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
Contest Awards Members
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.


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.


Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

Operation Goodwood (naval)[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

As my first ACR in a rather long time, I'd like to present Operation Goodwood for consideration. This article covers a series of major aircraft carrier strikes the Royal Navy launched against the German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in northern Norway. It was hoped that the scale of these attacks would wear down the German defences, but the operation ended in a rather embarrassing failure for the Royal Navy. The article builds on my work on the other major carrier raids on Tirpitz; FA Operation Tungsten (covering a fairly successful operation) and A-class Operation Mascot (another failure).

I've developed the article drawing on a large range of sources, and think that that it provides a comprehensive account of this operation. The article was assessed as GA in early July, and I again thank Ian Rose for his excellent feedback and edits in the GAN. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Maybe mention that Wolf Junge (in infobox) was the commander of Tirpitz? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea; I've just added that Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I found nothing to change, down to Attacks ... Thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

German cruiser Prinz Eugen[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

A slight change of pace - or at least from the seemingly endless overhauled pre-dreadnought articles. This ship was Bismarck's consort during the May 1941 operation, and she was one of only two major German warships to survive the war intact. I wrote this article a while ago (back in 2011) so it might need a little work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "Her anti-aircraft battery was to have consisted of twelve 10.5 cm (4.1 in) L/65 guns, twelve 3.7 cm (1.5 in) guns, and eight 2 cm (0.79 in) guns. The ship also would have carried a pair of triple 53.3 cm (21.0 in) torpedo launchers abreast of the rear superstructure. The ship was to have been equipped": Everything else in this section is simple past tense; I'm not getting the point of the change in tense.
    • Probably because I copied that section from one of the unfinished ships in the class and didn't fix it ;) Thanks for catching it!
  • "OKM": Write it out at first occurrence
    • Good point, fixed.
  • "remained in their stations": slightly jargony. "... relative positions", maybe?
    • Yeah, I can see that - have a look at how it reads now.
  • I copyedited the article down to Operation Cerberus per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks as always, Dan. Parsecboy (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Sure. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Nice work as always Parsecboy: this article provides a good summary of the history of a famous, though somewhat under-achieving, ship. I think that this meets the A-class criteria, but I have the following comments for your consideration:

  • "Prinz Eugen saw extensive action during Operation Rheinübung" - not sure about 'extensive' in this context: the term is usually used for ships who saw lots of combat over time, not a couple of clashes
    • Good point, removed.
  • " As designed, her standard complement consisted of 42 officers and 1,340 enlisted men" - Not sure if it belongs in the class article rather than here, but can it be explained why the crew was so huge for a heavy cruiser?
    • Well, it's really not all that large for a ship of her size - for instance, the smaller US Cleveland-class cruisers had a crew of almost 1,300 and the Baltimores topped 2,000 officers and enlisted. Remember that these cruisers were as large as the battleships of 20 years earlier (and not to mention the proliferation of anti-aircraft weaponry and other equipment).
  • "Prinz Eugen and the battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were continually threatened by Allied air attacks while stationed in Brest, so Adolf Hitler ordered their return to Germany in early 1942" - wasn't Hitler's overall motivation a belief that there was an imminent threat to Norway, and that all of his heavy ships needed to be there, rather than concern about the raids on Brest? If so, you might want to tweak this. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a good point - I've added a bit on the "zone of destiny", as Hitler apparently referred to Norway. Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

