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

Second Battle of Kehl (1796)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Second Battle of Kehl (1796) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is part of a series on the Rhine Campaign of 1796 that I and some others have been working on. It recently passed to GA and I think it meets the A-Class standard. auntieruth (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yugoslav monitor Vardar[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Yugoslav monitor Vardar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This river monitor saw action in WWI as an Austro-Hungarian vessel, along the Danube from Belgrade all the way into the Black Sea. After the war she was transferred to the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia). She saw action in the invasion of that country by the Axis in April 1941 but was scuttled less than a week after the invasion commenced. The article has recently passed GA and has been further improved since then. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. Appreciate the c/e. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

M2 light tank[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

M2 light tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has historical significance and was one of the milestones in American tank development. The article has passed a GA Review (by Parsecboy). The article (in my mind) meets most A-class standards. The article has several comprehensive supports, a lead that summarized the article, and images have license tags or fair use rationales. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments: thanks for your hard work on this. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • some of the specifications in the infobox seem inconsistent with what is in the body of the article. For instance: "14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) long" v. "Length: 4.43 m (14.5 ft)". Please check that everything mentioned in the infobox matches the body
  • equally there is inconsistency between the body of the article and the infobox in terms of what number is presented first (e.g. ft/in or m)
  • the composition of the crew is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body (e.g. commander, loader, driver, co-driver)
  • the number of rounds carried is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body
  • there is a "not in citation given" tag that should be rectified
  • Finished while you were commenting.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • the lead says "one .50 M2 Browning machine gun", but the Specifications section says "two .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 Browning heavy machine guns"
  • "FM 23-80 37-mm Gun Tank M5" appears as a short citation, but there is no corresponding long reference in the References section
  • All are addressed except the FM one, since I do not even know what it means.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That FM one is my fault. Result of a quick fix on the description of how the mount worked. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

LIM-49 Nike Zeus[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

LIM-49 Nike Zeus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Featured article candidates/LIM-49 Nike Zeus/archive1
Toolbox

Nike Zeus was the first in a string of efforts by the US Army to develop an ABM system. Arguments against its deployment continue to this day as the main arguments against follow-on projects as well, Its failure to convince the DoD to deploy it would be mirrored by the subsequent failures of Nike-X, Safeguard, Sentinel, etc. Plus there's a bunch of great images of rockets going WHOOOSH! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

HMS Nairana (1917)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) & Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Nairana (1917) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This vessel was designed as a passenger ship but commandeered mid-construction by the Royal Navy for service in World War I. It subsequently saw action during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. After that it reverted to its originally planned format and served for three decades as a Bass Strait ferry in Australia. Its civil career included its fair share of excitement, when it came closer to sinking than at any time during its military service. There was also an amusing incident with a Tasmanian devil, which for me evoked visions of the classic Looney Tunes character. This is my first collaboration on a ship article -- Sturm did most of the work on her design and wartime career, while I helped out mainly on the Tasmanian ferry side. We took the article to GAN some time ago; its belated appearance at ACR is due to my tardiness in getting hold of one last source that we wanted to round out the data. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments I find the concept of an aircraft carrier Bass Strait ferry to be mildly terrifying, and have the following comments:

  • "Negotiations between Huddart Parker and the shipbuilders William Denny and Brothers began in December 1913 " - who/what was Huddart Parker? (this para would benefit from an introductory sentence)
    • Firm introduced/linked in lead but I added a bit of context around the purchase in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The ship was nearly complete when requisitioned, although her propelling machinery was not yet installed" - seems like a significant amount of work still needed to be done! I'd suggest omitting "The ship was nearly complete" as this is a bit confusing.
    • That's pretty much exactly how our source put it so I'm not really comfortable removing it, especially since it ties into how only limited modifications could be made to the ship.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
      • OK fair enough. I would have thought that adding this would have required major works, but presumably her engines, etc, were in place. Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "The British Government released Nairana to William Denny and Brothers after the war to be rebuilt to her original plans" - did the government pay for these works?
    • My sources don't say, although I'm fairly certain that they did for some of the other carriers requisitioned during the war. Maybe Plowman has more exact info, but my sources only cover this in vague generalities. I don't know if the RN sold the ship back to Denny and who then sold her back to Huddart Parker or if the RN paid for her to be converted back at Denny before selling her to the Australians or if the latter had to pay for the reconversion after buying the ship back (presumably at a discount). Very annoying, all in all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • You could also note that four other Huddart Parker ships were requisitioned: [1] (this story also appears to say that the British Government returned the ship after she'd been converted back to a passenger ship)
    • I might leave the three above to Sturm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Those other ships aren't listed in Colledge and may have only been leased using their original crews. I'm not inclined to mention them without something more solid as a source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Nairana was not considered for war service, unlike some other Bass Strait ferries. She maintained a heavy schedule through the war years" - did her workload increase? (when researching the Australian Army ship Crusader (AV 2767) article I found quite a few newspaper stories from this era complaining about shortages of shipping on the Bass Strait - which Crusader ended up helping to fix). this story says that she was "Tasmania's sole passenger link with the mainland" during the war, though that would obviously need to be cross-checked!
    • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "Sold for scrap to Wm Mussell Pty Ltd," - [2] calls this company 'William Mussell Pty Ltd'
    • Tks/done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I suspect that the Wellington Harbour Maritime Museum is now the Museum of Wellington City & Sea
    • Checking around, I suspect you're right... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
  • If you had a mind to do so, you can mine Trove for all sorts of entertaining stories about this ship (brought to you via small town Tasmanian newspapers). I've added some material about her unfortunate Captain suddenly dying on New Year's Eve 1947. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Tks, have to admit there was so much in the Plowman book I didn't get into Trove but might do when I get more time. Tks for review/edits, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: looks good, I only found a couple of minor inconsistencies: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • £138,119 appears in the infobox, but £138,118 appears in the body
  • "speed of 19.5 knots (36.1 km/h; 22.4 mph" (in the body) v. "Speed: 19 kn (35 km/h; 22 mph)" in the infobox
    • Good catches, fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Tks for review, Rupert, and Sturm for actioning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • File:HMS Nairana (1917).jpg - needs a US copyright tag.
    • Don't actually think so as I reviewed the IWM photos used on my FA HMS Vanguard (23) and neither of those have US tags. I think that the British declaration that they're out of copyright worldwide seems to suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • That's my understanding also. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Nairana (AWM 303672).jpg - ditto.
    • Done, but the AWM license also seems pretty comprehensive and it may not be necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • File:HMS Nairana during 1918.jpg - can you identify the aircraft on the stern? Might be worth adding to the caption.
    • WWI aircraft really aren't my thing, but lemme see what I can do.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
      • My feeling is that if one of our sources on Nairana '​s military career has a similar picture identifying the plane that'd be one thing, but hunting around WWI aircraft books for something that looks similar would be a bit ORish (to me anyway, like when editors add decorations to bios on the basis of what they've discerned from a low-res black-and-white image of ribbons on the subject's uniform). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to nitpick prose/content-wise - great work on the article. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks Nate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

SMS Königsberg (1905)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Königsberg (1905) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another German light cruiser, I'd like to have this one through FAC in time for the centenary of her sinking in July 2015. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Support: Great work as usual, Parsec. Well done. I only have a couple of minor suggestions/nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • unless I missed it, I couldn't see mention in the body of the 10 x 3.7 cm MKs that are listed in the infobox
HRS v5 page 138 does not mention these guns. According to HRS the ship was later augmented with 10 x 5.2 cm SKs MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure when those got added to the infobox - I must not have noticed when they slipped in.
Should it not mention the 10 x 3.7 cm MKs? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Neither Gröner or HRS mention these guns, so I don't think they ought to be mentioned. I don't know where they came from. Parsecboy (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake, my version of HRS mentions 10 x 5.2 cm SKs. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • this seems inconsistent: "She was commissioned into the High Seas Fleet for sea trials on 6 April 1907" (in the body - Service history section) v."Commissioned: 4 June 1906" (in the infobox)
    • Fixed.
  • there are a couple of overlinked terms: "HMS Hyacinth (1898)", and "Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck"
    • Both fixed now.
  • in the lead: "joined Lieutenant Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck's guerrilla campaign". Perhaps add "ashore" after "campaign"...
    • How about "...campaign in East Africa"? That would also be an easy way to pipe the East Africa Campaign link per below.
  • perhaps work in a link to East African Campaign (World War I) in the lead or body
    • How about in both places?
  • in the lead, I think it might also be a good idea to link Battle of Rufiji Delta in some way given the heading in the body
    • Good idea.
  • in the body, I think a link to the Battle of Zanzibar would enhance the article, given it is linked in the lead
    • Also a good suggestion. Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Support, indeed another great article. I made a few minor edits, feel free to revert MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MB, they all look good to me! Parsecboy (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR req, suggestion only).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool shows a couple of minor issues with reference consolidation:
      • Bennett, p. 134 Multiple references contain the same content
      • B134 Multiple references are using the same name
        • Both fixed, good catch on these.
    • MOS issue: The commons box should be moved into the last section of the article per WP:LAYOUT.
      • Fixed.
    • Repetitive prose here: " Looff decided to abandon the normal peacetime training schedule and returned to Dar es Salaam on 24 July to replenish his coal and other stores. Looff also made efforts to organize..." Specifically starting two sentences the same way one after the other (i.e. "Looff"). Perhaps reword one? Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Changed the second "Looff" to "He" - does that work? Thanks for looking the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes that's fine. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 03:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hermann Graf[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Hermann Graf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Yet another German World War II fighter pilot I am nominating this article for A-Class. I believe to have covered all major aspects of his career and life. Please let me know what you think about the article. Thanks! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments (pending support) by Auntieruth

