Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
review
Contest Awards Members
Instructions
Requesting a review

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

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five.
  2. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  3. 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.
  4. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  6. Consider reviewing another article, either at peer or A-class review to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory).

If an article is nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be demoted:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1).
  2. Update the link for the last review in the {{Article history}} on the article's talk page.
  3. Update the transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page, found by using the "What Links Here" feature.
  4. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new nomination page).
  5. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the nomination statement (e.g. "Prior nomination here.").

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.

Commenting

The new 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.

After A-Class

Feel free to ask reviewers to help prepare your article as a featured article candidate. We're hoping that more FAC prep will help draw some of the regular FAC reviewers to our A-class review page.

edit

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

No. 77 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

  • suggest a slight reorder of the wording here: "the RAAF hurriedly established three new fighter units equipped with Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawks recently delivered from the United States: Nos. 75, 76 and 77 Squadrons." --> "the RAAF hurriedly established three new fighter units – Nos. 75, 76 and 77 Squadrons – equipped with Curtiss P-40E Kittyhawks recently delivered from the United States."
  • spelling: "maneuverability" --> "manoeuvrability". AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Tks as always, Rupert -- will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Battle of Schliengen[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Have you had a look at the German Wiki article? I find the aftermath section (Folgen der Schlacht bei Schliengen) a bit better to understand and how the battle was embedded in the greater scheme of things MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on sieges of Kehl and Huningen. Do you think they should all be rolled into one article? auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
What triggered my response was the fact that the English article classifies the battle as an Austrian victory in the Infobox. The German article depicts a more balanced outcome (inconclusive) with both sides claiming some success and the consequences favoring the French side. In the German article the French retreat is a success of the Austrian forces, however the French forces managed to retreat, without significant losses back to France, this is a French success. The following engagements at Kehl and Hünningen tied down Austrian forces which could have played a difference in the Italian campaign and in the Siege of Mantua, so the German article. I feel this could be made more explicit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I see it. I've tried to make it more explicit. See if that solves the problem. auntieruth (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Here are my comments. (1) Picture gallery: The Duke of Enghien pic has no name in the caption. (2) Aftermath: Kehl and Huningen are run together. (3) 2nd paragraph Background: There is a list of battles going from 1792 to 1796, and then it says "but in 1795" which is chronologically incorrect. Is this a typo for 1796? The Austrians lost no territory in 1795. Verdun, Kaiserslautern, Neerwinden and Mainz are not needed for context since they are pre-1796. (4) If 1796 is intended, then the statement about Jourdan pushing the Austrians back is not exactly true. Jourdan advanced to the Lahn but then was driven back beyond the Rhine from 16-20 June. It was Moreau's crossing at Kehl on 24 June that ultimately won territory, at least temporarily, from the Austrians. (5) Moreau did not support Jourdan's right. It was the total lack of mutual support that caused the French defeats. (6) The statement that Moreau raided Munich is not enough background. "Raid" is debatable; the French government ordered an invasion. Aside from Schliengen, Moreau's army fought six significant actions in 1796, but only Emmendingen, fought 5 days before, is noted in a picture caption. Munich is deep into Germany. How did Moreau get there? And what caused him to come all the way back to the Rhine? You don't have to explain the entire Rhine Campaign of 1796 but since this is a class-A article, at least a couple of additional paragraphs are needed to give background to what happened at Schliengen, in my opinion. BTW: The Terrain section is really splendid and the Battle section is solid. Djmaschek (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Dj, I've added some material on the background, including a table of battles, and a lengthy explanation of the lead up. auntieruth (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: G'day, Ruth, interesting article. I made a few tweaks, please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit. I also have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • minor inconsistency: the lead gives the date of "26 October", but the infobox says "24 October"
  • watch for overlink. The duplicate link checker tool identifies the following possibilities: Mullheim, Huningen and Karl Aloys zu Furstenberg
    • fixed.
  • in the Sources section, is there an ISBN that could be added for the Blanning, Cuccia and Smith works? These can sometimes be found through Worldcat.org
    • added where these are available.
  • as per the above, is there an OCLC number the could be added for the Charles, Dyke, Graham, Hansard, and Philippart works?
    • No OCLC #, but I did add web links when available. no, yes, yes, no.
  • "...interests of Louis and his family..." given that Louis hasn't been mentioned by name yet, I suggest adding a link and using his full title at first mention
    • done
  • suggest linking terms like "battalion", "regiment" and "squadron" etc on first mention to help readers understand the size of these units
    • well, I could, except that these sizes weren't really consistent in 1790s.
  • "Despite specific orders to the contrary, the Conde's Corps formed down the river at Neuburg and made a spirited attack on Steinstadt" --> do we know why they disobeyed there orders? If the sources don't say, that's no drama, I'm just curious...
    • clarified. The Duke got carried away with the situation.
  • I suggest using title case capitalisation for the English language book titles. For instance, "Napoleon in Italy: the sieges of Mantua" would become "Napoleon in Italy: The Sieges of Mantua" etc.
    • will go through and do this tonight.

AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

HMS Illustrious (87)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

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

Comments

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

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk)

Ulysses S. Grant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Featured article candidates/Ulysses S. Grant/archive1
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. After it failed at FA, I believe I fixed all of the issues raised there. The closing delegate suggested an A-Class review, and I agree. I think the military portions of Grant's biography, especially, could be benefited by the knowledge of the reviewers at this project. Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale[edit]

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


Prior nomination here.

The article has already gone through a failed ACR, during which I became inactive and so the issues raised were not addressed. I've tidied the article up the last few days. Any comment would be appreciated. Sp33dyphil (talk) 09:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice try Sp33dyphil, but you have to remove the "A-class=fail" when you renominate. (Change "fail" to "current".) If you don't do that, the Bot will figure that your nomination has been failed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Thank you for notifying me. Sp33dyphil (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ennis Whitehead[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox


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

Arthur Compton[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

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

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

Peter Raw[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)


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

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

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Ian Rose[edit]

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

Image review [Clip and save for FAC!][edit]