CommentSupport The article puts a lot of emphasis on Operation Rheinübung in comparison to the German fighting retreat in Eastern Prussia of early 1945. The fact that her commander Hans-Jürgen Reinicke was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, the only commander of Prinz Eugen so honored, is not (yet?) mentioned. He received the award for Prinz Eugen artillery support in the area of Riga and Tukums (Operation Doppelkopf) and for covering the naval evacuation of the German forces. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll pull some information from his article - nice work expanding that by the way.
I think I've added everything from Reinicke's article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • According to Koop and Schmolke page 154: Action on 29–31 January 1945: Prinz Eugen along with destroyer Z25 and torpedo boat T33 in support of the XXVIII Corps supported the bridgehead Cranz and fired 871 20.3cm rounds.
    • This was referenced in the article but additional details from K&S have been added.
  • According to Koop and Schmolke page 154: 10 March actions start in the area of Gotenhafen and Danzig. Prinz Eugen fired 2025 20.3cm and 2446 10.5cm rounds. Prinz Eugen is supported by Schlesien and as of 25 March by Leipzg.
    • Added, thanks for these details
  • Vizeadmiral Bernhard Rogge led the task force from 10 March to 22 March
    • Added too.
  • Prinz Eugen is also mentioned in conjunction with the Amber Room. see Bernsteinzimmer oder Bernsteincabinett: Auf der Suche nach der Wahrheit
  • The builder should be added to the infobox
    • Good idea
  • Hans-Erich Voss, Hitler's liaison officer, commanded Prince Eugen from October 1942 to February 19432. Koop & Schmolke page 160
    • Can you double check those dates for me? Oct 42 to Feb 43 I'm assuming? Thanks again. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The original ship bell of the SMS Tegetthoff was handed over to Prinz Eugen on 22 November 1942. The presentation was made by the Italian Contrammiraglio de Angeles. Koop & Schmolke page 182-183
    • Added.
  • Koop & Schmolke state (page 160) that her ship bell now resides in the Washington Naval Museum and the Tegetthoff bell is in Graz.
    • Don't know why I didn't think of that - I've seen the Prinz Eugen bell in Washington. Good catch! Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry for bringing this up piecemeal... Koop & Schmolke page 159 state that the US crew had difficulties handling the propulsion system. Apparently 11 of 12 boilers failed after the last German crew left the ship on 1 May 1946. Koop & Schmolke speculate that this may have influenced the decision to use her as a target ship. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Not a problem at all - these are all great additions to make. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am a bit confused about the propulsion system. Koop & Schmolke page 157 state 135,000 WPS (shaft power?), the infobox says 100,000 hp (75 MW) and the main body says 132,000 shaft horsepower (98,000 kW). In the class article it reads "Admiral Hipper's and Prinz Eugen's boilers were manufactured by Wagner, while the boilers for the other three ships were built by La Mont." Koop & Schmolke page 36 state La Mont boilers were used in Admiral Hipper and Prinz Eugen while the other three ships used Wagner boilers. Could you check into this please? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
    • It was an error on my part - Gröner confirms La Mont for Hipper and Eugen and Wagner for the rest. I'll fix it over there as well. As for the infobox, I'm guessing that was from before I overhauled the article and I missed when I updated the infobox. Thanks for catching it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I am done. Maybe check HRS which seems unused as a reference so far. good job overall MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Operation Rösselsprung (1944)[edit]

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

The airborne attack on Drvar and the attempt to kill Tito and decapitate the Yugoslav Partisan movement is one of the most enduring stories of Yugoslavia in WWII. Led by the only Waffen-SS airborne unit using parachute and glider insertion, it failed for a range of reasons, including fierce Partisan resistance and failures in planning and intelligence sharing. It has recently been enhanced using material from a number of publications in written in Serbo-Croatian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment/query -- Hi PM, I don't know if I'll get around to posting a full review, at least not for a while, but scanning it quickly I'm just curious: do sources address speculation of how post-war Europe might've been different if the mission had succeeded? If none of them really go into it, no prob, it's not for us to invent what-if scenarios that aren't given weight in the literature, and even if they do one could well argue that it opens up a can of worms re. articles on many wartime operations, but thought I'd ask... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I've seen, Ian. It's a bit like SS-GB, IMO, Geoffrey Robertson would have a field day with it. I tend to think that Yugoslavia would have been firmly in the Warsaw Pact post-1948, and the Soviets would have made sure of it. But it was actually a close-run thing, lots of lucky breaks as well as fanatical fighting by Tito's bodyguard battalion and others. Lucky the German intel guys didn't talk to each other, lucky the SS-paras landed on the cemetery rather than on the northside of town, lucky they didn't have any sensible contingency plans for the second drop, lucky the Brit sigs officer had the presence of mind to bring the radio etc etc. It must have given Tito a real scare. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Okay mate, tks for prompt response -- that's it for now but I'll keep the page on my watchlist... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Some units needed a convert template.
  • consistency: northeast, south east. British and Australian English use a hyphen more often than not.
  • "Importantly, the 4th Krajina Division of the 5th Corps was deployed between Bihać and Bosanski Petrovac": important why?
  • Words like Abwehr need to be translated.
  • I copyedited the article down to Partisan Intelligence per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Dan, I'll get onto those points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


  • The article notes that the British were aware that a German operation codenamed Rösselsprung is planned, not knowing where and when it would take place, so I'm wondering if the same passage would be better off noting that the Molotov thought that the British had more info on the attack than that and indicated this explicitly in his telegram to Korneev on 28 May. Apparently the Molotov's suspicion was based on Maclean's and Churchill's absence from Drvar at the time. (Source: Norman Naimark; Leonid Gibianskii: The Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 1944-1949 [1], p. 57) Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

