

Battle of Vigo Bay

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote this article and havn't put an article up for A class for a long time, so any comments welcome. Thanks. Rebel Redcoat (talk)

Comment - on a quick look through the article, I have noticed that a number of sentences at the end of paragraphs are unreferenced. This needs to be ammended in order to pass criteria A1. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - Issues addressed. Well written and cited article that meets the criteria. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The totals for ships in the info box, do not have a source/ref , and many statements in the text that need citations.Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text.

• The lead does not have a single reference.

• After the sentence Rooke sent ships to explore the mouth of Vigo Bay. A landing party had gleaned information from a captured friar that King Philip’s part of the treasure had already been landed, but that much wealth was still left on board the Spanish vessels., there should be a reference. Same as the following:

Rooke collected his prisoners and troops and set sail for England, Shovell following later.

The result was a financial windfall for Philip.

I have put citation needed tags in.

Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Redmarkviolinist - the lead does not need references. Per MOS, it is supposed to be a general summary of the entire article (which this appears to be, although I have not read the article closely), and therefore does not need to be referenced. Therefore, I have removed the fact tags you placed in the lead of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose A decent start, but there are too many citation needed tags, and too many unsourced statements. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Citations look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response

OK, there’s some inconsistency here with the A-Class reviews.

The review of the Battle of Fort Henry is a current A-class nominee: it is of a similar size to this article and has 16 fewer citations. Yet, it gets support. Maybe because the people who supported that article actually read it, rather than tick off a checklist from an ever-burgeoning rulebook – now there’s a novel idea!

Why would I need to cite the statement - "The result was a financial windfall for Philip", when the preceding sentence (cited) reads - "In total, Philip managed to keep nearly seven million pesos, representing over half the silver from the fleet, amounting to the biggest sum in history obtained from the American trade by any Spanish king."

Another example - "Rooke collected his prisoners and troops and set sail for England, Shovell following later". A more banal sentence you could not find, yet a fact tag has been slapped on the end. Why?

So we now have the situation where the article gets plastered with unnecessary fact tags, and then it gets opposed because it's covered in fact tags.

I shall cite the ship numbers, but people who are willing to re-write much of the dross found in the MilHist project should not be discouraged or strangled by an ever increasing tangle of red tape.{no citation needed} Rebel Redcoat (talk) 18:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Mate, before I read an article in a review I have a quick scan through to see if there are any telltale signs of something wrong or missing. One of the main things I look for are citations/references. Even if the article is well cited in most places, if you were to take the article to FAC now it would not possibly pass with so many sentences at the end of paragraphs unreferenced. You have compared this review and article to the review and article of Battle of Fort Henry in the number of citations. If you look closely at the aforementioned article, you will see that everything in it is cited. Mate, please don't react badly to anything mentioned or stated above. If you try and replace the "citation needed" tags with proper citations, then it is highly likely that the oppose will disappear and you will gain supports. Redcoat, I'll make you a deal: if you find references/citations for the sentences and place them in, I will read every scrap of this article and provide you with either comments on the article's text that could lead to a support, or a support itself. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Having another quick look at the article, I can see that a number of "citation needed" tags have been added in the middle of paragraphs. If these sentences have been cited by the next source slightly further down in the paragraph, then just remove the tags stating that it is cited in that area. However, please do not remove the tags on actual unsourced statements until they are referenced. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Abraham ( and the others editors as well) - I think the stress has finally got to me! I thought the easiest thing to do was to simply cite all the queried sentences. If anyone wishes to oppose please do. My primary concern is whether the article reads well and is historical accurate (or at least as accurate as I can make it); relatively speaking, what grade it gets is of minor consequence. If it fails A-class that's perfectly OK. I shall answer any queries if I can in the next day or two, but then I'm taking a break from Wiki. Thanks again. Cheers for now. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and now I will uphold my end of the bargin and throughly review this article. On a quick look through, everything now appears to be very well cited and if I were you, Redcoat, I would contact Juliancolton about revoking his oppose as his concerns have now been addressed. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think the "cultural references" should be removed, given that it sounds a lot like "popular culture". JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • Use Template:fixbunching to fix edit section links at the top.
  • Shouldn't the Spanish be included as one of the belligerents in the infobox?
  • I would recommend using the cite book template in the references section.
  • I agree about the Cultural References section, it is extremely short and would be better integrated into the article somehow.

Besides those minor points it looks good. Joe (Talk) 21:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the bunching myself. JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In the lead section it states that "hopes of capturing the bulk of the silver cargo had eluded Rooke". Did you really mean that the hopes eluded Rooke, or is it that the capturing eluded him?

Yes this is poorly worded. I’ll change it.

• • In he final sentence of the lead, does "Allied" refer to member of the Grand Alliance? Maybe you could move that link up in the sentence.

Done.

• • "Victuals", "whence"? I know this isn't the Simple English Wikipedia, but perhaps some more widely accessible words could be used?

Well, victuals is the correct nautical term – a supply ship is a victualer. I'm reluctant to change it. I’ll change ‘whence’ to ‘From where’.

• • Inconsistent spelling of "Câdiz"/"Cádiz"

I spotted one, if I haven’t missed any more.

• • "Whilst" is specifically mentioned as a word to avoid in the Manual of Style

While is an older word than whilst. ‘Whilst’ is BrEn, and as an Brit I hope to continue to use the formal whilst and amongst. But if it’s a big problem, it can be changed.

• Perhaps a mini summary of the "Aftermath" section (a sentence or two?) would help avoid having the subhead "Plunder" directly under "Aftermath"

The simplest thing to do is to delete the ‘Plunder’ heading: it’s not needed.

• In the "Plunder" section I think the two colons (both after the word French) should be semicolons. There are other colons throughout the article that seem like they should be semicolons as well.

The colons are correct. Vigo Bay was a major naval disaster for the French: of the 15 French warships, 2 frigates and one fireship, not a single vessel escaped. The first part of the sentence is a complete statement, introducing a directly related explanation. Therefore a colon is used.

Here again, a colon is correct.

The Spanish suffered as badly: of the three galleons and 13 trading vessels in their fleet, all were destroyed, save five which were taken by the Allies.

• In the same section, the French in "French warships" is redundant, since you've just stated that you're talking about the French a few words back.

Absolutely correct. Done.

• Add some SI/metric unit conversions of the silver and gold. Also, unless the pounds and ounces are other than standard (as they may very well be), they really shouldn't be linked because they are considered common units.

Done. I’ve added kg values.

• Can you explain why the fleet's arrival was "cause of celebration to the merchants in Holland"? Forgive my American ignorance, but wasn't Holland a part of the Dutch involved in the Alliance?

The use of ‘Holland’ – as opposed to Dutch Republic – was deliberate. The province was the centre of Dutch trade, consisting of the major cities of commerce. It was an attempt to be specific. I’ve linked ‘Holland’ if that helps. If not, replace ‘Holland’ with the ‘Dutch Republic’.

• The section on the silver seized by Philip is confusing to me. Whose silver did he seize and how did he seize it?

The article states the silver was off-loaded before the battle and carted off to Segovia. As stated, most of the silver was owned by the Spanish government, but what belonged to the ‘English and Dutch traders’ was, again as stated, ‘confiscated’.

• Why are the tables in the "Fleets" section centered? On a wide-ish screen they look funny floating so far from the left margin. Also, the meaning of some of the information in the "Notes" column for the Anglo-Dutch fleet eludes me. For Mary, for example, what does "Phoenix (fireship)" mean? Was Mary attacked by Phoenix? Did Mary destroy Phoenix? I don't know.

No, these are fireships that accompanied the Allied fleet. I’ll make that clearer in the table.

• The French ship names in the table don't necessarily mesh with ship names given in the text. Example: Bourbon in the text, Le Bourbon in the table. Even if both names are correct to some extent, they ought to be identified in the article by the same name (unless, of course, they are two different ships).

I can remove the ‘le’ from the table to avoid confusing ‘Bourbon’ with ‘Le Bourbon’

• Agree with the opinions above about the "Cultural references" section. Rather than lose the information, it could be added to a footnote referenced from the "Plunder" section where the treasure is discussed.

Yes, agreed. The only reason it’s there is because it was there in the old article. I’ve deleted it.

— Bellhalla (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, some excellent points. I think your link to the Royal Sovereign is incorrect, though, - it’s the wrong HMS RS. I’m not contributing to Wiki at the moment due to personal reasons. Not enough time etc. I didn’t think an A-class review would take so long. I will not be able to reply, but as I stated before, it’s not important if it makes A class, but it is certainly improved thanks to your contribution, and to the others as well. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support (if Bellhalla's concerns have been responded to), given that my only comment was taken into consideration and I don't see anything else which would impede its promotion to A-class. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.

Featured article candidates

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:21, 27 November 2008 [4].