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

Thanks a lot Adam. I've bumped up the image sizes a bit Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments: looks quite good overall, Nick, I just have a couple of suggestions/comments. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "he served in the Vietnam War as the air support coordinator for the Australian forces in South Vietnam..." --> perhaps just "he served as the air support coordinator for the Australian forces in South Vietnam..."
  • That's much better - changed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "but was rejected and told to reapply in twelve months" --> do we know why he was rejected?
  • No, afraid not. At this stage of the war the technical branches of the military seemed to have more suitably-qualified volunteers than they had jobs for, and I expect that this was the answer (the RAAF had to put suitable pilot candidates on a waiting list type arrangement at one stage!). Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • the link at "these flights" is potentially a little ineligant, perhaps if you moved the link to a place a little earlier in the narrative it might solve this. For instance, "...No. 178 Squadron, undertook several risky operations as part of the Warsaw airlift to supply...."
  • Thanks for that suggestion - changed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "aid on the northern Italian city of Verona on 12 October" --> probably best to add "1944" here for clarity given you have mentioned 1945 a bit earlier which might confuse some readers;
  • I think there is something missing here: "...surrounded and, as he believed that the heavy rain at the time made flying too dangerous" (the "and, as..." doesn't seem to ring true to my ear);
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The commander of the 1st Australian Task Force..." --> I suggest just saying "1 ATF" and introducing the abbreviation earlier
  • is there an issn and place of publication that could be added for the Wartime magazine entry in the Bibliography?
  • Yes - I'd added the ISSN, but I don't think that place of publishing (or publisher) is common for journal-type entries. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • is there an oclc number that could be added to the Bibligraphy for the Herington work? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, added. Thanks a lot for your review. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Trinity (nuclear test)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)


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

Nice article. I'm concerned about the indirect verb structures, such as "A construction firm from Lubbock, Texas, was contracted to build the barracks, officers' quarters, ... " why would we say "was contracted to build..." when "built" is quite clear. If they had a contract and didn't built it, okay, then I'd see the point, but it looks like they did. There are lot of places like this. Do you want me to fix them? auntieruth (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I've not found a location for Pope, New Mexico. I've checked maps and maps of ghost towns. auntieruth (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments: I made an effort to copy edit the article, but found it a little heavy going, so I may have missed a few things, sorry. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • there is one citation needed tag in the 100-ton test section that should be dealt with
  • I'm not sure what this sentence is saying: "Maps of the ground dose rate pattern from the device's fallout at +1 hour, and +12 hours."
  • watch for overlink, the duplicate link checker reports a few possibilities: Pit (nuclear weapon); critical mass; explosive lens; Edward Teller; trinitite; Bombing of Hiroshima. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette[edit]

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[edit]

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
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"?
  • 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?
  • 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".
  • 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.
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.
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
  • "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.
  • "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"
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)

German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations[edit]

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


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

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

Thanks for the c/e, Dan. I'll follow it up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That is the best translation of the title. It is referring only to "the Croats", ie "The Fateful Path of the (Croats)" (to condense it a bit). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed at GA and have now looked over the changes that have been made since then and believe it meets the A class criteria as well. Anotherclown (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Comments/suggestions: looks quite good. I made a few tweaks (please check you are happy withem) and only have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this point, but I wonder if the article title is descripive enough: what about "German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations during World War II"?
      • Seems a bit too much to me. Partisans could possibly be expanded to Yugoslav Partisans, but I don't think the war is necessary. The Yugoslav Partisans are well enough known to place the negotiations during WWII.
        • "German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations" would work for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the lead manages to explicitly outline the extent of the negotiations. For instance, something like this might work: "The negotiations - focused on obtaining a ceasefire and establishing a prisoner exchange - were used to..." (You would then need to adjust the following sentences slighlty).
      • Have incorporated your idea, let me know what you think?.
    • is there an iconic photo depicting the two forces in combat? If so, perhaps it could be added to the lead?
      • Nothing that iconic that I can use, but I've added a pic.
    • "The former US diplomat Walter Roberts opined that the Abwehr were considering ..." when did he express this opinion? After the war, in his book?
      • In the book, clarified.
    • this seems like editorialising (albeit minor): " The three Partisans tasked with the negotiations show the importance that the Partisans placed on the outcome".
      • It's actually from Tomasevich, I've attributed in-line.
    • not sure about the semi colon here: "They were; Koča Popović, Spanish Civil War veteran and.." (I'd suggest a full colon) AustralianRupert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
      • You're right, should be a colon. Fixed.

Angevins[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have improved it as far as I think I can without feedback and would like to move it forwards towards FAC.


Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose at this stage:

Can you give me a bit of help on this one @Hchc2009: - what is the best method of doing this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
There's some formal guidance somewhere (which I can never find...!), but I think that the way that SabreBD did it in a note in England in the Late Middle Ages's talk page might be fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Some glitches have appeared with the editing and the cut and pasting, e.g.
  • "Eighteenth-century historian David Hume wrote that the Angevins were pivotal in creating a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain" - the cited source doesn't say the Angevins, but simply talks about Henry II.
  • "Henry's role in Thomas Becket's death and his disputes with the French were considered praiseworthy by contemporary Protestant historians." - there were no Protestant historians at the time...! The original article had this placed in the 18th century.
  • Some of the bibliography still has the original alphanumeric lettering in from the source article, e.g. "Gillingham, John (2007a)" - if you're only using one item by Gillingham in 2007, though, you don't need the "a", it can just be "2007",
  • I think the two books by Turner are the same volume, by the way, just republished by different publishing houses.
  • Generally, I'm not convinced that the article covers the core issues around the Angevin kings. The "Angevin empire" is mentioned occasionally, but never really explained; the unusual circumstances of having a sequence of monarchs whose ancestral home was in Anjou, and lived much of their lives on the continent, travelling around a vast area of personal possessions, linked by rivers and the Atlantic sea routes, doesn't come across. There isn't any reference to Fontevraud Abbey, the family abbey and mausoleum, etc. I'd definitely recommend reading Gillingham's "Angevin Empire" as a starting point for all of this.
Thanks, will do Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Added paragraph on terminology to part cover this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Another serious gap is the role of Richard in popular culture... out of all of the three kings considered here, he's surely had the most substantial impact, given the Robin Hood genre?
  • Separated out the Robin Hood bits though Richard is largely a character in absentia and originally the king was called Edward. There appears to be surprisingly little significant literature based on him.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
  • While they weren't great palace builders, all three did a lot of work on castles... Goodall, John (2011). The English Castle has a chapter, I think, called "Angevin castles", covering their architecture etc.
  • Seems like they didn't have a great architectual impact - I have added para to mention this.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sold on the title of the article - would "Angevin kings of England" or something like that be more accurate, as it doesn't really cover the Angevin rulers of Anjou? Also, if it genuinely is about the Angevins, as opposed to the Angevin kings, it needs a bit more on Geoffrey, Young Henry etc., who don't get much of a look in at the moment.
    • Will add section on inheritance that should cover this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "This article is about the English royal house of the 12th century" - 12th-13th century?
DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Worth checking the material in the lead is all in the main body of the article; some of it doesn't seem to be.
  • "The Angevins were a family of Frankish origin..." A little bit confusing, as it sounds as though Henry, Richard et al were a family of Frankish origin, which isn't really the case.
DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Angevins struggled successfully for regional power with neighbouring provinces such as Normandy and Brittany," - they didn't really struggle with the provinces, but rather the Duke and Count respectively.
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Finally, Fulk married his son and heir (Geoffrey) to Henry's daughter—and only surviving legitimate child—Matilda, beginning the Plantagenet dynasty." - or rather, surely more pertinent in this context, the Angevins? NB: this end bit is missing a reference.
  • "Matilda's father (Henry I of England) named her as heir to his large holdings in what are now France and England" - they were called France and England in the 12th century as well.
  • "Although Geoffrey had little interest in England, he supported Matilda by entering Normandy to claim her inheritance" - Geoffrey was, however, very interested in Normandy - he wasn't supporting Matilda in Normandy, he was taking what he regarded as his own property.
  • "Matilda landed in England to challenge Stephen, and was declared "Lady of the English"; this resulted in the civil war known as the Anarchy. " - the sequencing is wrong here - the civil war had begun well before she was declared Lady of the English.
  • "Matilda was never crowned, since the English conflict was inconclusive, " - not really... She wasn't crowned as she was forced out of London by the crowds, before she could be crowned at Westminster in 1141.
  • "Three of Henry's men murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral (probably by misadventure)" - you can't really murder someone by misadventure (murder typically has to be deliberate). Barlow's authoritative book on Becket would be a much more reliable source than Schama here, by the way.
  • "he was forced to walk barefoot " - not exactly forced... Probably also worth noting how Henry then used the cult of Becket for his own purposes.
  • "The knights assumed the role of colonisers, accruing autonomous power (which concerned Henry)." - the bracketing here doesn't help the flow, and could probably be removed.
  • "When Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift of three castles," - on its own this doesn't make much sense; the key point was that they actually belonged to Young Henry, not Henry II...
  • "Louis VII encouraged the elder sons to destabilise his mightiest subject" - the article doesn't really explain previously that Henry was Louis's subject, which makes this odd for the casual reader.
  • "Henry was reluctant to have a sole heir" - I'm not sure this fits with the specialist literature on Henry II, and Jones isn't a great source for an exceptional statement (I'd use Warren in the first instance for Henry II).
  • " When he died shortly afterwards, his last words to Richard were said to be: "God grant that I may not die until I have my revenge on you" - as written, this sounds like it was probably true; it's not taken that seriously by Henry's current biographers though, from what I recall. Again, Jones isn't a great source for this period.
  • I'll take your word on that and remove Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Some duplicate references present (e.g. refs 83, 84 and 85)
  • (NB: I've paused at "Decline") Hchc2009 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, interesting article. Thanks for your work on this. I only had a quick look, but I have a couple of suggestions (mainly focusing on references/formating): AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • in the lead, "Many historians consider the Angevins..." --> this construction may be contrary to the guidance at WP:WEASEL. Is there a different way to say this?
    • Done - is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Getting there, most certainly, but I think that the second sentence now needs a little tweak. Currently it says "These historians..." but I don't think it has been defined who "These historians are" due to the earlier change. This is potentially going to be a difficult issue to deal with. This isn't a subject I know anything about, so I can't speak with any authority I'm afraid (and I hope I'm not giving you bad advice here), but my suggestion is that if there is a way to define which historians think this then I'd use that. For example is it possible to mention in the lead which historian first wrote that they were a distinct royal house? If this is known, then perhaps the first paragraph could go something like this: "The Angevins /ændʒvɪns/("from Anjou") were a family of Frankish origin descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble. According to the chronicler Joe Bloggs the Angevins were a distinct royal house and the word has been used collectively for the three English monarchs—Henry II, Richard I and John—but within historical accounts there is disagreement over whether the Angevins were separate from the Plantagents. Historians who have agreed with Bloggs record John's son (Henry III) as the first Plantagenet king of England, while historians who do not distinguish between the Angevins and the Plantagenets consider Henry II the first English king..." AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, you could safely avoid the point about differences in the first paragraph - it's not the most important aspect of the Angevins. You could go for "The Angevins /ændʒvɪns/("from Anjou") were a royal house of England in the 12th and 13th centuries, and comprised King Henry II, Richard I and John. The Angevin family line was descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble, and took its name from the County of Anjou, which Henry inherited from his father in..." - and then note that some people prefer the term Plantagenet, and that some people use the term Angevin to talk about the entire Anjou dynasty, in para 2 or 3. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you both - I have tried to go with Hchc2009's suggestion (sorry Rupert) as his knowledge of the period seems exemplary as ever. What do you both think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries. I made a slight tweak. I think you need to be careful with using the term "some people" though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • listed as a short citation, but not in the Bibliography: Dyer, Coss, Duffy, Martinson, and Palmer
  • additionally, the above should use the same format as the other short citations (e.g. use of the "harvnb" template);
  • "Anouilh, p. xxiv." --> is this from the same work as "Anouilh 2005, p. xxiv"? If so, it should be presented the same
  • check the alphabetical order of the works in the Bibliography, for instance Elliott shouldn't come before Contramine; Flori shouldn't come before Danziger; Gillingham shouldn't come before Favier etc. (there may be other instances as well);
  • in the Bibliography, are there page numbers for the Barratt chapter within the Harper-Bill and Vincent book?
  • same as above for Bevington, Brand, Curren-Aquino, Maley etc.
  • in the Bibliography, some works have places of publication and others don't. For instance compare Brand (2007) with Carlton (2003).
  • Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Rupert, positive and supported as ever. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries at all. Happy to help where I can. Sorry I can't do more, but my knowledge gap is huge with this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • G'day again, I've had another look. I believe you've addressed my comments, so I'd be happy to support promotion once the issues raised by the others are resolved. In the meantime, I've marked a couple of places where I think citations are needed. Could you please add these in? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting comments per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Regarding WEASEL above, note from Weasel word#Origin that the original reference was to the "egg-eating habits of weasels", rather than weasely behavior :)
  • "consider that": Avoid this ambiguous phrase. It's meaningless in American English, and in British English, it seems to be used in place of "considered ... to be", "decided", and "supposed", at a minimum.
  • I've removed all the considers.....seemed easierNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I'll stop there for the moment, and come back after this one is a little farther along. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • @Dank: thanks, is it worth another look to see if I am on the right lines?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