German–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)

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)

Support: G'day, as always, quality work, Ian. Not much for me to complain about really. I just have a couple of suggestions:

  • "joining the 4th Light Horse Brigade" --> minor nitpick, but a soldier doesn't really "join" a unit, they are either "posted to" or "assigned to" (e.g. one joins a corps, but is posted to a unit). In this case, I believe Holden was assigned to the 4 LH Bde's headquarters element;
    • Mea culpa, I should know that...!
  • "Serving as a driver first in the Middle East and then in France", I'd suggest moving the link/mention of the Western Front to here;
    • Okay.
  • did he take part in any notable battles in the Middle East or France while serving in the light horse?
    • My guess is that I didn't find explicit mention of him doing so in the sources, but if I can usefully add something of the brigade's achievements during his posting then I'd be happy to do so.
  • "he and his wingman engaged a German two-seater that managed to escape" --> "he and his wingman unsuccessfully engaged a German two-seater that managed to escape"?
    • Heh, this seems to be the most problematic sentence in the article (see above)... ;-) I think I'd be happy to say "unsuccessfully engaged a German two-seater." or simply leave it as is, but I feel that "unsuccessfully" and "managed to escape" together might be overdoing it, WDYT?
      • I'd go with "unsuccessfully engaged a German two-seater." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It's true that a lot of copyeditors prefer one-word adverbs (unsuccessfully) to four-word clauses, if the meaning is the same. I try to pick my battles. So I can successfully escape. :) - Dank (push to talk) 11:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Promoted to captain in March 1918, Holden was posted to England in May as a flying instructor with No. 6 (Training) Squadron at Minchinhampton.[1][15] Royal Air Force policy required pilots to be rotated to home establishment for rest and instructional duties after nine to twelve months in combat". I'd suggest switching these two sentences, as I think it would improve the narrative flow
    • Sounds fair.
  • "were lost in their aircraft the Kookaburra" --> suggest adding a comma before "the Kookaburra". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Will do -- tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links [2] (no action req'd).
    • External links check out [3] (no action req'd).
    • Images have Alt Text [4] (no action req'd).
    • Images all seem to be PD / free and seem to have the req'd information (no action req'd)
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd)
    • 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 [5] (no action req'd)
    • " from altitudes as low as twenty or thirty feet..." I wonder if this should also be converted to metres? (suggestion only)
    • "In May 1921, he served with Malley and other veteran pilots as a pall-bearer at Colonel Watt's funeral...", probably should just be Watt, removing rank here as you have previously referred to him as Colonel Watt per WP:SURNAME.
    • There is an inconsistency between his date of birth in the article ("Holden was born on 3 March 1895"), and the lead and the infobox (both of which say 6 March 1895). Pls confirm which is correct.
    • Excellent otherwise. Anotherclown (talk) 07:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Actioned all those, tks for reviewing and especially for spotting the inconsistent birthdates! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
        • No worries. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


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.
Thanks, will doNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 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?
  • 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.
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.
  • 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)

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)

There is more to do here than I thought - I am going away for three weeks so please leave this open until I get back and can start again in earnest. Might even take up HChc's suggestion and take Gillingham's Angevin Empire with me for some light relief!! thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 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):

Support 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)
Very good, thank you. Pendright (talk) 20:05, 5 August 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)
I wonder if it might be possible to remove the stamp digitally rather than simply cropping it, since that would produce a rather thin photo. @Adam Cuerden: might be able to answer this. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Very easily doable for the top label, but the bottom label will be a substantial amount of work; any chance we could get a higher-resolution image before I start? It's pretty much the same amount of work, but larger works better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd assume the photo is in NARA's holdings - we have a Wikipedian in residence who works there and might be able to lend us a hand. I'll ask him. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I am traveling right now (for Wikimania), but when I get back I'll pull [6], [7], and any Mahan photos I can find in [8] and see if there is anything I can do to have them digitized. Dominic·t 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, it hadn't occurred to me that you'd be attending Wikimania ;) Thanks very much! Parsecboy (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Can you post on my talk page once they are digitized, please? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
@Adam, Parsecboy: I got back yesterday, and I found many photos of Mahan. I have uploaded the higher-resolution images scanned by myself of the image above, the photo it comes from (it is a slight crop), and three other photos of the ship. See below. I can't digitize a whole box, but let me know if there is a specific view you want me to go back and look for if these aren't enough. Dominic·t 18:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dominic: This is amazing. It might be nice to have File:USS Mahan 24 June 1944.jpg and File:BB South Dakota.jpg if NARA has them - which are the other two illustrations on the page - but this is amazing, and I'm going to start right now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: I can get those, but won't be able to upload them until Monday. I actually had that first one in my hand earlier today. But I am out of the office through Sunday for a conference (including leading a Wikipedia editing workshop for archivists). Dominic·t 20:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
@Dominic: No worries. It'll probably take me a bit to get the current ones done, anyway. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't know if you've noticed, Adam, but the 3rd photo is the uncropped version of the lead image - that would be nice to have cleaned up a bit. Parsecboy (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have indeed. I'm thinking Second, third, then any others I'm asked for, plus the remaining two images from the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:53, 15 August 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 (UT)
Done - The addition is short but I believe accurate. Pendright (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