  • Very interesting article. It had some grammatical and wording issues, which I've tweaked. Feel free to revert if I've changed meaning. I've also smoothed out some duplication.
  • Okay, so how did he end up in American hands? Schuman says one thing, but one of the external links you provide as additional information says something else.
  • Can you help me out here? What aspect exactly is different? He surrendered to the Americans, they handed him over to the Soviets. Is that not clear? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources you've cited look reliable and credible. Thought you might find this interesting as well. Endler and Pele in Der Spiegel. " Die Pelés flogen unter dem Namen "Dr. Graf und Frau" mit einer Lufthansa-Boeing-707 nach Frankfurt. "
  • Thanks, I had a look at the Spiegel article, I am unsure if it is safe to conclude that Dr. Graf actually refers to Hermann Graf. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I know you're out of town visiting your mom, so when you get back, .... auntieruth (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • Why is the bit on him helping Jews escape to Switzerland piped to German Resistance to Nazism? Unless I'm missing something, this happened before the Nazis' rise to power.
  • "On 30 April 1942 he became an "ace-in-a-day" after shooting down six enemy aircraft in the region followed by seven on 2 May and 8 May respectively." - this mentions 3 days but only 2 kill tallies - were the 7 kills split between 2 and 8 May?
  • reworded, seven on 2 May and again seven on 8 May MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "When he claimed his 150th victory, a Yakovlev Yak-1, on 4 September 1942, his own aircraft suffered over 100 hits during this encounter. He was the second pilot, after Gordon Gollob, to achieve this mark." - this makes it sound like Gollob's claim to fame was having more than 100 hits to his aircraft. It would make more sense to rework these sentences to something like "On 4 September 1942, he claimed his 150th victory, a Yakovlev Yak-1; he was the second pilot, after Gordon Gollob, to achieve this mark. Graf's aircraft suffered over 100 hits during the engagement with the Yak-1."
  • "...married the German actress Jola Jobst..." - she has already been introduced, just her last name will do at this point.

Excellent work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Images

  • File:Hermann_Graf.jpg: strongly suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}} instead of the current tag, and expanding the FUR accordingly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

USS New York (BB-34)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)