---

Battle of Lipantitlán

Nominator(s): Karanacs

previous FAC (02:25, 12 October 2008)

This article is about the third battle of the Texas Revolution, and one that wasn't supposed to be fought. The soldiers essentially ignored central command (a recurring theme in this war) and launched their own attack on a small Mexican "fort". I had to withdraw the last FAC due to real-life priorities and have since re-written much of the article. Both User:juliancolton and User:Jappalang provided a pre-FAC unofficial peer review. Karanacs (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support as per my previous review and copyedit of the article. Good work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. A well-written article about a battle that although small gave the Texians a strategic spot and contributed to the eventual driving out of the Mexicans from Texas. Events that lead up to the battle, during it, and after it are described, giving a comprehensive account. The only pity is an absence of photos of the battle site, but that is no obstruction for FA and can be easily changed (some kind soul pass by there and upload a free picture please). Jappalang (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image concerns resolved. Awadewit (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:GoliadRefugioSanPatricio Texas2.JPG - We need to include a reliable source for your map (we Wikipedians aren't professional cartographers, you know!). If you didn't copy it out of a book, but just made it with a online tool or something, we need to at least include mention of that online tool. Awadewit (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Awadewit, I didn't know to do that. The information has now been added. Karanacs (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Very nice little article, and very interesting. Nice map, as well! Skinny87 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Links check out, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This seems pretty vital. I can't see (but maybe missed) any sourcing of either of the two names of this battle. Fundamental, I'd suggest. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  • This online source referenced in the article talks about the "Lipantitlán Expedition". Is that the same thing? --Dweller (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Spotted excess linking of "Texas Revolution". --Dweller (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dweller. I have cited the names in the lead, and I have removed the extra linkage to Texas Revolution in the battle section (that leaves 1 instance of linking in the lead, 1 in the background section, 1 in the infobox, and 1 in the template). Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support
• I opposed this article on the first go-round, because it appeared to be a small skirmish that didn't affect much. Whatever you did to change it, now it still seems to be a small skirmish, but the implications of it are much more impressive.
• Is it me, or is the verb agreement off in this sentence? After reaching Matamoros, Rodriguez sent a letter to the town leaders, warning them that the Mexican army would return and encouraging them to repudiate the rebellion.
• I think you should use this article as an example of the context issues in the FAC discussions about small articles. You might be sick of that, but this was an interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I reworded that sentence. Not sure if it's better than before, but shouldn't be worse After reaching Matamoros, Rodriguez sent a letter to the town leaders. The letter warned that the Mexican army would return and encouraged the people of San Patricio to repudiate the rebellion. Karanacs (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:43, 16 October 2008 [5].

---

USS Nevada (BB-36)

Nominator(s): —the_ed17—

I'm nominating this article to be featured because it recently passed an A-class review and I feel that it is ready/almost ready. I'm not entirely sure about the quality of the prose, as I added chunks of info from different sources at different times... Basically, I fear that I am too close to the article and I missed some prose issues. =) Hopefully, there are none... Cheers! :D —the_ed17— 18:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• References check out with the link checker, though the fourth external link is dead.
  • removed
• What makes http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_dr.htm#nev-cl a reliable source?
  • I believe so. All of the WP:MILHIST reviewers didn't have a problem with it in its A-class review.
    • See below about how to show something is reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I could almost copy and paste TomStar's second sentence below right here; "The information contained on the cite has been repeatedly check by me against second and third party sources, and has always agreed with the source checks, so I regard the site as reliable, if that means anything." Hazegray has always been accurate when compared with other sources; in fact, I believe that most of the citations that Hazegray provides make statements double-cited (double sure!). Does it really cite contentious information? I'd rather leave it in because it's the only citation I found that said it was in refit for all of 1942...otherwise it wouldn't be a problem... —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Tomstar's response is unrelated to how we determine if a site meets WP:V and WP:RS. Ealdgyth has linked a Dispatch which explains how to address the question. There is nothing at http://www.hazegray.org/about.htm that speaks to reliability. "I checked their info and it looks reliable to me" isn't part of WP:V. Please address this. Also, can you please streamline your signature per Wikipedia:Signature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Removed. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/Features/BuildBetter.htm is reliable, but another opinion would be appreciated.
  • Iowa class battleship's ref #49 uses this site too, and that article is featured. (And recently went through a FAR)
    • I'll just note that the site was still unstruck at the end of the FAR, no rationale for why it's a reliable site has yet been put forward. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • The page herein is sited to the Iowa clas battleship preservation society, a group that is dedicated to preserving information on the Iowas. The information conatined on the cite has been repeatedly check by me against second and third party sources, and has always agreed with the source checks, so I regard the site as reliable, if that means anything. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Was I the only one to notice that I did exactly what that dispatch said not to do? (The dispatch: "Saying "It's used in 15 other featured articles": OtherStuffExists isn't a valid argument." What did I do? "[This article] uses that ref too") ...sorry! =/ —the_ed17— 05:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • This source doesn't seem to be in the article anymore, so I'll strike. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/36a.htm ditto with above.
  • I'm not sure if it is reliable, but the info is from the New York Times and only repeated on that site.
    • Maybe pull that info from the NYT itself then? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • ....the other shoe drops: it's the NYT from 1915...how in heck do I find an article that old?? —the_ed17— 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • A newspaper archive? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Specifically here. The wonderful thing about the NYT is that they have put up a good chunk of their archives... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Holy mother of pearl...that is a lot of articles, and the source doesn't mention what day the caption is from... I'll go hunting, but I won't have time for that hunting until this afternoon/possibly tommorrow. —the_ed17— 13:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Late, late notice, but I found the article (I think it's the same one; regardless, the articles same the same thing methinks). Thank you very, very much for the link, as I got three sources outta that!!! Cheers, —the_ed17— 15:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Is http://www.acepilots.com/ships/nevada.html reliable?
  • It's not—but the image that appears on the site is an official U.S. Navy paper, and that is what I'm using from the page.
    • Is it possible to get the information from the Navy paper, instead? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • How would I cite it? The image is in the article, by the way, if you want ot look at it; it is the very last one, I believe...) —the_ed17— 13:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • You could use {{cite news}} or {{cite book}}, which don't require a URL. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Alright...I'll get to it as soon as I can (I has mid-term today...) —the_ed17— 13:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Almost forgot about it! Done now (ref #40)...like it? —the_ed17— 23:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
• Again: http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/usn/BB-36.html
  • Hmmm I really don't know. Any other opinions? (The info it has isn't controversial, by the way, I believe that it only references that the wreck of the ship has never been found...)
    • Ok, the information isn't controversial, so I'll strike. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some issues I noticed in a quick glance:

• The order in which you present the sourcing subsections—Bibliography, Notes, References—is strange to me for a couple reasons. First, these sections are usually presented in descending order of relevance to the article text (Notes, References, Bibliography using your section headers). Secondly, the order you used dissociates the References from the Bibliography.
  • Go Sandy! (she changed it)
• 'See also' sections are for internal links to relevant articles. Your See also section lists other books on the topic; the best name for this would be Further reading (since you have already used 'Bibliography' in its other meaning).
  • Go Sandy!
• Please tweak the Bibliography to consistently list authors by last name, first name (since that's the format you use in the References).
  • Go Sandy!
• Some of your references have wikilinked accessdates. You can achieve unlinked accessdates in most citation templates by replacing the accessdate= parameter with accessyear= and accessdaymonth=.
  • =( I'll go through and change them.
    • Doing this changes the refs to "01-09 2008", which I don't like at all. Wouldn't it be simpler to change the {{cite web}} template so that it doesn't link the dates?
• Formatting of page citations needs minor attention for consistency in punctuation (Bonner, 105. vs Wallin, 212–213). Note that dashes in page ranges should be endashes.
  • Will do.
    • Done and done.
• Most, if not all, of the image captions are nominal groups—not complete sentences. These should not have ending punctuation.
  • Done.
• Inch or the abbreviation 'in' should be used with the figures in the armor thickness section of the infobox. Additionally, when giving a range, the unit of measure should only be given once (not 13.5"–8", but rather 13.5–8 in).
  • Will do also!
    • Done.

These are all minor formatting issues; I'll try to get back for a full read of the article soon. Maralia (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops, shoulda read here first :-) When I take my first look at new FACs, I almost always correct ACCESS and LAYOUT issues :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. =) —the_ed17— 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick comments'

• I've had to learn to live with "she" for ships, but there are an awful lot in the lead. Can you vary it a little? ("the Nevada"? "the ship"?). I see you use just Nevada further down; wouldn't it take "the" before it?
  • Any other opinions on "the"? I believe that you are not supposed to use it..I think that the ship is thought of almost as a person, and therefore has no "the". Am I right? (I've been wrong before...) —the_ed[[User:the_ed17/Newcomers|17]— 13:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• En dash for year ranges.
  • Will hunt these down.
    • Dumb question...where? (I put one in the Bibliography, put I think that I overlooked what you are talking about...)
• Ellipsis dots are ... spaced. See MOS.
  • Was there only the one occurrence? (the one I fixed already? =])

Looks good. Tony (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Question: with information I just added, I compare Nevada to Oregon, Connecticut and Delaware. However, do I use "BB-3", "BB-18" and "BB-26"? These designations did not start until 1920...and I'm in the pre-1915 part of the article (Design and construction). Any military history buffs want to help? (I'll post this on the WP:MILHIST talk page too.) —the_ed17— 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Answered here...thanks Tom! —the_ed17— 05:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: The are a few things I have questions about.

• First, in the opening paragraph, you have the sentence "Nevada served in both World Wars: in World War I, she was attached to the British Grand Fleet until the end of the war; in World War II, she was one of the battleships moored in Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked it." The "it" at the end is Peral Harbor, but in this case it may be better state that rather than imply that becuase it could be construed as meaning Nevada, and that would put your article at odds with naming conventions since ships need to be all "she/her" or all "it".
  • Changed to: "Nevada served in both World Wars: in World War I, she was attached to the British Grand Fleet until the end of the war; in World War II, she was one of the battleships that was sunk when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor." Is that better?

