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

Les Holden[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)


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

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

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

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.

Will be away for a couple of weeks at the end of July/beginning of August is case you wonder why I don't respons immediately

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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • "This article is about the English royal house of the 12th century" - 12th-13th century?
  • 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.
  • "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.
  • "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.
  • 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)
  • 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)

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'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)

USS Mahan (DD-364)[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

  • in the lead, I suggest tweaking the first sentence: "USS Mahan (DD-364) was the lead ship of the Mahan-class destroyers in the United States Navy" --> "USS Mahan (DD-364) was the lead ship of the United States Navy's Mahan-class destroyers."
Done - Pendright (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • in the References, what is the title of the wider work that "Chapter 1" is a part of?
Chapter 1 - U.S.S. Mahan D. D. #364 is the actual title of the work. It’s the personal log of Paul Fleshman, who served aboard Mahan from September1938 until August 1944. - Pendright (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've tweaked the ref to add the extra bibliographic details. Please check you are happy with the edit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Miller is listed in the References, but not used as a citation. I suggest either adding a citation to it, removing it, or adding it to a Further reading section;
The information related to Miller was removed from the article something ago, but I did not, obviously, remove Miller as the source. It has now been removed from the references. Thank you! - Pendright (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • if possible, I suggest cropping the images to remove the captions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but I’m not sure I fully understand the suggestion. Pendright (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
G'day, sorry, I'll try to clarify. I'm suggesting that the text be removed from the image file so that all is left is the picture of the ship itself. For instance, in relation to File:USS Mahan 24 June 1944.jpg I'd suggest removing the text that appears in black and white at the top of the image – "Photo # 19-N-67752: Closeup view of USS Mahan, at the Mare Island Navy Yard, 24 June 1944" – and placing that text on to the image description page. I suggest similar action for File:USS Mahan bow 1944.jpg. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "A US destroyer sank Mahan with torpedoes and gunfire" --> would it be possible to add a quick explanation as to why as this seems slightly counter-intuitive? I assume that this was done for a couple of reasons, possibly including the fact that if she remained afloat sensitive equipment could be captured/taken off her, and also that while floating she posed an obstacle to other ships transiting the area. I'm a footslogger, though, so I'm only guessing. Your explanation wouldn't have to be too long. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2014 (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)

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)

Comments

  • "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)
  • 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: 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;
  • 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)

Æthelwold ætheling[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)


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

Support Comments from Tim riley

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

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

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

  • Thanks for your very helpful review.

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

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

June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

Russian battleship Pobeda[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


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

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

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

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

  • this seems inconsistent - in the infobox: "Launched 10 May 1900" v. in the text "The ship was launched 23 May 1900"
  • in the infobox "Draft 26ft" v. in the text "draft of 26 feet 3 inches"
  • in the infoxbox "Belt: 7-9 inches" v. "waterline armor belt consisted of Krupp cemented armour and was 4-9 inches". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

  • Comments
    • I reviewed for GA but quite a bit of development has occurred since then so will go through it again.
    • No dab links [1] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [3] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
    • A few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • flagship
      • Rear Admiral
        • Found these too and dealt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [4] (no action req'd)
    • "On the night of 8/9 February 1904, the IJN...", abbreviation "IJN" needs to be introduced.
    • This sentence has a few issues for me: "She was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905, and was classified as a 1st-class battleship and renamed as Suwo on 25 October,[18] after the eponymous ancient province.[19]" Firstly as it is the first sentence in a new section I think it probably best to introduce the subject (i.e. Pobeda), it might be unclear to some why it was refloated (i.e. to be salvaged / pressed into service) whilst it seems to run on a bit. Consider splitting a rewording a little. Try something like: "Pobeda was refloated by Japanese engineers on 17 October 1905 and pressed into service. Classified as a 1st-class battleship, she was renamed as Suwo on 25 October, after the eponymous ancient province."
    • Otherwise good. Anotherclown (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I've reworded the sentence, but the lede already tells the reader that she was placed into service by the IJN so I don't really think that it's necessary to do so again. I think that I've resolved everything else that y'all pointed out. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Philippe Leclerc de Hauteclocque[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)