USS New York (BB-34) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hello all! I sincerely regret having sort of disappeared suddenly, and for my lame-duck stint as coord. Some unexpected life events happened in late 2013 that essentially eliminated my ability to edit with quantity or consistency. That said I wanted to push up the articles I had improved at the time but hadn't had the chance to put through FAC and ACR, starting with my contribution to the battleships project, here. —Ed!(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Ed, nice work. I have a few observations/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • a couple of the external links appear to be 404/dead now: [3]
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Several terms appear to be overlinked: 14"/45 caliber gun; Babcock and Wilcox; Hugh Rodman; United States Atlantic Fleet; 5"/51 caliber gun;
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Sources; the Beigel work appears to be out of alphabetical order and is inconsistently formatted when compared to the others;
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Sources is there an OCLC or ISBN for the Joes work?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a couple of the images could be cropped to remove the borders. For instance, the two images in the Design and construction section;
  • inconsistent date: in the infobox "Commissioned: 15 April 1914", but in the body "commissioned on 15 May 1914"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "beam of 95 feet 6 inches (29.11 m)" (in the body of the article) v. "Beam: 95.2 ft (29.0 m)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "draft of 28 feet 6 inches (8.69 m)" v. "Draft: 28.5 ft (8.7 m)"
    • Not sure how the rounding algorithm is affecting this or how to correct, but those are the same measurements. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • typo? " 1926-26"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "maximum speed of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph" v. "Speed: 20 kn (23 mph; 37 km/h)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "1940–1941" should be "1940–41" per WP:DATERANGE
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "carried 21 5 inch 51 cal" --> "carried twenty-one 5 inch 51 cal" to avoid confusion caused by the two numbers appearing close together
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "1925-6" --> probably should be "1925-26" for consistency
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "upper casemate had 6 inches (150 mm) of armor" v. "Upper casemate: 6.5 in (165 mm)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I see some use of tonnes, as a US ship everything should be in English units, not metric.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Measurements should only be converted on first use.
    • So, remove all convert templates after the first use of each? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, but only ones that have been converted once already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are several ways to present ship stats for those that had multiple upgrades. Including the specs after every single upgrade greatly expands the infobox length and can be confusing to readers not generally familiar with ships. I believe that no more than two sets of stats should be presented in the infobox (as built and the most significant upgrade) and prefer to display them in separate infoboxes with the lower one only containing specs that changed since completion as can be seen at Japanese battleship Yamashiro. Everything else can be covered in the main body.
    • So would it be best to move stats into a second infobox? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I think so, but only the changed stats. There's no requirement to do so if you prefer not to, but regardless you should only have two sets of stats in the infobox(es)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Split out the engine horsepower and boilers into a new |ship power= line in the infobox.
  • What's a naval defense mine, as opposed to a normal mine?
  • Use single quotation marks around the single letters of the turret names and tell the reader that the names ran from bow to stern.
  • Two inches of armor on the turret sides seems awfully thin, doublecheck that figure against Friedman.
  • Fairly certain that the German edition of Breyer in your bibliography is just a reprint of the 1970 original, just like the English translation.
  • AFAIK dissertations don't get ISBNs, so fix Jones.
  • Be sure to put all titles in your references in title case.
  • The ISBN that you give for Macintyre goes to the index for the Naval Institute Proceedings, which is irrelevant. You need to provide the ISSN for the magazine, even though this is before ISSNs were invented.
  • For the sake of consistency, add |lastauthoramp=1 to Gardiner and Gray to get the ampersand to display in the bibliography as well.
  • Cannon is both singular and plural so no 's'.
  • Don't capitalize radar.
  • You'll need to link to Wikitionary to tell readers what an overhaul is.
  • She was fitted with anti-torpedo bulges, though these made maneuvering harder at low speeds and she rolled badly, and her gunfire accuracy was reduced in rough seas. This is awkward and might need to be split into two sentences.
  • conducting training and fleet problems until 1937 Probably best to say that she participated in fleet problems. And link fleet problems.
  • After arriving in the United States, the ship was overhauled. The secondary battery was reduced to sixteen 5"/51 caliber guns. Combine these two sentences.
  • see an American ship comparable to a dreadnought up close Rephrase this, NY was a dreadnought.
  • Missing a lot of hyphens for compound adjectives like 5-inch, 51-caliber, etc.
  • Sorry these are all kind random, but I was scanning it and noting whatever caught my eye. I'll do a more thorough review in a few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

M15 Half-Track[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

M15 Half-Track (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it exceeds all A class criteria and has historical significance. The M15 Half-track has a significance on the Military History project and many editors edit this article. The article also exceeds most of the Featured article criteria and all of the good article criteria. I hope it will become a Featured article. It was a significant part of the United States anti-aircraft vehicles and was very popular with troops. The M15 evolved from the T28E1. It often served along the M16 Half-track in Europe and Korea. It also served in the Korean War. I am giving a big thanks to User:PrimeHunter, User:AustralianRupert, User:GraemeLeggett, and a couple others who helped contribute to my article. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, thanks for your work on this so far. I don't think that this is up to A-class standards yet, but I have the following suggestions which might help:

  • the infobox the "in service" date field states "1943-45", but the article also states it served in Korea. If it also served in Korea it would have been in service after 1945 so the date should be adjusted;
  • for A-class, the lead should be expanded a bit further to summarise the whole article;
  • the body of the article probably should be expanded to include a discussion of the design, presenting the spcifications that are in the infobox in prose form;
  • the Operators section should be referenced, and also some explanation of Japan, China and North Korea's use should be added to the Service history section, which seems a bit light at the moment;
  • the "Further reading" section probably should be retitled as a "Bibliography" as you are specifically citing these works;
  • the Rickard article probably qualifies as a reliable source for Wiki purposes, as it appears to be written by academics,[4] but are there other works that could be consulted also? For a successful A-class promotion, you need to demonstrate broad research, and currently there are only three sources cited;
  • depending on the result of this review, for the future, can I suggest taking the article through WP:GAN prior to ACR? There can be big gap between B-class and A-class and going through GAN first can often help;
  • Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow up comments: good work so far with the changes you have made. I have a few more points:

  • there appears to inconsistency in the name between the article title (M15 Half Track), the opening sentence (M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage) and the infobox (M15 Half-track). These should all be the same, presenting the same name as the article;
  • inconsistency in capitalisation "Half-Track" v. "Half-track"
  • the references should be consistent in their presentation, e.g. use the same style. For instance, some are using the sfn format, while others are manually formated;
  • what year/source is "Berndt p. 32" refering to in Reference # 9? 1993 or 1994?
  • please add ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the works in the Bibliography. These can be be found through [www.worldcat.org Worldcat];
  • please be consistent about whether you include location of publication or not in the Bibliography;
  • is there a citation that covers Note 1?
  • inconsistency: the Design section says they could reach 67 km/h on road, but the infobox says 72 km/h. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, sorry, I just realised that this is also being reviewed at GAN: Talk:M15 Half-Track/GA1. Its not optimal to have two different-level reviews going on for the same article at the same time. As such, I suggest keeping this ACR on hold until after the GA review has been finalised (passed or failed). I will hold off making further edits, or comments until that has occured. Good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Most of the above points have been dealt with during the GAN, so I will post some more follow up points below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Further follow up: great work taking this through GAN. PM's thorough review has helped to significantly improve this article. I have a few follow up points for A-class: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this probably needs parentetical commas or brackets: "The M15 Half-Track officially designated M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage was a..." (after Track and Carriage);Yes check.svg Done
  • is the crew information mentioned in the body of the article? I see it in the infobox but couldn't find it in the body, unless I missed it...Yes check.svg Done
  • this seems inconsistent: "386 cu in (6,330 cc)" (in the body of the article) v. "6,236 cc (380.5 cu in)" in the infoboxYes check.svg Done
  • this seems inconsistent: "15.8 hp per tonne" (in the body of the article) v. "15.8 hp/pound" in the infobox Yes check.svg Done
  • in the Bibliography, sometimes you use abbreviations for secondary locations of publication, but sometimes you don't, e.g. "WI" v. "New Jersey"Yes check.svg Done
  • there remains inconsistent capitalisation/and hyphenation: for instance compare "M15 Half-Track" (the article's title) with " M3 Half-track" and then also "M3A1 Halftracks" and "M15 Halftrack"Yes check.svg Done