• In the first section, you have the lines "Their tonnage was almost three times larger than the USS Oregon (BB-3) and almost twice as large as the USS Connecticut (BB-18). Also, the class was 8,000 tons heavier than one of the original American dreadnoughts, the USS Delaware (BB-28).[9]" Here the problem is plurality, we have two or more of one thing; which suggests that we are dealing with a class of ships, but the wording implies that we are only talking about one ship in a class (if there is a class, some of these lower battlewagons don't have a class). This needs to be resolved.
  • Changed to:

The Nevada class marked "another graduated step in the rapidly evolving American battleship".[10] When Nevada was originally built, The New York Times remarked that the new warship was "the greatest [battleship] afloat"[9] because her tonnage was nearly three times larger than the USS Oregon (BB-3) and almost twice as large as the USS Connecticut (BB-18). In addition, Nevada was 8,000 tons heavier than one of the original American dreadnoughts, the USS Delaware (BB-28).[9]

• In the interwar year, the last sentence is "Nevada then served in the Pacific Fleet for the next eleven years." Do we know what she was doing? I don't expect anything too important, but it might be nice to see if anything pops up in her history during this time. I will not hold this against you if you can not find any information, this is merely an "I am curious" question.
  • A guess is that Bonner has that on Page 104, but Google Books won't let me view that page, (I don't own the book!) DANFS is where the "eleven years" statement came from, and Battleships in the U.S. Navy is a general overview of battleships and does not have that info.

• Attack on pearl harbor, first sentence: "During the attack on Pearl Harbor, Nevada was not moored side-by-side with another battleship off Ford Island, and therefore was able to maneuver, an ability that was denied to the other eight battleships that were present." There are two problems with this statement: first, there were a total of eight battleships present, but this phrasing suggests that there were actually nine, eight other battleships and USS Nevada, not eight battleships including USS Nevada. This should be easy to fix. The other problem deals with manuvering: it is technically correct to note that the other battleships could not move, but IMO it should be noted of of the other seven battleships six were anchored at Ford Island; the seventh, USS Pennsylvania, had been drydocked before the attack and thus was not anchored at Ford Island during the air raid.

Otherwise it looks good. Well Done!

• • I can not believe that I overlooked that...-_- Did you like the note I added? (Note:A6) Thanks for the comments Tom! —the_ed17— 23:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support The "A6"mentioned note was a great addition :) It looks good, and as such now has my support. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 00:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• Can someone help me a bit with the Pearl Harbor map I added? It's huge because the key doesn't fit if it isn't huge!! -_-

• need to re-word this sentence, 'cos I have too many "first"s....how?
  • "The class marked many firsts for U.S. Navy battleships: they were the first to have triple gun turrets,[11] to have a single funnel,[12] to have anti-aircraft guns,[13] and the first to be fired with oil instead of coal,[13][14] which gave them an engineering advantage.[8]" Thanks for the help, —the_ed17— 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You could move this to the class page and that would solve your problem. If you needed it reworded, how about "The class was the first to have triple gun turrets, a single funnel, anti-aircraft guns, and introduced oil fired power plants which would give them an engineering advantage over earlier coal fired plants." TomStar81 (Talk) 03:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Remind me aagain: who says that you suck at grammar? —the_ed17—
  • Also, with regard to images: the commons linker is there for a reason; if the people complain about the absence of images you can always tell them that the article's images are set and that there are additional images at the commons. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm going to get rid of the key, I think, because it has no bearing on this article...then I can get the map smaller. Thanks! —the_ed17— 03:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • There's nothing wrong with Tom's grammar—it's his spelling that makes me weep :) You should, though, add an 'and' in that sentence to complete the list ("gun turrets, a single funnel, and anti-aircraft guns, and introduced"). Regarding that map: I would make sure the key is linked on the map image page, but I wouldn't include the key on this article, as the gradient between most of the colors is so vanishingly small that it's not very helpful. Maralia (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

        • D 'And' is being added now. I will add the link now to the key in too...and the key is already out of the article :).

• Support—I just commented before. But please note that supports carry only minor weight here. More important is the addressing of critical comments. Range en dash: I can't find it either. Just one substantive matter: the real value of the dollar amounts in 1912 was HUGE. When I looked at the $5M cost, I though, nah, that can't be right. It is very misleading. I wonder whether you might locate the table with dollar equivalents and insert the 2008 estimate. Anyone know where it is? There's a $50K amount, too. Tony (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why don't we abolish inflation so I don't have to do this? :D Serious now: where would I find the conversion table? Is there a template somewhere? I looked through the inflation article and couldn't find anything...so you mean Inflation adjustment? Thanks, —the_ed17— 13:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Brian's articles on the polar exploration has this sort of thing converted, use the site he uses. Check any of his antarctic or artic ones. (I don't have the site bookmarked because it doesn't go back to medieval money, unfortunately) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • ...who is Brian...? (Am I searching Wikipedia or the entire web?) —the_ed17— 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Southern Cross Expedition is one of his articles. Brian is User:Brianboulton. The website is Measuring Worth. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Does Brian's site account for the various specialty items? I adjusted for the cost of the Iowas in their class articles on the Consumer Price Index and left a note with the adjusted cost that the new cost did not take into account specialty items; if Brians's site does, then I may exchange his my site for his. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
            • No clue, I've only ever used it on stallion articles for adjusting race purse sizes, total lifetime earnings, and stud fees, all of which, while certainly a niche type item, don't qualify as "specialty". Suggest reading the site to see... they offer like three or four different types of adjustment ratios. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Added in as notes A4 and A5. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 01:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
                • Err... please take a closer look at the Measuring Worth site. The adjustment method you've used is the Consumer Price Index, which only works well with a broad basket of consumer goods. It's not the best method to use for a heavy industrial project like constructing a battleship. Majoreditor (talk) 02:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, I went off of the "it can be interpreted as how much money you would need today to buy an item in the year in question if its price had changed the same percentage as the average price change", but I'll remove it if someone else concurs with you (and I think that someone will :D). Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 03:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments I copyedited the lead, made some MOS fixes, changed accessdate parameters in references (to remove linking on dates), and added a couple dates in the infobox from NVR. I will continue a copyedit later (headed out to run errands now), but it would help if you take a look at the changes I just made and carry on with fixing the accessdate formatting. One source comment:

• The Abraitis source needs to be replaced. The author's site is indeed hosted at princeton.edu, but that doesn't mean he's a professor, nor would his being a professor mean he was an expert in a relevant field, nor would his being a professor in a relevant field mean that his website was necessarily a reliable source with appropriate fact-checking and publication controls. (Sorry if that comes across as condescending - just trying to explain where bad assumptions can trip you up when assessing a source's reliability.) In fact, at [6] Abraitis lists his occupation as "employed as a computer programmer by a "Prestigious Ivy League" institution".

Back for more copyediting later. Maralia (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I liked that copy-edit!! Thank you!
  • Plehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.................that's where assuming something comes back to get me. I'll stay with the NYT source then, which says "a little less than 600,000 gallons". —the_ed17— 17:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Finished my copyedit. I left one hidden comment/question in the text. Are you still working on replacing some of the less-reliable sources? I haven't gone over the references in detail yet. Maralia (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh my goodness! Thank you! I saw the hidden comment, and tomorrow I'll leave a message for the guy who added that info in (Thewellman, I think? I'll check the history). References should be alright; Hazegray's info is reliable and none of the MILHIST A-class reviewers had a problem with it. The only non-RS is the Pacific wrecks.com one (the very last ref). I believe that it cites non-contentious information, but if the ref is seen as a problem, I'll remove it immediately. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Nope, I was the one who added the info, so I fixed it myself. =) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A few more comments, mostly on references:

• HyperWar is not an ideal source; the author lists a bibliography, but it's site-wide (not page-specific). I would consider it a tertiary source at best, since he cites both secondary and primary sources in his bibliography. HyperWar is used to support the commission date in the article text, and some portion of the armament section in the infobox. The commission date is sourced in the infobox to DANFS; let's use the same source for the citation in the article text. For the armament, there are so many sources cited at the end of the section that I can't tell which source supports which data, but I would prefer to try finding a more reliable source to substitute for HyperWar there.
  • ...it provides sources though! Per Ealdgyth above "...or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods". Here they are! Yes, they are site-wide, but it is sourced...
    • Please reference WP:V and WP:SPS policy. I can find nothing at http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/about.html to indicate that the author or website is a recognized expert. That he sites what he claims are his sources is irrelevant; anyone can put up a website to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• On a related note: I have a really hard time making sense of the armament section. There's so much information there, and almost nothing is linked (and 1920s should not be); it's just impossible to look up what guns she had at a given time. I'm sure I can come up with a better way to organize it, but this will just make it more necessary to break out the sources to clearly indicate which source supports which part of the armament text.
  • Have I improved it to your satisfaction?
    • I created an article for the 14"/45 caliber gun, its not muc, but its a start at least. I may get a DYK out of it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
• I notice that Ealdgyth questioned whether battleship.org (the Iowa Class Preservation Society's site) is a RS, and Tom explained why he feels it is reliable. I have a simpler question: why not drop this citation as it is the least reliable source of the four sources cited for the same sentence?
  • Done :)
• Please add the parameter |format=PDF to any cite x templates for references that link to PDFs (the NYT links are all PDFs).
  • Done.