  • I apologise for coming in at such a late stage, but I do not think Angevins as the title of an article about the Angevin kings make sense. 'Angevin' is commonly used to mean inhabitants of Anjou, and also to mean the house of Anjou including Henry's father and his other sons (as Hchc pointed out). There is already an article about the Angevin Empire, which seems to me a much better title. I would suggest you merge your material into that article and then nominate it for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No reason to apologise @Dudley Miles:, whatever happens this one is still a bit short. Although, I don't agree with your point I understand what you mean. Angevin is also a term used for the coinage of Anjou and at least two other dynasties and this is mentioned in the article. The "Angevin Empire" article doesn't work for me because although it is largely based on Gillingham's book of the same name it ignores his reporting of a strong current opinion that the empire didn't exist in any truely constituitional or historical way. However, Angevin does exist as an important periodisation in the history of the monarchy with both Gillingham and the official website of the monarchy. Gillingham notes that the period was fundamentally different from the Normans before and the Platntagenets after. Hchc also notes the perculiar nature of the period when England was ruled by monarchs largely from abroad. Would welcome a view if this changes your original comment Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I take your point about Angiven Empire but I still think Angevins is far too general for the title of an article about the Angevin kings of England. How about Angevin Dynasty? This is currently a disambig. It could be moved to Angevin Dynasty (disambiguation), and this article moved to Angevin Dynasty with a hatnote pointing to the disambig. What does @Hchc2009: think? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
  • That seems perfectly logical to me, interesting to see what hchc thinks but there looks an like an answer here. Cheers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the delay - have been travelling about. For me, Angevin Dynasty would still feel wider (more like the Angevins); how about Angevin royal dynasty? Makes it more specific, and it would be clear then not to expect the pre-royal dynasty in there. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where this ACR is now - I think I have addressed Hchc2009's points as far as he got and there is the question of renaming the article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Bombardment of Cherbourg[edit]

Nominator(s): v/r - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

The article was nominated for FA out of sequence, when it failed the suggestion was made to request an A-Class review. Collaborative editors have subsequently made copy edits. The the article is evolving from a stub describing naval activity only, expanded to encompass the combined operations that it was -- infantry, navy, air -- in support of division-level infantry capture of Cherbourg. It makes the distinction between heavy gunnery effectiveness on fixed targets to disable them until capture, versus contributions by destroyer fire support directed by army spotters. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • The lead doesn't summarize the article. There's a lot of leeway ... see various A-Class and Featured articles ... but not this much leeway.
  • "Following the initial beachhead lodgment in Europe on D-Day, as the Allied push east stalled around at Caen, the 1st U.S. Army, VII U.S. Army Corps, was to turn west": There are several things that make the time sequence harder to follow than we like to see at A-class. Don't say "Following ... D-Day" if you're really talking about something that happened weeks later, don't say "as" if you mean "after", and don't say the corps "was to turn west", as if you're talking about the planning stages, if you're telling us about what happened when they actually did turn west. (None of those things is fatal to the reader's understanding by itself, but together, they frustrate the readers' attempts to get a sense of the time frame.)
  • "Cherbourg, the major port facility": the major port facility in Cherbourg
  • "To support their advance": pronouns should usually refer to nouns in the same sentence, but never in the previous paragraph.
  • "COMBINED TASK FORCE 129 ...": People will sometimes put lists, such as orders of battle, in one of the last sections, but inserting a list in the middle of an encyclopedia article makes it look ... like it's not an encyclopedia article. (This is discussed at WP:EMBED.) Also, avoid all capitals in prose per WP:ALLCAPS. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, all items I can act on. It's especially important to avoid stylistic conventions in the sources which are not applicable on WP.
Another editor collaboratively uncapitalized Army and Navy throughout the article as found in both army and navy sources, because they are common nouns at Wikipedia...I take it that would also be the WP:MILITARY punctuation convention for the marine corps and air force as well.
Likewise, although I had technically used "comprised" correctly as sourced at Talk, it seems it is reverted without discussion so often that trying to maintain it would simply make the article unstable in the face of well intentioned editors without a grasp of the term's military usage in sources and as explained by modern linguists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
My sympathies. I see "comprise" isn't in the article now, which is probably a good solution. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
On further review, it seems to me that the Bombardment of Cherbourg#Destroyers section should be split off into another stub or list article. I'm not sure mechanically how to do that in conformance with WP:MILITARY convention. It is clearly related, but only tangentially to the main subject of the article [naval] Bombardment of Cherbourg, however personally interested I may be in the WWII destroyers my father served in, Atlantic and Pacific. It would be a shame to lose the Table of Organization by destroyer division which accounts for their losses, but as an editor/writer, I really am interested in perfecting Bombardment of Cherbourg. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Consistency needed: Ninth Air Force, IX Army Air Force
  • Consistency needed: 18 June, June 22
  • German ranks probably need translation.
  • In general, the narrative jumps around a bit. I copyedited per my copyediting disclaimer, down to Battle groups 1 and 2. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Consistency now throughout for 'IX Army Air Force' and date 'June 22'. I am an English editor using English sources, so I used spelling of German ranks used in sources as they are found in English editions, without trying to translate them into their disparate US or British equivalents. Is there a standard reference in use, or consensus translation tables in a Wikipedia list article?
Other sources don't always follow Wikipedia policies, such as WP:UE (Also see WP:Use English. These pages are specifically talking about using terms in page titles, but have applicability to page content as well.) Wikipedia articles do a good job of translating ranks. It's fine to list the German as well, if many relevant sources list the German, which is often true for WWII history. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've expanded the introduction with two paragraphs at your editorial direction. Is there an example of an A-Class WWII battle that I can refer to, so I can have a better over-all picture of the standard in practice? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
At for instance User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history, click on "A" or the number beside it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I found Bombardment of Papeete using English titles for the German commander. Morison titles von Schlieben both as "Generalleutenant" and "General", so I’ve chosen Morison’s "General" in English, so as to follow the scholar, and not my own untutored original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All copyedit suggestions are met to the best of my ability. The drive on Cherbourg was intended immediately at invasion just as the drive on Caen, but the passage has now been rewritten so as to narrow the article's scope as you suggested to avoid confusing the reader. The introduction is expanded to align with A-class articles. What's the next step? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, interesting topic/article. Thanks for your work on it. I made a couple of tweaks to the article, so please check you are happy with my changes (if not, please feel free to revert). Additionally, I have the following suggestions:

  • I think the prose probably still needs a little work. For example watch out for clarity of expression: "General Pete Quesada of the Ninth Air Force flew Liberators..." This makes it sound like Quesada flew them personally, when he probably just commanded them. Is there a way that this could be made a little clearer?
  • measurements including distances should be converted where possible to help readers not familiar with some measurements (for example "15,000 yards"). I performed an example edit on the article to illustrate how to do this.
  • in the Battle groups 1 and 2 section, something like this might make the paragraph a little smoother: "The task force was divided into two divisions: Group 1 under Deyo and Group 2 under Admiral C.F. Bryant. Deyo's Group 1 consisted of Tuscaloosa, Quincy, Nevada, HMS Glasgow and five destroyers: Ellyson (flag), Hambleton, Rodman, Emmons, Murphy, and Gherardi, and it was assigned to bombard Cherbourg, the inner harbor forts and the area west towards the Atlantic. Bryant's smaller Group 2 was to take "Target 2", the Hamburg Battery. Located near Fermanville, inland from Cape Levi, six miles east of Cherbourg, Group 2 was made up of the aging Texas, Arkansas, and the destroyers Barton (flag), O'Brien, Laffey, Hobson (pennant), and Plunket. Nevada in Group 1 was to use its major battery to silence "the most powerful German strongpoint on the Cotentin Peninsula".[3] Then Group 2 would complete the destruction, and pass westward to join Deyo's group."
  • where you use quotations in the body of the article, in most cases they should be attributed in text. For example, "According to Smith, "in all cases, it was the responsiblity of the ship to determine..."
  • watch out for duplication. For instance, this seems to duplicate what is said earlier in the paragraph: "This was possible because each bombarding ship was provided with an army officer who tracked positions of Allied forces ashore"
  • a couple of paragraphs seem to be uncited. For instance, the first and second last in the Combined Task Force section, and the paragraph starting "In the World War II U.S. Navy destroyer..." and then the discussion of the ships in that section onwards
  • could this be clarified: "All planned long-range shots on seaward batteries were cancelled" (why was this done?)
  • "Destroyer Emmons..." (and other similar constructions) seem a bit awkward. Perhaps "The destroyer Emmons..." (etc.) might be smoother;
  • in the References section, I'd advise against using constructions like "op cit". While they work in paper-based work, on Wikipedia where references can be deleted rather quickly, they are not really applicable. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the critique. I need to translate out of the source conventions found in naval sources, "Destroyer Emmons"... I wrote drafts from sources, so I may have lost citation coverage with later paragraphing. This should be easily remediable.
Cancellation of long range shots on seaward batteries was due to additional care to avoid friendly fire casualties. The army did not have confidence in naval target acquisition at that time. At the end of the engagement, the cruisers on leaving the immediate area continued an extended barrage as they set out to sea since the army command was more confident in naval gunnery accuracy. I remember clearly from the sources there were investigations after friendly fire incidents in the initial phases of Normandy Invasion. My impression is generally, during infantry support missions, ships navigated closer in the mine fields, bombers flew lower to better acquire targets, artillery units detached forward spotters, infantry detached liaisons to ships, army air spotters adjusted naval gun fires -- Supporting arms took more losses for the cost benefit to avoid friendly fire losses.
This was important to me personally to expand out of the stub so I could read it to my father, who was on the destroyer which ran reconnaissance under the Cherbourg guns provoking fire so an army air pilot could map the German battery positions. The ship not only constantly changed course radically, it also varied speed, but the Germans were still able to bracket the ship with fires. He said that the German slave labor sabotaged their ammunition, and that is why the ships which were holed during the Bombardment of Cherbourg were not sunk. But other than a British Admiral's tangential assessment that close in operations were not a good idea, I have not found a source to confirm my father's recollection.
He was really active in publication and video documentary about Normandy before he died. He had some stories about destroyer picket duty off Okinawa, but he really did not have a lot to say about the Pacific island mop up operations in the last phase. Although grateful for mutton from Australia for the duration, he did not eat "lamb" for decades after the war.
I very much would like to write in such a way that the complexity of the inter-service operation is conveyed. In a small scale combat example from the Vietnam era, I personally have heard an army helicopter pilot in distress receive a "green deck" to land on a ship and then reply "all the decks are grey", with tragic results. I wonder whether an hour's video orientation course in ship operations might have helped during some All Officer's squadron meeting.
Ah yes, op. cit. a couple years ago that convention was still an acceptable alternative in the MOS. This is an early effort on my part, but I still do not have my Wikipedia sea legs on referencing. I know that there is a convention which renders a,b,c Smith, John. "The Book Title" ISBN paging convention...but I am not fluent yet I am afraid. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
G'day, I generally use Template:Sfn to help format refs in articles I write, but this is not a requirement. There are many ways to format references in a manner that is acceptable at A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Further comment/suggestion: I had another look at it this morning and I think that it might make sense to restructure the article a little. This might help with the narrative flow a little. I'd suggest the following structure: Background (level 2 header), "Assigned forces" (level 2 header) with various level 3 headers such as "Battle Groups 1 and 2", "Air support" and (maybe) "Fire control measures", then another level 2 header called "Bombardment", with two level 3 headers "Initial bombardment" (reusing the content in the current "Fire support areas" section) and "Exenstion to the bombardment". Finally, you could finish the article with a level 2 header called "Aftermath" (or Outcomes if you prefer). Not sure about where "Destroyers" would fit in as currently it doesn't seem to fit within the narrative in its current format (it could potentially be included in Assigned forces or Bombardment depending on what is included in it). Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I like the proposed restructure as it highlights the joint nature of the enterprise and the coordination achieved.
The destroyer section is almost like a table of equipment rather than the task force table of organization. Should it have it's own stub article, WWII Atlantic destroyers?
The introduction has been expanded to better hit on the main points covered in the article, whereas before it was too abbreviated per the previous critique. Does it suffice?
Thanks again, lots to work on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow up comments: G'day, this evening I had a go at copy editing the article a bit more. In the process I moved some of the text around as per the above suggestion. Please review my changes and adjust if you they are not to your liking. I also have a few more suggestions:
    • Regarding the lead, I think it has a decent level of coverage now, but it might pay to have someone else also look at it;
    • Regarding the Destroyers section, I think it would be a good idea to move the majority of the information out of the article as it seems to probably place undue focus on the topic;
    • the See also section should probably be reduced. Where you have already mentioned a ship in the body of the article, the link should be included at first mention, and then there is no requirement to add it to the See also section;
    • I've added a "citation needed" tag where I think a reference is required. If you can, please add a citation where I've marked;
    • if possible, I would like to see more coverage of the air cover and the anti-submarine/minesweeping operations;
    • is there any information about casualties amongst the ships' crews that could be added?
    • I suggest splitting the footnotes and citations into separate sections in the references. For instance, the way in which it is done on USS Monitor is a possible solution (although it isn't the only one).
    • be careful with forcing the size of the images, it might be better just to use the "thumb" parameter, rather than forcing the sizes (e.g. "360 px"), as this can create some issues on different sized computer screens;
    • Anyway, that is probably all I have. I will come back later to see how you are getting on, but unfortunately after next Saturday I will be offline for about three weeks, so I might not respond promptly. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

  • von Schlieben was a Generalleutnant per this (among many other sources) which was equivalent to a US Army Major general per Stein (1984) The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939–45 p. 295. I know he wasn't Waffen-SS, but the relevant page of Stein provides Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS equivalents in the US Army. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Second checklist update[edit]