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

Comments

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

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

  • should this be in italics: "sous lieutenant" in the Early life section?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "commissioned as a sous lieutenant" v. "He was promoted to Lieutenant" (caps and italics, as above);
    De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • wording: " In one action, two horses were shot under him" --> " In one action, two horses were shot out from under him"? (not sure about this one, though, I could well be wrong, so feel free to ignore);
    Not sure either. Gone with your version. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • wording: "given early admission to the course for promotion to capitaine" --> "given early admission to the capitain's promotion course"? (this might be a little tigher)
    I wanted to make it clear that the course was for promotion to captaine, not a promotion course 'for a captaine. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "World War II" and "Second World War", and also "World War I"
    French follows English: First World War (Première Guerre mondiale) and Second World War (Seconde Guerre mondiale). So we'll go with that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest starting a new paragraph at this sentence: "He broke his leg in two places in a fall from his horse in 1936..." (as it doesn't seem related to the information appearing in the paragraph before it);
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • capitalisation: "in the battle of the Falaise Pocket" --> "in the Battle of the Falaise Pocket" (for consistency with how you present the other battle names);
    Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Fortunately, the German commander..." (not sure that it is best to use "fortunately" here, as it implies a point of view, I think);
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "This was taken as death sentence" --> "This was taken as a death sentence"?
    Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a little more context should be added here: "As new CEFEO commander, Leclerc began in October 1945 in French Indochina, first breaking a Vietminh blockade around Saigon..." (for instance, clarification that they were attempting to regain their colonial possessions, which had been lost after the Japanese entered the war...(or something similar - I'm not an expert in this area, though, so my suggest might be overly simplistic). It probably wouldn't need much more than a short sentence)
    I didn't rewrite this section, as it was as long as I thought it needed to be, but it seems that the story is not well known. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    Okay, I have added some background. It's one of those things that gets more complicated the more that you know about it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I suggest attributing this quote in text: "like the Americans later, could conquer Vietnamese territory but could not hold it";
    Struck this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "in the absence of d'Argenlieu" --> I don't think he has been mentioned before, perhaps a little more detail is needed (e.g. full name etc.) and why wasn't he there?
    D'Argenlieu appears in the Gabon section, conducting a mass. He then parades through Paris with Leclerc and de Gaulle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "he warned that "anti-communism will be a useless tool unless the problem of nationalism is resolved" (warned by whom?)
    Added a bit more explanation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "Leclerc was appointed Inspector of Land Forces in North Africa" (when?) --> e.g. something like this might be smoother: "A month after his return, Leclerc was appointed Inspector of Land Forces in North Africa..." AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

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

  • I reviewed the nomination of this article for GA, so am quite familiar with it.
  • I looked fairly closely at the prose when I reviewed it for GA, and have looked at the edits since I reviewed it. I am happy with the prose.
  • Checklinks indicates a couple of the external links are unstable redirects or change domain.
  • no alt text on images (not an ACR requirement)
  • no indication of any copyvios.
  • Ordre de la Libération in the infobox is rendered as Order of Liberation in the text, consistency.
  • "He was unsuccessful in finding a solution" is probably unfair, it was Sainteny that was responsible for negotiations with the Vietminh. A more nuanced explanation is needed in the lead I think.
  • suggest refbegin and refend templates for the References section
  • He is listed as being involved in the French Conquest of Morocco in the infobox, but Morocco was essentially conquered before WWI, and Le Clerc had nothing to do with that.
  • Probably worth indicating his death occurred in Algeria in the lead.
  • Will take another look tomorrow.
  • I'm not sure about the French unit designations not being translated. We translate German units (with the notable exceptions of Panzer and Panzergrenadier, as they seem to be English terms now), and I rather think we should be doing the same with the French. ie 11th Chasseurs Regiment, 8th Moroccan Spahis Regiment etc.
    • We are doing the same with French. I don't know who decided that "panzer" and "panzergrenadier' don't get translated, but it was already the practice amongst English-speaking military historians in the 1940s. "Chasseur" and "Spahi" don't get translated either. So "11e Régiment de Chasseurs" in French could be rendered as "11th Chaussers Regiment" in English. The convention amongst English-speaking military historians is to not translate the abbreviations, so the 13th Demi-Brigade of the Foreign Legion is the 13e DBLE. (Similarly, the International Federation of Association Football is FIFA.) Now that I'm on top of the translation templates, I can render them this way, if there is support amongst the MilHist Project for this. I looked at existing articles like Régiment de marche du Tchad for guidance. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Definitely need to get some consensus on it, I agree the terms like Chasseur should not get translated, but some explanation by way of a note might be useful. I'm familiar with the foreign initialisations, and I'm fine with that approach personally.
  • I'm done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • No dab links [5] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [6] (no action req'd).
    • Images have Alt Text [7] (no action req'd).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and mostly seem to have the req'd information:
      • One issue: date on File:Leclerc-casque.jpg is listed as 2 November 2013 which doesn't seem right.
    • Captions mostly look fine:
      • One issue: "Tokyo Bay, Japan. Surrender of Japanese aboard..." should this be "Surrender of the Japanese aboard..."
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd)
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [8] (no action req'd)
    • Use of abbrev "USA" - I think "US" is preferred but not sure.
    • "Henri went on to serve with the RMT...", abbrev needs to be introduced.
      • Did this myself, pls revert if I got it wrong. Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Looks fine otherwise. Anotherclown (talk) 10:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • Most of my points are minor but I think the image date might be an issue moving forward. Is anyone able to fix this? Anotherclown (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