Maralia (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support from Maralia I'm comfortable with the sourcing now. I gave the formatting a thorough going-over this morning:

• Tweaked the armament section for similar formatting to rest of infobox
• Removed HyperWar cite in armament as there were three other cites for the same fact
  • There was a reasone for that...sources conflict as to whether there were 2 or 4 torpedo tubes. I'm going with 2, and Hyperwar said that...
    • Hmph. So you say HyperWar, Hazegray, and The Battleship in the United States Navy say two, while Fitzsimons says 4. Well, DANFS says both Nevada and Oklahoma had 4 (4 21” tt). There's enough question that I would suggest you elaborate on this in a Note. For a defining tie-breaker, suggest trying to get your hands on Norman Friedman's U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History (check for a local copy here). Maralia (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Using Google Books, I found the book. It says 2 torpedo tubes as well. ([7] [Pg. 438])
        • That page indeed says 2, but Friedman explicitly says 4 elsewhere in the book, too. His books are incredibly accurate, but maddeningly difficult to wade through for one specific fact, as he tends to describe (and chart) specs throughout every step of the design process. I'll post more when I have some specific quotes. Maralia (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I didn't see any "4"'s anywhere when I was hunting...but I can't look anymore either. "...you have reached your viewing limit for this book." -_- Thanks for all of the help, Maralia. Cheers! —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 04:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I've posted a lengthy response here: Talk:USS Nevada (BB-36)#Torpedo tubes, and some Googly delights. Maralia (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
              • I put that into a note: see note A2. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 15:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Replaced HyperWar cite on commission date with DANFS cite
• Removed 'christened by' from infobox as the infobox is a mile long, the info is already in the main text, and we rarely put this (low importance) item in infoboxes anyway. Also moved the citation for it to the main text (which had a different cite)
• Replaced templates on some New York Times citations; not sure why you used {{cite journal}} instead of {{cite news}}
• Fixed date formatting in publication dates for NYT citations (they were using monthdayyear format but the rest of article uses daymonthyear)
• Straightened out a weird problem where the converted draft figure (in meters) was listed under the Decks parameter
• Added link to the NVR page into the {{NVR}} template
• Removed a citation for an image as unnecessary
  • Did I miss one? Well, apparentlyI did.... :) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• For the weird citation regarding her resembling the South Dakotas, I added the name of the book that the specs image was published in (Naval Recognition Manual) and the publication year (1943)
  • Thanks! I had no idea where the image was from...

Thanks for an interesting article. Apropos of nothing, may I ask why you picked this particular ship? Maralia (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! But that is a good question...I really don't know. For some reason that I can't remember, I've kinda "idolized" not the exact word I want, but w/e the ship since I became interested in Military History...so then I came here and I was like "Hmmm, I could improve this!"......so I did, and then it snowballed past the GA stage. =) —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 22:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Please address the non-reliable sources: I'm concerned about the sourcing that is getting past MilHist A-class lately. Also, pls see Wikipedia:Signature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. I really don't know why you had to bold that.... And what does "streamlining" mean....I made the sig smaller with <small>, and the "vote" thing that I was doing for fun is on my talk page now. Is that what you wanted? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 02:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• More notes: There is a mixture in both the article and the citations of US-style and international-style dates, even within one sentence, which is it:

• Her keel was laid down on 4 November 1912, and by August 12, 1914, the ship was 72.4% complete.

• Both citations and the article need to have a consistent date style.
  • I believe that this is done.
• Can you address the text squeezed between images in the first section, "Design"? I'm not sure how to fix it, since these ever increasing infoboxes are taking over almost the entire lengths of articles.
  • Not really....the images are really only relevant to that section, so they can't be moved down...
• I don't know what's happening in the infobox: some of the "×" are spaced, some aren't. Please see what WP:MOS says or aim for consistency:

• 10 × 14-inch (356 mm)/45-caliber guns (2×3, 2×2 ...

• Done.

• 30% to 40% of what? With this new armor scheme, the protection tonnage was increased from 30% (in the New York class) to 40%. Total tonnage? And what is "protection tonnage"? Please watch the WP:JARGON; in fact, a jargon check throughout would be helpful: why isn't Dreadnought linked in the first sentence ?
  • I think that "protection tonnage" is the total amount of tonnage in a ship devoted to armor. I re-worded the sentence. The source used 30% of the New York's tonnage--but then in the next section it remarked that armor was 40% of the Nevada's displacement. I'm not sure, but I think that these (tonnage & displacement) are different, so I changed the sentence to only remark upon the latter.
  • Done.
• What makes Hyperwar a reliable source, per WP:SPS and WP:V? http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/about.html
  • Would you like me to change ref #49 to reference the actual communique and then use HyperWar as a convenience copy..?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 [8].

---

Operation Tractable

Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)

This article concerns the Canadian half of the final offensive of the Battle of Normandy, from the capture of Falaise to the closing of the Falaise Pocket. Passed its GA on June 16, 2008 (followed by copyedits from User:EyeSerene and User:SGGH), passed its ACR 10 days later, underwent a peer review shortly after that. Minor copyediting for MoS and prose tightening have been ongoing throughout the last half week by myself. I believe that it meets the criteria for Featured Article. Esteemed Regards, Cam (Chat) 18:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• What makes http://montormel.evl.pl/ (refs 11, 16, 20, 22, and 31) reliable?
  • Memorial Mont-Ormel is the memorial/museum/archives situated on Hill 262 commemorating the Polish 1st Armoured Division
• What makes http://www.junobeach.org/e/2/can-eve-rod-nor-cam-e.htm reliable?
  • Juno-Beach Centre, the Canadian memorial/museum/archives in Corseilles-sur-Mer commemorating Canadian actions throughout the Battle of Normandy. Both are the official sites of museums on the conflict, I would think that that would make them reliable enough for usage. Regards, Cam (Chat) 23:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support
• By contrast, Polish casualty figures for Operation Tractable are known. In their movements against Chambois and Mont Ormel, the Poles put their losses at 325 killed, 1,002 wounded, and 114 missing.[31][14] Prior to the Chambois and Ormel actions on August 14–18, they lost a further 263 men.[23] This brings the total Polish toll for Operation Tractable at 1,704 casualties, of which 588 were fatal. -> Is there any non-Polish source for Polish casualties, to compare and contrast?

I do know for a fact that Roman Jarymowycz mentions them in "Tank Tactics". I do not, however, have the pg. # for the statistic on me at the moment. I'll take a look if I can find the book again. All the best, Cam (Chat) 23:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Good luck! JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Operation Tractable began at 1200 on August 14, with 800 Lancaster and Halifax bombers bombing German forces." Awkward sentence structure.
• Time inconsistencies: "Operation Tractable began at 1200" but "At 7 pm on August 20, 1944".
• "On morning of August 20"—Needs a the.
• "Composed of close to 20,000 men and 150 tanks before the campaign, it had been reduced to a mere 300 men and 10 tanks." "mere" sounds POV.
• "Prior to the Chambois and Ormel actions on August 14–18," "Prior to"-->Before, it's simpler.
• "a 20 minute ceasefire"—"20 minute" should be hyphenated.
• "Although the first day's progress was slower than planned, Operation Tractable resumed on August 15, with both armoured divisions pushing southeast towards the hills east of Falaise." Awkward.

Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All Fixed (I think). Cam (Chat) 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Is the 2nd SS Panzer Corps the correct formation as 12th SS Panzer Division was part of the 1st SS Panzer Corps ? I can see where later in the article 2nd SS Panzer is correct with the details about DAS REICH etc.

Ah, probably should have been more clear about that. 1SS-PC was attacking from inside the pocket to try and get out, 2SS-PC was attacking from outside to try and get 1SS-PC out. Cam (Chat) 23:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• On August 16, the 2nd Canadian Infantry Division broke into Falaise itself, encountering minor opposition from Hitler Youth units

This should be changed to opposition from units of the 12 SS Panzer Division. The Hitler Youth did not take part in any fighting in Normandy. The division was made up of ex member of the HY, who had to be over 18 to join the Division like many of the 18 year olds in UK & US divisions of the time. [ref]Reynolds, Michael. (2007). Steel Inferno: I SS Panzer Corps in Normandy. Spellmount Books. ISBN 978-1-86227-410-5(will find the page number if required)[/ref]

Fixed. Even then, some sources do mention Hitler-Youth battalions in Normandy (although that varies from source to source. Per Exemplar, Bercuson & Copp mention it, as does Van-Der-Vat, but D'Este, as far as I know, doesn't). Cam (Chat) 23:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support If these points above can be clarified Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. My sourcing issues have been addressed. Karanacs (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I found the article very engaging (I had to fight the temptation to skim ahead and find out what happened to the Polish forces on Mount Ormel!). I am, however, concerned about the sourcing. I understand that the websites referenced are official museums. However, unless the content that you are citing was written by published historians, I do not consider those to be exceptionally reliable sources. (I am, for example, working on the article Battle of the Alamo, and I will not rely on the website of the group that maintains the museum and archives).) They are essentially self-published by the museum. There is also a minor issue with the MOS: All measurements should be in standard and metric. There are several measurements given only in miles. Karanacs (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In Rebuttal:

• • Both of these source issues are relatively easy for me to fix. While I can't eliminate all of the references to those sites, I can definitely decrease my reliance on them (on account of having purchased a few books I didn't have when I first wrote the article). I'll do my best today & possibly tomorrow to reorganize some sources. I can also cite some stuff from the books I already used instead, although it will make for a much less diverse reflist. I'll also try to look a bit deeper into who wrote the Memorial Mont-Ormel site & JBC site. All the best, Cam (Chat) 23:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I have almost completely removed the JBC from the reflist (only 2 references compared to 8 before). The section on the Battle of Hill 262 is proving somewhat more difficult, but the rest is proving relatively easy. Cam (Chat) 23:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• • • I appreciate your hard work in resourcing much of the article. I am still troubled that a statistic (the number of deaths in the campaign), is sourced to a self-published website. The few remaining references to the websites don't really involve controversial data, but this one could be. Is there any way that could be sourced to something else? Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
      • fixed. I found it amid the footnotes of Jarymowycz's book on WWII Tank Tactics. Cam (Chat) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support

It's a good article, Cam, and I only have a few niggles to iron out before I wholeheartedly support the article.