Generalleutnant is added, Destroyer section deleted, and Morison p. 198 citation provided as requested. See also is reworked, new section Ships assigned.
Another editor provided the specific a/c types without references, should they be deleted, or is it common knowledge which aircraft were assigned to each squadron? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Expanded narrative on minesweepers, Bibliography section, separated notes from references.
General histories in Google searches for IX Army Air Force or IX TAC gloss over air spotters for sea bombardment coordination, although it was mentioned in dispatches from the German commander. The focus is generally on providing support to the infantry, and the coordination was not yet perfected. Putting the same radios in aircraft and ships was later adapted to putting the same radios in aircraft and tanks for better spotter and direct air support.
Still searching for naval casualties during the bombardment. Crews were at battle stations in condition Z during combat operations, so although several ships were holed, casualties were reported as light. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Key:

Normal text: Fine
Italic text: Minor issues.
Bold text: Major issues

Some problems, I think only the Morton Deyo image is particularly worrisome, though. It's by far the worst documented... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Bombardment of Cherbourg pics. Thanks for the assist. A couple of observations on the three problematical photos for A-class status.
In the first portrait photo for John Plagis in a Featured Article, there is an author, and the date is “created: between 1939 and 1945”. Is that the convention which should be uniformly adopted for WWII photos which are otherwise undated? In the second portrait, the photographer is identified only as “Royal Air Force official photographer”, which is to say unknown. The photo is “Created: between 1943 and 1944”, which seems reasonable even if the photo is not dated, since both men were alive and stationed at the same place during that time frame.
For Deyo, the image is on wikimedia commons, The source is the United States Navy, “This file is a word of a sailor of employee of the U.S. Navy, taken or made as a part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.” This is not a more vague source than is required for Featured Articles, generally given the example this month, naming the author as "official Navy photographer” should suffice. The date span is 1943-1945, given his promotion to admiral with a sea command. Those amendments are in place.
For Quesada, the image is on wikipedia, a candidate for wikimedia commons. “This image is a work of a U.S. Army employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.” The original image was captured from the Air Force Association webpage. I’ve sent an email to ask for updated URL for the photo made in the Bombardment of Cherbourg time frame. Another photo as a formal portrait is available at Boeing Company website, but it would not fit in with the other two period photos, and it is not open sourced.
The template for sourced documents from Archievesnormandie uses the term “undefined”. I am not acquainted with the procedure for modifying templates, but the Summary now shows the Author as “unknown” per Talk suggestion. I have to say I am somewhat surprised, Is perfecting photo files beyond Featured Article photo elements a part of an article gaining A-class status? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I did this review identically to how I'd do an FAC review. The problem is that, without a source, and without any additional information, it's hard to check they're Army photographs, for example, and, for that matter, images uploaded in 2007 were encouraged to be fairly low resolution. We've since realised that's a mistake. With a source, we might do better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
For Portcherbourg, the source site is now dead, which I suppose can excuse the lack of identifier... however, it's not a very good photo. What do you think of http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NBQFEe9lExQ/TlGpnRu0TII/AAAAAAAAAO4/GZGr4zoV6rU/s1600/eleanor%252C+cherbourg.jpg from http://www.thecascadiacourier.com/2011/08/girl-and-fish.html and dated 1944 and US Army photo? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
We can rely on the previous editor's tags that the photos were official work of navy and army air photographers. I think that it would be interesting to reconstruct the sourcing, does that mean putting the review of the Bombardment of Cherbourg article on hold?
Okay. The linked photo is certainly of the place and of the time. But it lacks the panoramic view showing the topography from land looking seaward to pair with the panoramic aerial photo from sea looking landward on either side of the map as a visual orientation to the place. It is in one sense, a duplicate of the effectiveness of the naval bombardment showing the disruption of a casemate battery further down in the article, were it subject of naval gunnery.
But the civilian building was not a designated target of the naval bombardment, I cannot discern it was indeed naval gunnery which did the damage; the walls are still standing, that would argue that it was not. That unknown to me seems more problematical for inclusion in the article than the specific authorship of a photo. The photo looks like a well focused photo of any bombed-out civilian building in France, 1944-1945, from aerial bombing or artillery shelling. I do not understand how it helps the reader to visualize the terrain pictured in the centered map of Cherbourg port, which is what the existing photo was chosen to do. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: I found the larger picture that Deyo’s cropped image was taken from, at WWII Archives.net, it is of Gen. Eisenhower, Adm. Kirk and Adm. Deyo aboard the USS Tuscaloosa. The citation is from National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, Maryland (80-G-231642). I rummaged around in the search feature at the National Archives, but could not readily find the item. Any assistance would be appreciated.

Further Google search yields the Naval Historical Center on the web at .history.navy.mil/photos/images/, describing the photo Photo #: 80-G-231642. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. Army (left), with Rear Admiral Alan G. Kirk, USN (center) and Rear Admiral Morton L. Deyo, USN — On board USS Tuscaloosa (CA-37) on 19 May 1944, during preparations for the Normandy invasion. — Official U.S. Navy Photograph, now in the collections of the National Archives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to note: I think these image issues should be sorted by FAC; we can probably let this slide at A-class a bit. I'll be back a bit later on to help do the documentation. @Dominic: is the Wikipedian at Residence in NARA, and can probably say about the Deyo pic more, if need be, but I believe the 80-G-231642 is a reference number, so that's probably enough documentation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
That is a NARA-specific identifier. 231642 is the number on the individual photo, and 80-G signifies which series it belongs to: "General Photographic File of the Department of Navy, 1943 - 1958". The original physical print should be able to be retrieved with that identifier, but it appears it has not been individually described in the catalog yet. The scans circulating on the Internet were likely produced by public researchers who came across the photo in the archives themselves. We could potentially rescan an original if requested, but I can't make any promises. Dominic·t 20:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Dominic! That clarifies things a lot. Honestly, if it's only being used to identify Deyo and maybe Kirk, and the full image isn't being used on Wikipedia yet, I'm not sure it's worth putting you to the effort. If you can easily grab a better image of Deyo, then that might be good, but otherwise, don't worry! =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island[edit]

Nominator(s): v/r - TP


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

@Dank, Hchc2009, Lineagegeek: Hi folks - don't mean to be a bother, but could I ask you to review the corrections please?--v/r - TP 21:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
As you said, done. I have no remaining reservations. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller, Mareklug: I started the GA review while the nomination was still pending but when I went to actually paste in the review I saw it had been withdrawn. My comments are here. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Meant to @TParis, I fail at copy/pasting. Sorry Dan. Protonk (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. I've added a subsection below for any comments you want to pull over to this page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dank[edit]