SMS Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


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

Comments

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

  • Comments
    • No dab links [9] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [10] (no action req'd).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [11] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
    • A few duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • Brandenburg-class battleship
      • Kaiser Wilhelm Canal
      • Deutschland battleship
        • All removed, guess I forgot to check this before :)
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [12] (no action req'd)
    • Repetitive prose here: "The ships were readied for war very slowly, and they were not ready..." (readied and ready). Perhaps reword one?
      • Changed the first one to "prepared"
    • "He initially planned to launch a major amphibious assault on Windau..." perhaps add against which force this would have been conducted (Russians?)
      • Good idea
    • This sentence appears very abruptly: "According to Article 181 of the Treaty of Versailles, signed on 28 June 1919, Germany was permitted to retain only six..." Perhaps add that it was signed after Germany's defeat or something to add context.
      • See how it reads now.
    • In the ref list: "German Naval Manoeuvres" and "The British and German Fleets" are they OCLCs or ISSNs available for these works (perhaps check Worldcat.org)?
      • Both added
    • Otherwise looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your review! Parsecboy (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

HMS Formidable (67)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)


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

Suppport - prose comments as requested follow!

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

Comments

  • A few problems that weren't easy to fix in VE:
  • "She displaced 23,000-long-ton (23,369 t) at standard load "
  • "By the war's end the ship was all six of her original ...": ?
  • "take offs": I'm not positive what the options are in BritEng (on WP, anyway), but I don't think it's two words.
  • "Too far to intercept them before they could attack Ceylon, Force A departed ...": Too far away to intercept?
  • "One of Formidable's spotted": ?
  • "further searches failed to locate them. They failed to locate the First Air Fleet again until 8 April": Does this work? "further searches failed to locate the First Air Fleet again until 8 April"
  • More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 00:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • No dab links [13] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [14] (no action req'd).
    • Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [15] (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no actions req'd).
    • One duplicate links to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • HMS Indomitable (92)
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) [16] (no action req'd)
    • In the lead: "HMS Formidable was an Illustrious-class aircraft carrier built for the Royal Navy during World War II." Is this strictly accurate? From reading the article it was laid down in 1937 and launched in 1939 so the bulk of the construction would seem to have occurred before the war started?
    • Repetitive prose here: "although one Fulmar was also forced to force-land...", perhaps reword?
    • "Formidable arrived at Alexandria on the following day...", consider wording more simply as "...Formidable arrived at Alexandria the following day..."
    • not sure about capitalisation here: " to attack British Forces in the Indian Ocean...", specifically think it should be "British forces" (not really a proper noun here I think).
    • "where she embarked 24 Martlets of 888 and 893 Squadrons, 12 Albacores of 820 Squadron and 6 Seafires of 885 Squadron...", should Seafire be wikilinked?
    • Repetitive: "after it had surrendered to a Supermarine Walrus amphibian after..." (after)
    • "After several weeks of working up, Formidable departed Gibraltar on 14 January to join the British Pacific Fleet"... British Pacific Fleet should be wikilinked here I think (its only linked in the lead).
    • "She arrived in Sydney on 10 March after several...", Sydney should be wikilinked (or at least state that it is in Australia as opposed to Nova Scotia). Perhaps also mention that this was the location of the main BPF base as some readers might not understand why it went there.
    • is there a missing word here: " and then turned sharply to dive into the forward flight..." should it be "flight deck"?
    • "had her hangar refitted to accommodate Allied ex-PoWs...", abbreviation for prisoner of war needs to be introduced before use.
    • Only a few minor prose and MOS issues, otherwise a high quality article for sure. Anotherclown (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
      • All done, although PoWs was spelled out in the lede. Thanks for going through this with a fine-toothed comb.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)