• • 'The action at Falaise was the largest encirclement in the West during World War II, though it pales in comparison with the large encirclements on the Eastern Front, such as during the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa.' - That needs a citation
  • Some of those redlinks could do with stubbing out, IMO
  • Aftermath section could do with being a bit larger when I look at it; it seems a bit too brief really. Skinny87 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

All conditions met, moving to full Support Skinny87 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support - Love the prose. Nevertheless sourcing needs work. (per Karana). — ceranthor ^(strike→) 14:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support I see a featured article, although one that could perhaps have some work with the sources. At any rate, you got my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:33, 13 October 2008 [9].

---

TAM (tank)

Nominator(s): JonCatalán^(Talk)

The TAM is an Argentine tank developed in the late 1970s and still in active service. I wrote the majority of this article (well, re-wrote) based on the information coming from the only major written source on the tank - Javier de Mazarrasa's book, La Familia Acorazada TAM. I have attempted to diversify the sources as much as possible by scouring through various English sources (unfortunately, there are no English sources which focus on this specific vehicle), and so I have come up with about fourteen additional references. This article passed an A-class review and was recently peer reviewed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support I found no major issues worth mentioning, this fills all the criteria. Domiy (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Page ranges in the references need en dashes. Otherwise, references and sources look good. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • All dashes done. Giggy (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• All images are fine. Giggy (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the lead:

• "is a main battle tank in service with the Argentine Army" - "main battle tank" could be some jargon I'm not aware of it, but if it's not, then I'd have this as "is the main battle tank..."
• "in 1994 manufacturing began anew until the Army's request of 200 tanks was fulfilled" - did they fulfil the request in 1994 too? The reader is left hanging, somewhat.
• "but the TAM was ultimately never exported." --> "but was ultimately not exported."

Giggy (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to address the three concerns. For the first comment, I wikilinked to main battle tank since I thought "a" sounded better than "the" in this specific case-well, actually, "the" might be better since "a" may infer that there is more than one MBT in service with the Argentine Army. In any case, I clarified the second point by adding "prematurely closing the production line in 1983", and changed the word in the third concern. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 12:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support The article fills the criteria, IMHO. As far as I know from other (non-verifible) sources, the information currently in it is accurate. The pictures included depict reasonably the current aspect of the vehicle. The author of the main source cites is quite well-known nas has several other boks published. Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally supportive. I have a few comments from the top.

• "Profile" means "height", does it?
• "103,333" without the decimal places would be fine, and easier on the reader.
• Can you make it clear where and by whom it was manufactured? Was it the Argentine MoD, and Argentine corporation, or what?
• Do we really need "Spanish language" linked? Who's gonna interrupt their reading to go to that article? Same for British, a word that will confuse most of our readers, I'm sure. "Second World War" and "Atlantic Ocean" too? The low-value links are diluting the good ones, particularly in the first sentences of "Development". Tony (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Profile is the correct word, average height would be a poor substitute though with some of that meaning; Whilst height is more likely to be interpreted as the height of the highest point of the tank. ϢereSpielChequers 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, profile does refer to height. "Profile" might fall under the category of jargon though, although I think it's more specific than "height". I could go with silhouette instead—I'll change it temporarily. I removed the decimal values in 103,300.13. I tried to make it clearer by adding "local mass production", to infer that production took place in Argentina. I delinked some of the words, as well. I hope it looks better now. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment I didn't spot any reference in this article to the Falklands War which I believe is the only external war fought by the Argentine army whilst this tank was in service; perhaps this is because none of them were shipped to the Falklands, or none had quite entered service in time. If you have sources that cover this question I think it would be worth a mention in the article as I may not be the only reader who wonders about that. Also were these vehicles used by the Junta against the Argentine people? My understanding is that most of the dirty war preceded their deployment but if they did see any civil repression action that also would be worth a mention. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that an old version of the article did mention that the tank was used in a coup (early 1990s, I believe), but it was mentioned by an unreliable source—I, unfortunately, do not have a reliable source which mentions the same information. On the other hand, I do have a source which mentions they were not used in the Falklands, so I will add that in. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction, the statement was unsourced. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking in to that, though with an inanimate object like a tank I'd be inclined to use a word like deployed or saw action rather than participated. ϢereSpielChequers 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as of this version Comments on this version — Jappalang
Lead

• "The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern, well-armed tank, with a high velocity, low silhouette and low weight."

Suggestion: "The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern light-weight fast tank that was equipped with adequate fire-power and had a low silhouette."

Development

• "Despite attempts to procure equipment from the United States, Argentina was only able to secure 50 M41 Walker Bulldogs and 250 M113 armored personnel carriers."

This statement is a bit weird in that Argentina did buy American equipment in their attempts there. What is the reason that they should not be able to purchase 300 armored vehicles from US? Did the US previously promise to replace the Argentinian entire tank fleet? If the contradiction is not clearly explained, then "Despite" should not be used. Suggestion: "In their attempts to procure equipment from the United States, Argentina could only secure 50 M41 Walker Bulldogs and 250 M113 armored personnel carriers."

• "Turned down by the United States for further equipment, the Argentine government turned to the nations across the Atlantic Ocean and put into gear the so-called Plan Europa (Plan Europe)."

"Put into gear" seems a bit informal... Suggestion: "Turned down by the United States for further equipment, the Argentine government turned to the nations across the Atlantic Ocean, putting their Plan Europa (Plan Europe) into action."

• "Argentina went on to procure 80 AMX-13 light tanks, as well as 180 AMX-VCIs and 24 AMX-155 F3s from the French government, manufacturing around 40 AMX-13s and 60 AMX-VCIs at home."

Go straight to the point. "Argentina procured 80 AMX-13 light tanks, 180 AMX-VCIs and 24 AMX-155 F3s from the French government, and later manufactured around 40 AMX-13s and 60 AMX-VCIs."

• "possible substitutes for the existing Argentine Sherman fleet."

Suggestion: "possible replacements for the existing Argentine Sherman fleet."

• "In 1973 the Argentine ministry of defense put in a series of requirements for a tank to enter service in the 1980s. These included a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, grenade launchers, a road range of at least 500 kilometers with a maximum velocity of 70 kilometers per hour and a weight of no more than 30 tonnes. Taken into consideration was the existing infrastructure in Argentina, including railroad capacity, bridges and road capacity, and the several types of terrain which existed in the country. In late 1973 the Proyecto de Tanque Argentino Mediano (Medium Argentine Tank Project) was founded with the goal of studying, designing and developing a future tank for the Argentine Army. The lack of experience and the necessary technology pushed the Argentine government to look for a foreign company to provide it with these things, resulting in a contract being established with the German company Thyssen-Henschel. The contract agreed to a transfer of technology resulting in a program to develop a tank under the requirements issued by the government and under a technical team which included both German and Argentine engineers. It was decided to use the hull of the German Marder armored personnel carrier, and the chassis was strengthened to support the increased weight of the TAM."

Suggestion: "In 1973 the Argentine ministry of defense put up a series of requirements for a tank designated to enter service in the 1980s. The armored vehicle would weigh no more than 30 tonnes and could, at a maximum speed of 70 kilometers per hour, cover at least 500 kilometers on the roads. It would be armed with a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, and grenade launchers. The designers of the tank also had to take into account the existing infrastructure in Argentina, including railroad capacity, bridges and road capacity, and the various terrain which existed in the country. In late 1973 the Proyecto de Tanque Argentino Mediano (Medium Argentine Tank Project) was founded to study, design and develop this future tank for the Argentine Army. Lacking the experience and necessary technology for the project, the Argentine government looked for a foreign company to help to address these shortcomings. It signed a contract with the German company Thyssen-Henschel. The terms of the contract called for German and Argentine engineers to work together in developing a tank which would fulfill the requirements issued by Argentina. The Germans would also transfer the technology to the Argentines, allowing the South Americans to develop and produce tanks on their own. The joint German-Argentine team decided to use the hull of the German armored personnel carrier, strengthening the chassis to support the greater weight of the TAM."

• What did the Germans get in return for this transfer of technology? They seemed to get the short end of the stick here.

• "The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and lethality."

This statement comes from a primary source. Suggestion: "According to its manufacturers, the light and compact Rh-105-30 could destroy its target with its first shot on most occasions."

• "On the TAM, the FM K.4 does not have a muzzle brake and can elevate to 18 degrees or depress to -7 degrees."

Suggestion: "Unlike the Rh-105-30, the FM K.4 does not have a muzzle brake. The locally built cannon can be elevated to 18 degrees or depressed to -7 degrees on the TAM." Furthermore, I think it is preferable to briefly explain the workings of a muzzle brake.

• "The tank's secondary armaments include a co-axial 7.62 millimeter FN MAG 60-40 general purpose machine gun and a second FN MAG 60-20 mounted on the TAM's turret roof as an anti-air machine gun."

Again, a brief explanation co-axial in layman terms would be nice. Is there any way to separate the FN MAG 60-40 link from the general purpose machine gun link (two blue links side-by-side that may be mistaken as a single link)?

• "which computes the gun's fire solutions"

There could be less than military-buff readers around. How about "which helps the gunner in aiming the cannon to hit the target."

• "The tank commander makes use of a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope, with a 2x and 8x zoom."

Suggestion A: "When inside the tank, the tank commander uses a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope to observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects."

Suggestion B: "A Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope allows the tank commander to remain in the tank and observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects."

• "The TAM's engine requirements included low weight and compactness, but with a fast rate of acceleration and high reliability. The program chose MTU's MB-833 Ka 500 diesel engine, producing 720 horsepower at 2,400 rotations per minute."

Suggestion: "Requirements for the TAM stated that its engine had to be light and compact, capable of producing a fast rate of acceleration, and highly reliable. With those terms in mind, the program chose MTU's MB-833 Ka 500 diesel engine, which could produce 720 horsepower at 2,400 rotations per minute."