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

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

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

  • is there a place of publishing for the Burlingame work?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • are there oclc or isbn for the Curtis, Deerr and Pratt works?
    • Yes check.svg Done Curtis and Pratt--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • year of publication for the Day work?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • please check the location of publication for the Day work. Currently it says "Australia", but the edition I found Worldcat indicates it was published in the US. If published in Australia, please list the city as well;
    • @AustralianRupert: I couldn't find the book at the library - I assume it's checked out. I looked online and I can't find any reference to Austrailia at all. I've updated the publisher and location to the Google books result.--v/r - TP 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • place of publication for the Prange work?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • References # 7, # 8, # 24, # 25 and # 62 (where the full book citation is provided) should probably use the same style (short citation) as others like Reference # 41 for consistency. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm on it. I had planned on working on this this weekend, but I got selected for promotion on Thursday and that's filled up my weekend. But I will get on these all. I see Dank has worked on the article quite a bit too.--01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
If promotion is a good thing, gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I have been out of it. Dealing with another issue on this project and some other stuff in personal life.--v/r - TP 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow up comments: G'day, I had another look at the article today. Your changes look quite good and I think you are getting there, although I think it still needs a copy edit. I had a go at fixing some of the issues this morning (please check you are happy with my changes), but I don't really have time for much more at the moment, sorry. I don't know if Dank has time to come back, but if not I'd suggest seeing if someone from the WP:GOCE can help. I'd be happy to support promotion to A-class once this has been done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @AustralianRupert: The copyedit has been completed by User:Miniapolis. They identified a sentence with a poor source that doesn't support the material. I'm working on correcting the source.--v/r - TP 23:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • @AustralianRupert: I've corrected the sourcing issue.--v/r - TP 22:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Great, thanks for that. I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Lineagegeek[edit]

  • Air Service/Air Corps use needs work:
All Air Corps unit names, except for the 6th Aero Squadron are anachronistic and do not give the names of the units at the time they were at Luke Field. Part of this appears to be the source used for the information, which after looking at, I would not consider a reliable source. The squadron names are close enough to cite the correct ones by searching Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6. LCCN 70605402. OCLC 72556. .
Units not mentioned include the 5th Group (Observation) and several non-flying organizations. Information on the 5th group is at Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. Air Force Combat Units of World War II (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-02-1. LCCN 61060979. . Your list also separates units that had different names while at Luke. Right now this is a problem with B2, but it's fixable. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I'm a little confused by some of what you're saying. So you're saying that I'm not using the unit names as they were at the time they were stationed at Luke Field and you want me to research, using your sources, the names during that period? I can do that, I just want to be clear on what you want.--v/r - TP 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That's right. For example, the two entries for the 6th Aero Squadron and the 6th Fighter Squadron [sic] are for the same unit, which was designated 6th Aero Squadron, 6th Squadron (Observation), 6th Squadron (Pursuit), and 6th Pursuit Squadron while at Luke Field (never Fighter Squadron). It also was at Luke until 1927, not 1926. The "394th Bomb Sq" was the 4th Aero Squadron and 4th Squadron (Observation) and was at Luke from 1920-1922. The 4th Observation Squadron was also the 4th Reconnaissance Squadron (same unit as before) and returned to Luke from 1927-1939, not 1929-1937. The 23d was the 23d Squadron (Bombardment) and 23d Bombardment (not Bomb) Squadron. The 72d was also a Bombardment Squadron. The "431st Bomb Squadron" was the 50th Observation Squadron and 50th Reconnaissance Squadron and was at Luke until 1939. So, yes, I bellieve the current table needs editing to merit a higher assessment.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC).
Okay, no problem Col, I'll get on it.--v/r - TP 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support - Hchc2009[edit]

Comments:

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

Comments by Protonk[edit]