  • It seems rather abrupt to jump from fleet training in 1937 to the Japanese striking at Pearl Harbor. Could you add some context for non-experts? Maybe a line or two about rising tensions between the US and Japan by 1941 and Japan's decision to launch a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and other targets.
Context added, with citation - Pendright (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Revised context - Pendright (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I reworked it a bit more, how does that look to you? Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice improvement - thanks! Pendright (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "En route to Noumea, New Caledonia, a Japanese submarine contact caused the battleship South Dakota and the destroyer Mahan, under Commander R. W. Simpson, to collide" - I think this should be reworded for a few things:
    • First, it might be better to separate Mahan's new commander from the collision - you might say something like "By [late 1942, or whenever he took command], Captain R. W. Simpson had taken command of Mahan."
    • It might need to be spelled out a little more - we both know that a submarine contact is a bad thing that forces one to take evasive maneuvers, and that's what caused the collision, but I'd wager that some won't. I also think it would be better to write about the collision more from the perspective of Mahan, since she's the subject of the article. Maybe something like: "En route to Noumea, New Caledonia, a Japanese submarine contact caused the American ships to take evasive action. In the confusion, Mahan and the battleship South Dakota collided; both ships were seriously damaged."
    • It would also be helpful to give the specific date of the collision - I assume it happened directly after the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands?
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The ships returned fire, shooting down eight of the ten planes; the remaining two escaped." - I assume without having scored any hits? It might be good to make that explicit.
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Japanese struck forcibly..." - would "forcefully" be a better word?
Fixed - Pendright (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a few small changes, please check them to make sure they're ok. Parsecboy (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2014 :(UTC)
Very good, thank you! Pendright (talk) 12:18, 8 August 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)

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)


  • "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: 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)


  • 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)
  • CommentsSupport
    • 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).
    • 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) [12] (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)
        • Looks good, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


  • "engage the Japanese fleet" seems like an odd piping for the Indian Ocean raid - might be better to shift it right a few words (or maybe even reword it slightly to "...unable to engage the Japanese fleet when it attacked British forces in the Indian Ocean raid.")
  • Link knots on the first use.
  • ""eight twin-gun turrets, four in sponsons on each side of the hull" - where were the other four guns? From the line drawing it looks like each sponson had two turrets. Is that correct?
    • Read this again; turrets is the immediate antecedent of the subordinate clause.
      • Yeah, that's what I'm saying (though I see that "the other four guns" is unclear) - the way it reads now, it sounds like only four of the turrets were in sponsons.
  • Do we know the names of the two cruisers that escorted her on the hunt for Admiral Scheer? Rohwer is usually good for that kind of info.
  • "the ship was unsuccessfully attacked by a pair of..." - might be unclear which ship we're talking about now, because we were just talking about trying to torpedo Vittorio Veneto
  • Apparently, it's a bad idea to serve in the bow of a destroyer named Nubian ;)
  • "take up his appointment of Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Fleet" - this doesn't seem right to me - is the first "of" the correct preposition here? I'd probably say "appointment as C-in-C..."
  • The article jumps from preparing for Olympic to the post-war section - it needs to have at least a sentence noting the Japanese surrender. Parsecboy (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • I added a bit about the ceasefire in August, but didn't want to get into extraneous details. Let me know what you think. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
      • It's fine to keep it to a minimum, but I'd rather you use the actual Japanese surrender on 15 August rather than their qualified acceptance of the Potstam declaration on 12 August. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)