• "a maximum velocity of 75 kilometers per hour"

Suggestion: "a maximum speed of 75 kilometers per hour"

• "It has a range of 500 kilometers with its internal fuel capacity of 680 liters, and 900 kilometers when adding the two 200 liter external fuel tanks."

Suggestion: "With a 680-liter internal fuel tank, the TAM could travel 500 kilometers. Its range is extended to 900 kilometers if the vehicle is equipped with two 200-liter external fuel tanks."

• "The TAM's survivability is based upon its low profile turret, based on that of the Leopard 1A4s and the Leopard 2's, and physical armor arrayed around the tank. It has 50 millimeters at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the vehicle's sides. This offers protection against anti-armor shells from up to 35 millimeter guns. The turret front is protected by 50 millimeters of steel armor at an angle of 32 degrees. Although the tank's weight and armor protection are light compared to other main battle tanks, it has the advantage of better tactical mobility over the nation's terrain."

Suggestion: "The TAM relies on its low profile turret—based on those of the Leopard 1A4 and the Leopard 2—and armor to survive in the battlefield. Its armor is 50 millimeters thick, sloping at 75 degrees on the glacis plate and 32 degrees on the sides. This offers protection against anti-armor shells fired from guns up to 35 millimeter calibre. Likewise, the turret front is protected by 50 millimeters of steel armor at an angle of 32 degrees. Although the tank's weight and armor protection are light compared to other main battle tanks, it has better tactical mobility on Argentina's terrain."

• "As a private venture, Rheinmetall Landsysteme built a fourth prototype, completed in 1978. Apart from the existing periscopes for the tank commander, the position was also given a PERI R12 periscope originally designed for the Leopard 1A4. The gunner and loader received a day periscope each, as well. To fire at night, a low light level television (LLLTV) camera was fitted to the mantlet, which moved in elevation with the main gun."

Suggestion: "As a private venture, Rheinmetall Landsysteme built a fourth prototype. Completed in 1978, it added a PERI R12 periscope, originally designed for the Leopard 1A4, for the tank commander. The gunner and loader each received a day periscope as well. To enable the crew to fire effectively in the night, a low light level television (LLLTV) camera, which moved in elevation with the main gun, was fitted to the mantlet." Furthermore, where is this mantlet (a portable protective shield)?

• "The improvement program also made provisions to increase the armor thickness to provide additional protection."

Suggestion: "The improvement program also made provisions to increase the armor thickness for additional protection."

Variants

• "FN MAG 60-20 situated on the turret roof."

Suggestion: "FN MAG 60-20 mounted on the turret roof."

• "Infantry can dismount through a door situated to the rear of the hull."

Suggestion: "Infantry can dismount through a door on the rear of the hull."

• "The VCTM carries an AM-50 120 millimeter internal mortar, with a range of 9,500 meters and a rate of fire of 8 to 12 shots per minute."

Suggestion: "The VCTM carries an AM-50 120 millimeter internal mortar, capable of firing 8 to 12 shots per minute up to a distance of 9,500 meters."

• The second paragraph starts with "Other variants include the ..." and ends with "Variants also include ...". It might be better to reword either of those (preferably the latter).

Production

• "Fabrication of the TAM began in 1979, in Argentina, with the intention of manufacturing 200 tanks and 312 VCTP infantry fighting vehicles, for a total of 512 armored vehicles. However, production ended in 1983 due to economic problems with only 150 TAMs and 100 VCTPs built."

Suggestion: "Argentina intended to manufacture 512 armored vehicles—200 tanks and 312 infantry fighting vehicles—and started production in 1979. Economic problems, however, forced the program to stop in 1983 after 150 TAMs and 100 VCTPs had been built."

• "Although originally 25 VCA-155s were planned for production starting 1990, only 19 were completed and delivered by 1995, along with 50 VCTMs."

Get rid of the noun plus -ing. "Although 25 VCA-155s were originally planned for its production which started in 1990, only 19 were completed and delivered by 1995, along with 50 VCTMs."

• Why did the article stop at 1995 for the production? Are there no reliable sources that can confirm if TAMSE is still in operation and producing tanks?

• "The factory is completely covered, with two warehouses for storing components, quality control laboratories, a project office, an engine test room and a firing range. Also participating in the production of TAM and variant components were Argentine companies Military Factories General San Martín (manufacturing the chassis), Río Tercero (turret and armament) and Bator Cocchis, S.A."

Suggestion: "The factory is completely covered. On its premises are two warehouses for storing components, quality control laboratories, a project office, an engine test room and a firing range. Besides TAMSE, other Argentine companies were also involved in the production of TAM and its variant components. These companies include Military Factories General San Martín (manufacturing the chassis), Río Tercero (turret and armament) and Bator Cocchis, S.A."

Export and combat history

• "In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs, although upon completion of 20 of these the order was canceled due to budgetary problems in the country."

Suggestion: "In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs. The order was, however, canceled due to budgetary problems in the country after 20 tanks had been completed."

• "The TAM achieved 950 out of 1,000 points, while its closest competitor only earned 750 points, but in the end Ecuador did not procure any of the vehicles presented."

The mention of its competitors "only" scoring 750 points seem a bit biased. Perhaps, "Although the TAM scored 950 out of 1,000 points, outscoring its competitors, Ecuador did not procure any of the vehicles presented."

• "The Iranian deal fell through after Saudi Arabia and Iraq appealed to Germany to cancel the order, which it did. The Saudi Arabian deal fell through when Israel appealed to Germany to cancel the order."

Suggestion: "The Iranian deal fell through after Saudi Arabia and Iraq successfully appealed to Germany to cancel the order. The Saudi Arabian deal, in turn, fell through when Israel appealed to Germany to cancel the order." Even so, there is a repetitive sentence structure... Furthermore, why did these countries appeal to Germany? Should Argentina not be the sole decider, or were these TAMs of German manufacture?

General

• Remove the periods from all units of measurement per WP:MOS#Unit symbols and abbreviations.

Aside from the copyedit I did, the above are my comments and suggestions for this article. Jappalang (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I took most of these suggestions into consideration. Some responses:

1. These included a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, grenade launchers, a road range of at least 500 kilometers with a maximum velocity of 70 kilometers per hour and a weight of no more than 30 tonnes. - The maximum road range is not 500 kilometers under the condition that the tank is going at maximum velocity, so I didn't add that in.
2. No source really specifies, but you'd imagine that they got paid.
3. The Rh-105-30's advantages include low weight, compact size and lethality. -> According to its manufacturers, the light and compact Rh-105-30 could destroy its target with its first shot on most occasions. - I don't understand; the claim on the second sentence has almost nothing to do with the claim in the first sentence. It went from being lethal, to being able to destroy a target on its first shot - these are not necessarily the same thing.
4. I made the change to the sentence, but muzzle brake is wikilinked.
5. Co-axial is wikilinked, as well.
6. I don't feel like "it helps the gunner aim" is really the most accurate description, since that can encompass a lot of things. I added something similar, but I didn't take off "fire solutions".
7. "When inside the tank, the tank commander uses a Zeiss PERI-R/TA panoramic periscope to observe the vehicle's surroundings. The 2x and 8x zoom of the periscope allows the soldier to magnify and check on far away objects." - This seems redundant in several places. The second suggestion is not necessarily true.
8. A lot of these edits seem like re-writes of sentences that had nothing wrong with them, but making them more complex. For example, the re-write of the engine choice—I decided to keep what I currently have.
9. Velocity is a more exact word than speed.
10. The mantlet is the same as it is in every tank. I wikilinked to Gun mantlet.
11. In the variants section, I didn't make the change to what was relevant to the internal mortar. The copyedit makes it seem as if rate of fire and range are inter-related, which they're not.
12. TAMSE is not producing tanks. Production ended in 1995.
13. I don't see how mentioning how many points its competitors received is biased—it's not an opinion, it's referenced fact.
14. Sources are not very clear, but a lot of the technology used on the tank was German and so the Argentines did not necessarily have the right to sell all of it (like the gun).

Apart from the above, everything should be changed. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If I seemed direct in my comments, I apologize. I truly appreciate the effort put into improving the prose of the article! JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

1. With the clarification, I can suggest "The armored vehicle would weigh no more than 30 tonnes, move at a maximum speed of 70 kilometers per hour, and cover at least 500 kilometers on the roads. It would be armed with a modern 105 millimeter main gun, two machine guns, and grenade launchers."

2. I think it is common knowledge that they got paid, but the amount of payment they received for the transfer would be relevant. It is not a big issue if this amount cannot be found (it could be confidential, but it could also have been released through various news sources), but let me know so I can strike it.

3. "Lethality" is subjective and one would expect all firearms to be lethal anyway. By putting "lethality" as an advantage, it is expected that either a source states the weapon can kill much better than other weapons. As this statement comes from a primary source, that opinion can be questioned (hence, the suggestion of adding in the "according to the manufacturer"). The source also states no qualifier to "lethality" other than "greater firepower" and "high first-shot kill probability". Replacing "lethality" with the "greater firepower" (which does not truly translate to better killing ability) is another option.

4 & 5. Yeah, I wikilinked it during the copyedit, but I suggested adding brief explanation of their workings as I am of the mind that the reader should not click on the link to find out what it generally means but to find out more of the term in detail. This is just an opinion.

6. Your change is much better.

7. The essence behind the suggestion was to suggest an importance to the mention of the periscope. If the original sentence is stuck to, please replace "makes use" with "uses".