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

style/layout[edit]
  • Are any of the names listed in the lede (e.g. Rabbit Island, Marín's Island, Little Goats Island, or Mokuʻumeʻume) redirects to Ford island? If so, should we bold them?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Consider moving the Naval aircraft at Naval Air Station Pearl Harbor in 1931 table down a bit (perhaps below the first para about the naval air station)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Given that the plan to install SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS (sorry) on the airstrip was not put into place, is a better place for that concept art right above the paragraph starting with "In June 2013 the Navy planned to install 60,000 photovoltaic panels over 28 acres..." (or perhaps not at all)
    • Yes check.svg Done And it was just solar panels, lol. Solar roadways would be awesome but I think those are still in development. Last I heard, they could change lane layout, light up a road, melt ice, and power nearby homes. It will be awesome when they do come out. But these were just solar panels that would be colored to look as if they were the runway from the air.--v/r - TP 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
content[edit]
  • When we say it slopes toward pearl harbor do we mean east, west, south? It's kinda in the middle of pearl harbor.
    • I checked the source and it doesn't specify. It only says that it slopes toward Pearl Harbor. It's a 2011 report and by that time the active part of the base was on the east side. I could assume that but it'd be OR. What do you think I should do?--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Toward pearl harbor may be fine. I'd also assume that the source means "pearl harbor" to be the bulk of the navy base (which would be east), but if they don't specify it's probably ok. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • what does "Ford Island proper" mean? Are we just distinguishing it from Ford island + Mokunui and Mokuiki?
    • It's talking about the land below the top soil. Any suggestions for how to say that?--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, that's a good question. I'll think about it a bit, my gut says avoid "proper", but it's not a huge issue either way. Protonk (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "In some literature, the ceremony is considered a game." what does Kane say about this, exactly?
    • I'll have to run out to the library to get this. I cant find an electronic copy of that page.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • When did Seth Porter Ford, Jr. die? Or more directly, when was the land sold to the Papa Īī land trust?
    • Yes check.svg Done 1885 and 1891 respectively. I've added it to the article.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The United States purchased the island in 1917." I'm assuming this means the US purchased the remainder of the island or the whole of it?
    • Yes check.svg Done Only the Luke Field part at this time. The north side was still owned by the John iI estate until after the Bishop Estate vs the United States lawsuit, which had nothing to do with Ford Island but set a precedent that scared the iI estate into not fighting the United States for more money.--v/r - TP 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "At the height of World War II, over 40,000 people lived or worked on the island" should go at the end of that paragraph.
  • "which usually hosted an aircraft carrier, was empty" "berthed" may be better
    • Good point. Yes check.svg Done --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The fleet flagship (the USS Pennsylvania) was also in Pearl Harbor, dry-docked at the nearby Navy Yard. The ninth battleship, the USS Colorado, was being overhauled on the West Coast." not sure why this is relevant to Ford island. Likewise the following sentence.
    • Yes check.svg Done Made relevant by revising. It is indispensable to mention here USS Pennsylvania, if only as the graphic used (saliently) shows it on the map. Ditto for the fleet flagship undergoing refitting stateside, needed by the scope of the USA/Japan fleet comparison at paragraph close. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That's much better. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ford Island the communications systems there were inadequate" the two citations here are identical to those cited at the end of the sentence. is there a reason why we don't just cite them at the end?
    • I speak boldly for Tom, but that may be folly. AFAIK the current political climate on Wikipedia fosters such extremes whenever reverencing controversial claims. End of sentence has become NOT ENUF. I personally promise to quietly steel in during the Central Standard Time night and remove the first brace of identical citations from that sentence, per your sane suggestion, once the article passes this certification phase... :/ --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • To be clear, are the 5 pilots shot down in the Aftermath distinct from the search planes shot down during the battle?
    • Yes, the first planes shot down were from the Enterprise trying to land on Ford Island. The others were from Ford Island, notified the tower and gunners of their trip, and yet were still confused for the enemy and shot at while trying to land on Ford Island again. One of the pilots was in both sorties, though.--v/r - TP 22:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Marines, who had picked up rifles for guard duty..." why is this important?
    • Fixed through removal of erroneous appositive-suggesting punctuation. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "That evening, Hawaiians were instructed to observe an indoor blackout, stay off the telephone..." how is this relevant to ford island? Was it a directive for all of Oahu?
    • X mark.svg Not done IMHO it is perfectly correct in this place. This article is about Ford Island, yes, but it is supposed to leave a vivid impression in the reader's mind, and generalizing the focus with such a pertinent tidbit does not harm things, and is a wonderful device for preserving interest and cohesion. It does not stop us from injecting this lovely passage in a more general article or five, including History of the United States. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That's ok. Hope you'll understand my desire to push back so we can see where an escape to the general is good for the soul and where it's a loss of focus. :) Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I think it's important to set the stage for the tense feelings all around the island and the fear of another attack which led to the friendly fire. I'm not opposed with describing this another way, though.--v/r - TP 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "On 1 July 1999 all military and civilian general-aviation activity at NALF Ford Island ended when NAS Barbers Point..." why did the closure of barbers point impact Ford island?
  • We'll just call anything a "bridge to nowhere" Ford island, Ketchikan, anything! :) Just a comment, no action needed.
  • "the National Trust for Historic Preservation considered the Navy's communication style more directive than bi-directional" what does this mean, exactly? It's an odd turn of phrase.
  • "It hosts the Pacific Warfighting Center...to simulate real-world conditions for battlefield commanders." this feels a little press-releasey to me. I'm sure that's one of the things the PWC does (no doubt the actual acronym is something like PacWarCenStupidThing), but it also does regular training for random stuff like battery maintenence.
  • "Critics say that the platform has poor emergency preparedness..." who?
  • FIST2FAC. lol. I forgot how terrible navy names for things are
  • "The aircraft carrier which was actually a test dummy, the USS Utah..." sort of awkwardly worded. Also the Utah was a battleship before being turned into a target ship, not an aircraft carrier "test dummy"
    • Yes check.svg Done Comma fixed the awkwardness, and I replaced the ship designation, per our own article content. Error introduced by source and my slavish copying of it. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This article marks the only time Michael Bay has been solemn about anything, so that's something.
  • this external link is to a pd photograph. Would we be better off uploading it to commons and including it in that gallery?
  • this is a pdf. Is there some way to format the link so the reader knows that? Also is this something that would be eventually incorporated into the sourcing?
    • Yes check.svg Done Portable Document Format specified as |format=PDF within the parameters of any cite template in use on Wikipedia (in all language versions) draws a useful PDF icon in place of the default HTML value, that makes the blue NE box and arrow we take for granted. ;) For example: FAA Airport Master Record for NPS (Form 5010 PDF), effective 1999. BTW, did we know that this is an (external) red link? We use this citation twice: in the lede, defining it in Ford_Island#Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I think I'm missing something. I should've specified that the "Mokuʻumeʻume (William Dorrance). Historic Hawaii Newsletter, December 1991, Vol 17 No 12" in the external links is a PDF and doesn't render the pdf icon automatically because the resource is dynamically generated and doesn't end in .pdf (wikipedia's common css has selectors for external links that look for some variation of ".pdf" in the url and place the icon on there). I've since discovered there's a template which can force the icon, {{PDFlink}} and I've applied it to that particular external link. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
sources[edit]
  • This is a little picky but this source does a lot of work for us. I think the milhist project has among them enough books on pearl harbor to build a life sized paper mache model of Ford island. Maybe we can use some of them here instead. :

Comments by Peacemaker[edit]

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

  • you need to check overlinking, Kamehameha I., California, Bernice Bishop, the ships in the "Pearl Harbor during the attack" box, and Ewa Beach are all overlinked.
  • there is some apparently unnecessary "citation bombing" where five citations are used for what seems a fairly uncontroversial piece of info, ie "isle of attraction".
    • That piece is a little more controversial that it'd seem. The literal translation of Moku'ume'ume is Island of Push and Pull. The intended meaning according to historians, at least the ones I found in books and at the Bishop Museum, is Island of Attraction (just the pull part). However, others have translated Push and Pull as "Strife". So Island of Strife shows up in enough sources that it isn't entirely ignorable. Although between Attraction and Strife, and with consideration of what was happening on the island, and the majority of sources supporting "Attraction", I felt it was best to use Island of Attraction and source it well. If everyone agrees it's not necessary with this in mind, I'm happy to reduce it.--v/r - TP 18:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
      • If that is the case, then perhaps both titles should be mentioned, and sources provided for both, rather than citation bombing one of them?
        • Perhaps. But the sources that mention Strife just arn't as strong as Attraction.--v/r - TP 00:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, I'm fairly relaxed about that, my only point is that unless it is a fringe theory, it usually merits a mention. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
  • a citation is needed for a statement about "Japan fearing an attack" in the lead, and this should be covered in the body, as should all information in the lead. There doesn't appear to be anything particularly controversial in the lead that would need to be cited in-line there, all citations should be moved to the body.
  • capitalisation of proper names should be consistent, ie "USS Arizona Memorial"

Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • "In 1991 the Navy discovered nine metals, two semi-volatile" - what were the metals, are they contaminants? Heavy metals? Needs some more info.YesY
  • who did Dowsett buy the island from? Marin or the Hawaiian owners?
  • when was the island sold to the land trust?YesY
  • there really is no explanation of how Bishop came to be administering Hawaii
  • who did the military lease sections of the island from, and who did the US purchase the island from?
  • "When Currey was transferred to Washington",
  • some mention that Luke was a fighter ace in WWI would be in order
  • "World War I salvage hangars" is unclear, were they canvas hangers salvaged from WWI?
  • Hickham appears to have been an USAAC pioneer, perhaps that would be a better description than "recently deceased"?
  • suggest " built a firehouse, water-supply and lighting systems"
  • Was USS California the USN flagship and Pennsylvania the fleet flagship? It isn't clear what California was flagship of.
  • it isn't clear that H. L. Young was trying to communicate after landing on Ford Island
  • suggest replacing "bi-directional" with "consultative"
  • suggest "As hoped by the trustTrust"

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

  • Thanks for the suggestions. I will try to get to them either this week or next week. I am falling behind in some college courses that I need to catch up on this week.--v/r - TP 00:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)