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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments
  • Gerhard Schaar is more commonly known as "Gerd". Since "Gerd" is short for "Gerhard", someone down the line might have thought it wise to use the extended version. But in my experience, the Bulletin des Presse- und Informationsamtes der Bundesregierung is seldom wrong on names of ambassadors [17]
    • Hm, Fellgiebel, and Scherzer use the name Gerhard. I will check what Busch and Röll say. I am inclined to put the discrepancy in a footnote. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Busch and Röll also list him as Gerhard. I suggest that the name issue is first addressed in his article. Until this question is resolved, I suggest to keep him listed as Gerhard. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Eberhard Schäfer: "kingly Hungarian" or rather "Royal Hungarian"?
  • Gerhard Scheibe: "(radio/wireless)" should have included "operator"?
  • Wilhelm Schlüter, Karl Schümers, and Hans-Christian Schulze: Schupo should link to "Schupo (Nazi Germany)" rather than the present-day police formation.
  • Oberwachtmeister has its own article know and can be linked.
  • German National Archives are officially known as "German Federal Archives"
  • Hans-Joachim Schulz-Merkel: "battalion surgeon" might be a better translation of "Truppenarzt"
  • Wilhelm Schuncke: AOK = Armee-Oberkommando?
  • Kurt Schwarm: "Krad-Melder" would be a "dispatch rider"
  • Heinz Schweizer: "W" stands for "Waffenoffizier"?
    • Fellgiebel states "Feuerwerker" (pyrotechnician), added note MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Comment

  • Schweitzer is not listed in either issues of "von Seemen" What do you mean by this? Editions? And why the quotation marks around his name? You don't use them when referencing him elsewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Günter Sattler
  • Konrad Sauer
  • Georg Seelmann
  • Alfred Seiler
  • Josef Senft
  • Otto Seyd
  • Rudolf Siegel
  • Hans-Carl Sievert
  • Wolfgang Späte
  • Ernst Stäudle
  • Gerhard Stein
  • Heinz-Eberhard Freiherr von Steinaecker
  • Hans Steinwachs
  • Gottwald Stier
  • Helmut Störchel
  • Egon Stoll-Berberich
  • Gustav Strauß
  • Bruno Streckenbach
  • Heinz Strüning
  • Adolf Stück
  • Wolff von Stutterheim
  • Rudolf Sürig
  • Kurt Sunkel

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

  • Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein
  • Bernhard-Georg von Seebeck
  • August Seidensticker
  • Horst Sieber
  • Günther Sitter
  • Willi Sölter
  • Karl-Heinz Stahnke
  • Heinrich Strobl

No citation or note for date of award:

  • Ernst Sieler

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

My review is complete.

  • Congratulations on a quite incredible achievement! A top effort. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Comments: congratulations on finishing the topic. I have a couple of suggestions, mainly focusing on the notes: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
    • the way this is worded, it sounds like original research: "And Kment can't be the source, since Buch stated that Kment died in the early 1970s. If indeed Kment would have been the source then von Seemen would have listed Sailer in either the first or second edition of his book, which isn't the case". Is there a way that it can be reworded to attribute the opinions so it doesn't sound like original research?
    • watch out for contractions, for instance "can't", "isn't", "doesn't" and "hadn't"
    • "this as an Dietrich award" --> "this as a Dietrich award"
    • "Deffered, because..." --> should this be "Deferred, because"?
    • I tried to fix this, but I wasn't quite sure what was meant (there are a couple of typos, I think): "Scherzer does not confirm this entry but states that the WWaiting for announced statementW is noted instead"
    • "This nomination does no longer exist"; this would be tigher/smoother probably as "This nomination no longer exists"
    • "he hadn't to do anything with this case" --> this would probably be smoother as "Buch reported on 25 June 2004 that he had not had anything to do with this case"
    • "norwegian" --> "Norwegian"?
    • "honorable" --> "honourable" if using British English (which I think you are using given I saw Labour etc.)
    • "posthumous recognition" appears to be overlinked according to the duplicate link checker tool
    • "all honors" --> "all honours" if using British English. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
      • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the thorough check. I believe to have addressed all your comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Is there anything I can do to further improve the article? MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, as I mentioned, "less" probably isn't the way to go. This list isn't in BritEng ("authorize"), and outside of BritEng, "less" isn't usually a preposition (except in old-fashioned and technical contexts). The bigger problem is: are there any other lists on the English Wikipedia, or in any English-language encyclopedia, that contain all the X's but none of the Xy's in a list (where X is any letter and y is any letter other than a or z)? Maybe not. - Dank (push to talk) 16:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, this is exactly the situation I tried to avoid and therefore had raised this issue at the start of the review. I have no strong opinion on how the two lists get split. If the reviews feel a Sa–Schr and Schu–Sz is a better choice, let's go for it. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I followed the suggestion made by Dank and regrouped the list accordingly. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

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