8. See below.

9. Velocity comprises direction and rate of displacement. Why should a tank use velocity?

10. That is fine.

11. Eh, I do not think "capable of firing 8 to 12 shots per minute up to a distance of 9,500 meters" implies that the rate of fire is dependent on distance.

12. TAMSE's stoppage since 1995 should be mentioned in the article because the paragraph mentioned its reactivation in 1994 to produce an additional 120 TAM tanks as well as VCA-155s. The article then dangles with production numbers for 1995 (which based on the 1983 figure of 150 TAMs, meant that 70 TAMs in the 1994 order were not produced—200-150=50 tanks were produced).

13. Yes, but we can certainly do without the "only".

14. Hmmm... is it possible to find sources that can clarify this situation further?

There is no need to apologize. What I written above (specifically the suggestions) are my opinions. Like Tony said, the prose is generally fine, but I found it a bit phrased in a technical manner. Hence, I tried to offer a spicing up of the language (Note: the Suggestions are not issues except where there are other questions to them). When put in a technical manner, tank jargon—phrases which most tank buffs would understand—are often introduced (e.g. coaxial, muzzle brake, etc). A reader with a lesser interest in tanks can be overwhelmed and find it less motivating to read further on. Linking is just a work-around (no need to fret about those comments on the terms that are wiki-linked, I left them unstruck for others to think about); it totally fails when there is no article on the term. I missed this out the first time, but what is a "hydrodynamic par converter"? Jappalang (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, here are some responses,

1. Changed.
2. Unfortunately, the value of the contract isn't mentioned. Argentina's news sources also do not have a well designed online archive, and I haven't been able to find any articles relevant to the TAM.
3. I changed it to "increased lethality".
4. Well, the definitions would be rather long (at least a few sentences each term) and it this may be a breech of the term that the text should not go off topic. Generally speaking, in books "big words" are not defined in the text, as they expect you to go look it up if you don't know it. The problem with tank articles is that they will be full of jargon, since those are terms in their simplest form (in relation to other tank-related jargon).
5. (Actually #7) Changed to "uses".
6. Well, when a tank is moving then it will have a direction. I think either speed or velocity are fine, but I don't see the point in changing back and forth.
7. I reworded the rate of fire and range sentence. Hopefully, it sounds better now.
8. Well, the article says 120 of both TAMs and VCTPs. I notice how this can be confused as 120 TAMs and 120 VCTPs. I don't have specific production numbers, unfortunately, although I assume that enough TAMs were produced to fulfill the requirement of 200 tanks and then the rest were VCTPs. But, breaking it up like that would be original research.
9. "Only" removed.
10. Unfortunately, no. The case is similar to the case described in the AMX-30E article. The Germans could not sell the Leopard 1 without British approval because the British owned the license to the Royal Ordnance L7. Just that, this would be original research. I don't have a general source that describes copyright laws with this type of equipment, unfortunately.

I think I took care of most of it. Only a few more points to discuss. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I struck some but I think I will re-list for clarity my remaining concerns.

• On "velocity" versus "speed": Everything has a direction when moving but we do not commonly refer to their rate of displacement as velocity. An important point as stated in the velocity article is that as a vector quantity, velocity must have its unit (eastward direction in this example) as "meters per second east" and not simply "meters per second". Velocity does not equal speed, and I am certain it is not commonly used to describe the capability of a vehicle. Hence, all mentions of "velocity" in this article should be changed to "speed".
• What is a "hydrodynamic par converter"? Note that Google shows no result at all for this phrase; however, it suggests "hydrodynamic torque converter" or simply "hydrodynamic converter". I think the unique term deserves some explaining.

Besides the difference in opinion over wiki-linking to and briefly describing jargon (but which I am prepared to overlook in light of the explanations), the other concerns are minor and likely subjective. Jappalang (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, all instances of velocity will be changed to speed. And yea, I forgot to translate "par". Par is torque in Spanish. :( I will change it to hydrodynamic torque converter. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

With all the major concerns resolved, I looked over the article again. I have a couple of questions:

* is the Cold War tanks template necessary?

* why is the TAM categorized as a Tank of Germany even though the European country does not use it? Is that category correct (i.e. should it be named "Tanks produced by Germany")?

Regardless, other minor concerns aside, I believe this article is comprehensive as the sources allow it to be. It has appropriately used sufficient images to illustrate the tank and its variants. The article reads well and is generally smooth in its prose. Hence, I believe it to be worthy of Featured Article status. Jappalang (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we are adding both the Cold War tank and Post Cold War tank templates to tanks which were used in both; i.e. tanks developed during the Cold War, but remain the main battle tanks of their respective countries (such as the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, etc... we are trying to avoid conflicts about what tanks to include in which templates, and what not). Furthermore, I took off the "tanks of Germany" category (that was there before I started editing the article) and added two more. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - looked through it, found a gap and some other minor problems. I addressed the one, the submitter fixed anything else. Seems about 100% complete. Doesn't seem like anything could be missing, and this is a small topic, which is covered well. I haven't seen anything that this could be opposed over. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Downright clunky prose. See my copy-edits for some very preliminary indications of the kinds of things that need to be fixed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the edits you made took out important information, which was definitely not redundant. Some examples,

Due to a lack of resources and experience, the Argentine Ministry of Defense established a contract with German company Thyssen-Henschel to transfer the necessary technology. - That wasn't redundant, despite the fact that the next sentence says that the vehicle was designed by German engineers. The fact that Argentina lacked the resources and experiences is an important fact.

I don't see what I could change "adequate" with. To me, the adjective is pretty clear, although perhaps it's not as clear to others. Adequate firepower would simply refer to adequate enough to defeat current threats. I changed the sentence to, The TAM fulfilled the Argentine Army's requirement for a modern light-weight fast tank with a low silhouette and sufficient firepower to defeat most modern armored threats.

In all the tank-related articles I've put through FAC, having a decimal conversion is preferred to rounding up or rounding down.

The rest of the edits are fine.

Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have copyedited where I thought it would help, and I'm hoping it's looking better. I'd like to work to get rid of that oppose, however. JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed "scuppered", which you added, to "scrapped". According to dictionary.com scuppered is a synonym of "massacred", and so I don't think that would have been the correct word to use. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope this isn't forgotten. :P JonCatalán^(Talk) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support After a read of this, I can see no issues. -- how do you turn this on 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Read the article, can't see any problems that haven't already been addressed. Skinny87 (talk) 10:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding article. The only thing that somewhat bothers me (its a pet peeve, so it doesn't count insofar as S&O !votes go) is the presence of the tank portal link out on the main page. A check of the tank portal's FAs shows this isn;t one of them, but if this does become an FA on the tank portal I would recommend removing the portal link on the main page and integrating into the MILHIST template on the talk page. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, how is that done? JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Its coded into the Milhist template (actually, it was at my suggestion that we do this :) When an article is selected for use on a particular portal the milhist template is updated with the code |portal1-name= and |portal1-link=. The first part denotes the portal on which the article is used, the second links directly to the article on the portal (selected aricle/x, where x is the number used). At a glance, you can see this on the talk page for Iowa class battleship, and as a bonus for we can add the code regardless of whose portal the article actually appears on, thereby allowing us to include all aplicable projects within the template, thereby cutting down on the need to include portal links on the article name space. Unless something has changes, we can support up to five different portals within out template. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just did it to all the FA tank articles, which are on the portal, and I'll do it on the TAM's page if it passes this FAC. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Concerned about overreliance on one source: JonCatalan, do you speak Spanish? The MilHist A-class review raised concerns about overreliance on one source, and you replied that there was no info from Argentine newspapers. I found these with nothing more than a very quick google search on only two newspapers: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. I have not read these sources in detail, but they certainly indicate that more sources do exist, and give rise to concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article. As far as I can tell, you haven't used any of these sources. Because Jbmurray has lodged an Oppose on prose (that remains unaddressed), and because he speaks Spanish, I suggest further work with him, or another Spanish-speaking editor (such as Titoxd) will help assure that this article meets 1b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his concern was addressed. He spent some time copyediting the article, but after I left another message on his Talk Page he hasn't responded or reported back here. I will take a look at those articles later, though. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Those newspaper articles cover, to a degree, some trade deals and I will hopefully replace a number of references with those when I come back from class, or tomorrow morning. Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking that sources be replaced for the sake of diversification of sources: I'm asking if the article is comprehensive and well-researched. That is, is anything left out or not accurately represented by the one source you used in writing the article ? Switching some sources for the sake of diversifying the sources won't address the concern; the concern is thoroughness and comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I added what I could get from those articles you provided. They mostly had to do with illegal arms transfers by former Argentine governments, and one mentioned the amount of tanks planned for the Iran sale. La Nación mentioned something similar, but instead said that 60 tanks were going to be sold to Iraq. Mazarrasa, by far the only major and researched source on the TAM, doesn't mention Iraq, and I think that La Nación mixed Iraq with Iran (not the first time a newspaper has gotten things like that wrong). One of La Nación's articles claims that the TAM was built by the Germans to work in conjunction with "heavy tanks", but the Argentines were not capable of building heavier tanks. I'm not so sure that I should add this, since this is the only source that mentions that and La Nación has already shown tendencies to get some facts wrong. The TAM's weight was specific to the terrain it was supposed to fight over, so it doesn't make sense that it was to fight alongside heavier vehicles. I have worked with another editor, who has supported the article (DPdH), and we haven't been able to find a great deal of sources in Argentina proper (apparently there are some military magazines which mention it, but these are almost impossible to find without living in Buenos Aires). JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I do not have time to research this article thoroughly just because I happen to speak Spanish: I will give you one example of my concern:

The article says:

In mid-1983, Peru established a contract for 80 TAMs. The order was, however, canceled due to budgetary problems after 20 tanks had been completed. A similar order was established by Panama in 1984, although this contract was also canceled, for unknown reasons.

Noting the prose concerns of Jbmurray about contracts being "established", I think deeper research should yield something better than "for unknown reasons".

Advierten que Panamá podría embargar la fragata Libertad says:

La historia del juicio es la siguiente: en 1983 la empresa estatal Tanque Argentino Mediano (TAMSE) firmó un contrato con una empresa intermediaria de Palleros constituda en Panamá, llamada Agrometal para vender a Irán 60 blindados por un monto de 90 millones de dólares y con una comisión legal de 9 millones.Sorpresivamente, en 1984 cuando ya había asumido el gobierno radical otra empresa denominada Ventes, también avalada por TAMSE, hizo una oferta por un precio menor lo que enojó a los iraníes y abortó la venta. Entonces, Palleros inició un juicio en Panamá por el cobro de su comisión y resarcimientos de los gastos en que había incurrido, argumentando que la operación se había frustrado por una decisión del Estado argentino.En 1990, Humberto Romero, ministro de Defensa de Menem, aceptó un arreglo extrajudicial por 15 millones de dólares a pagar en cuotas, que fue objetado por Economía. En 1995, la Sala II de la Cámara Civil y Comercial de Buenos Aires falló a favor de Palleros para un pago en bonos, pero el retraso que se habría producido en la liquidación de las cuotas hizo que el demandante reabriese el juicio en Panamá y se trabase embargo sobre bienes argentinos en ese país.Consultados voceros de la Armada sobre esta situación se abstuvieron de confirmar o negar la existencia de la advertencia de la Cancillería.

And there are bodies, too. From A Estrada le habrían dado US$ 1,8 millón en Uruguay:

El capitán de navío estaba imputado como partícipe necesario de la venta ilegal de armas y había sido indagado por el juez Urso el 21 de agosto. Cuatro días después apareció muerto en su departamento.Urso y el fiscal Carlos Stornelli allanaron la casa de Estrada el 27 de agosto y secuestraron una serie de documentos sobre la empresa fantasma Hayton Trade, intermediaria en el contrabando de armas a Ecuador, y sobre transacciones con Panamá vinculadas al Tanque Argentino Mediano (TAM). Entre los documentos confiscados figurarían comprobantes de transferencias a la cuenta secreta de la Exter Banca, en Montevideo.En Uruguay rige un estricto secreto bancario, por lo que Urso deberá tramitar el levantamiento de los datos reservados ante los tribunales de ese país. En el allanamiento a la casa de Estrada, Urso también secuestró notas entrecruzadas con la Dirección Nacional de Fabricaciones Militares (FM), documentos sobre las empresas Hayton Trade y Debrol, y papeles sobre transacciones con Panamá por unidades del TAM supuestamente pactadas desde 1985 en adelante.

The article has one sentence about Panama, which doesn't appear to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject. Considering the text above from two articles only, I suggest deeper research would reveal that we can say more than "canceled for unknown reasons", which should not be a satisfying explanation to our readers. Likewise, the article has one sentence about Ecuador, when the news sources indicate an arms scandal. I am not suggesting that this article has to delve into all of the arms contraband scandals mentioned in these articles: I am asking that you convince us that the article has been thoroughly researched, and that there is nothing in the 15 links I gave above that should be included. Perhaps Jbmurray or Titoxd will have time to look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Those articles are talking about the possibility of political scams, related to the Argentine arm trade with other South American companies (including Panama and Ecuador), and I'm not sure if a lot of the information in those articles can be taken as facts. The articles don't really make it clear why the Panamanian deal was canceled. For example, in one of those quotes it mentions that TAMSE had offered the tank for cheaper than they had offered it to Iran, which angered the Iranians and caused TAMSE to temporarily cancel. It then blames the government for making that decision, and then goes on to say how later the Ministry of Defense decided to offer the Panamanians a deal in which they could pay in installments. It's not very clear, and then says that the bank allowed the payments to be done in bonds, but due to budgetary problems it was decided to stop selling Argentine goods to Panama. So, would it be correct for me to say that it was canceled because the Panamanians couldn't afford the tank? It weaves in and out about the arms scandal, and claims that some payments were made to a "secret account", but doesn't really specify. The article doesn't mention anything related to the TAM and Ecuador, just that Panamanian payments were arriving in banks in Montevideo, Uruguay. My greatest worry is how Clarín leans politically. Unfortunately, my Argentine friends are currently sleeping, but I know that a few Argentine newspapers have left-wing or right-wing tendencies, and what I'm afraid of is that a lot of this information is peacocked in order to make it sound worse than it actually is, or at least exaggerate the situation. I guess I could add information on why the Panamanian deal could have been canceled, but I don't really feel comfortable adding information about an arms scandal, especially when none of my published sources agree. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So, considering all of those factors, you feel that "for unknown reasons" summarizes the situation best? This is but one example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I should not that Jbmurray's "concerns" had to do with him deleting a sentence which mentioned that Argentina has established a contract with the German company to design the TAM, not establishing export deals with other countries. Although, I do get your point. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, those articles are not discussing the offer to sell the TAM to Panama. They are talking about an attempt to sell Iran the TAM through a Panamanian company. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Featured article review

Battle of the Bulge

previous FAR (12:11, 13 October 2008)

Kargil War

previous FAR (13:50, 20 October 2008)

Featured list candidates

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 17:27, 18 October 2008 [25].

---

List of New Zealand Land Wars Victoria Cross recipients

Hello, another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of List of Zulu War Victoria Cross recipients. The New Zealand Land Wars is the name for a number of conflicts that occured in 1850–1870. So, here we go again, thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - although shorter than some of the other ones, it looks just as well formatted as the previous who-knows-how-many featured lists Woody has put together. Cam (Chat) 18:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry, WWI is 625 recipients, so will be considerably longer! ;) Thanks for the review. Regards. Woody (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - a well constructed and comprehensive list the meets the criteria. Although, would it be possible to increase the size of the memorial image? It just seems a little small. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Done, the MOS actuall prescribes a lead image of 300px for portrait images. As this was landscape, I have reduced it slightly. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support, nice work.-gadfium 05:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ref fix. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - The first paragraph is a little choppy, everything else looks great. I love the abiloity to reorganise by your preferred field. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Support at least the List of Iraq War Victoria Cross recipients will be easier Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support but a few things you could sort for me to scratch out that weak...

• Is it "New Zealand Land Wars" or "New Zealand land wars"? I'm guessing the latter - so this list probably needs renaming.
• Maori or Māori?
• ISO date in ref 3 ought to be human-readable...

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Arthur book, it is all a proper noun so "New Zealand Land Wars" in the same vein as World War Two. When it is on its own, so "... the land wars were fought ..." is uncapitalised. I used what the book used (though initially it lists them by individual conflict.) I have done the other ones, it should be Māori by the way. Thanks for the review. Regards. Woody (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

Two suggestions:

• I don't think the sortability of the "Unit" column is useful. It's pretty much free text, and who's to say that Infantry comes before ship names?
• If it were me, I'd put the image of the medal somewhere other than next to the table, for two reasons:
  1. The article is sort of *about* the medal, so it should be more prominent
  2. The width of the table is shortened, making the "Campaign" column wrap. It's just a visual thing. (I realize that this is simply on my screen, and knowing that everyone's screens are different.)
• Other than that, everything looks very good - nice work. I Conditionally Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorting by unit is used on the other VC lists which have already made it to FL. Woody's been careful to entitle units in the same way, so it does mean you can quickly see how many people from a given unit received the medal in this campaign. THis is a relatively short list, but for consistency across the lists it seem sworth keeping. David Underdown (talk) 08:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What he said...! I have removed the image of the medal now as I don't want it to wrap, there is a large amount of whitespace on my browser which is why I didn't think it would be a problem. I don't want to remove the unit sortability because of the consistency element. This is universal across all lists and I think that some people want to see it by unit. It is an area of study. If you prefer, I can fix it to go by seniority of regiment/ships, but that would be a pain and confusing to some people. Regards. Woody (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support; you could perhaps re-add the image of the VC to the lead section on the LH side before the bottom paragraph. Bencherlite^Talk 19:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks to be a good FLC, Woody. Can't see anything wrong with it. Keep up the good work! Skinny87 (talk) 13:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Originally the VC was not available to colonial troops, even if under British command; this was changed in 1867." Comma after "Originally".
• "The extension was made following a recommendation for gallantry regarding colonial soldier Major Charles Heaphy for action in the New Zealand Land Wars in 1864.[5] He was operating under British command and the VC was gazetted in 1867." What exactly did the major do that influenced the decision to gazette the VC?
• "the British Army attacked on 17 March 1860 starting the First Taranaki War" Comma after "1860"."
• "After a series of sieges by the British, a truce was signed with the Māori people in March 1861 where the disputed land became British-owned territory but it remained in possession of the Māori people."-->After a series of sieges by the British, a truce was signed with the Māori people in March 1861; the disputed land became British-owned territory but it remained in possession of the Māori people. Alternatively, you could replace the semicolon with "in which".
• "In July 1863 the British Army and the Auckland Militia launched the Invasion of Waikato against the forces of Tāwhiao and the Māori King Movement." Comma after "1863".
• "swiftly moving South" Why is "South" capitalized?
• "The British pursued him across the country as far as the fourth Waikato defensive line which later became the border of King Country." Comma after "line".
• I would put the general references before the specific refs.
• In ref 6, is "230–236" the page range? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Archives

Peer review

• 2006
• 2007
• 2008

A-Class review

• 2006 (promoted/failed)
• 2007 (promoted/failed)
• 2008 (promoted/failed)