Comments

  • Be sure to put all titles in your bibliography in title case.
  • Fixed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have access to Hunnicutt's Half-Track: A History of American Semi-Tracked Vehicles? That's pretty much the definitive work on these vehicles and needs to be consulted before you send this to FAC.
  • Added.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Standardize your use of hyphens in ISBNs and if you're going to use years in your citations.
  • Done--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't format your headers for citations and bibliography with semi-colons: they can't be interpreted by text-to-speech programs and cause problems with visually-impaired readers.
      • Not quite how I meant for you to handle it, but I fixed it for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Done--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fix the formatting for Hunter. It's one volume of a series.
  • Do you have any other photos available? I'd really like to see one inside the weapon compartment and some photos of it in action would be nice. While the M16 picture is useful, it would be preferable to get an equivalent photo for the M15.
  • No other photos are available for now.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Powered by a White 160AX, 128 hp (95 kW), 386 cu in (6,330 cc),[3][4] 6-cylinder petrol engine with a compression ratio of 6:3:1. It had a maximum road speed of 67.5 km/h (41.9 mph) on a road. It had a power-to-weight ratio of 15.8 hp per tonne. This is awkward.
  • Fixed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • As a US vehicle all measurements except 37 mm need to be in English units, not metric. Also each measurement should only be converted on first use.
  • Addressed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      • My apologies I didn't make myself clear, all measurements should converted on first use. As an American vehicle, English measurement should just come first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Watch out for jargon that is unlikely to be familiar to ordinary readers like bogie, leaf spring, wheelbase, etc.
  • There's no support for your statement about use against ground targets.
  • Well, Mike Green stated that it was used for ground support targets--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The mention of service in Korea needs to be expanded into its own section. With a negligible air threat, how were they used? How were they organized and assigned? When were they introduced? Withdrawn? What battles/campaigns did they participate in? Did they actually shoot down any enemy aircraft? Etc.
  • No other info on this--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • More once these comments are dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I have a GA Review going on right now and will respond to the comments later. I hope you don't mind. Thanks -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

First Battle of Passchendaele[edit]

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)

First Battle of Passchendaele (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class as I believe it is sufficiently close, even-though there is a lack of German sources on the subject. Feedback would be very much appreciated. --Labattblueboy (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments
  • Disclaimer: my great uncle Jack Williams served with the 38th Battalion and was one of the men who reached Passchendaele, but did not return.
  • Link 3rd Australian and the New Zealand divisions when they first appear
  • Link Bean. And Chris Pugsly.
  • "Field Marshal Douglas haig" should be "Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig" wot? (And link Field Marshal to Field marshal (United Kingdom))
  • done
  • The final plan for the attack of 12 October, was decided on the evening of 9 October. Delete the comma
  • The division had the nominal support of one-hundred and forty-four 18-pounder field guns and forty-eight 4.5 inch howitzers. Change to digits: 144
  • Done
  • A decline had set in among German troops in Flanders I have no idea what this means
  • Amended to make it clear that it is a paraphrase the paraphrase of Rupprecht diary view in Sheldon.Keith-264 (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I expected the article to note that this was the costliest battle of the war for New Zealand. There has been a couple of books produced over there in recent years, Glyn Harper's Massacre at Passchendaele : the New Zealand story (2000) and Andrew Macdonald's Passchendaele: The Anatomy of a Tragedy (2013).
  • See Casualties and Commemoration section, talk page and the price of the books
    • found a little more in 1917: Tactics...Keith-264 (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In 1941 the Australian Official Historian Charles Bean, attributed the delay to inefficiency by Lieutenant-General Alexander Godley, the II Anzac Corps commander and his staff, as did Pugsley in 1997. Actually, Bean wrote this is in 1933, not 1941. I'm getting annoyed with the 1941 stuff. The War Memorial decided to digitize the 1941 edition. But all the page numbers are the same as the earlier editions, except for the Roman numerals ones in the preface, which contain errata. It should be listed as 1933. not 1941. What did Bean say?

    At the moment when this order was given [on 10 October], little was known of the true experiences and results of the recent fight. But, before the coming attack was launched, there was time to ascertain what had happened, and this duty rested in particular on General Godley and the staff of I1 Anzac. Obviously, there was every reason for caution: the advance As the divisions were changed, II Anzac Headquarters was the lowest staff to participate in the two operations projected for the II Anzac divisions was now not 1,500, but from 2,000 to 2,500 yards. The interval between the attacks the time available for bombardment and other preparation of all sorts-was not six or eight days, but three. Presumably the reason for this was the supposed weakening of the enemy’s morale.

and:

If Generals Monash and Godley had had experience on the Somme, it is unlikely that they would have agreed to this arrangement. Had Godley really known the conditions of October 9th-the thinness of the barrage, the complete absence of smoke screen, the ineffectiveness of the bombardment, the exhaustion of the troops, how could he have hoped for success with deeper objectives than any since July 31st, shorter preparation, and with the infantry asked to advance at a pace unattempted in the dry weather of September?

  • Bean makes the point that it wasn't just guns being out of action:

    The Germans noted that effective counter-battery fire in the intervals between attacks had almost ceased. Actually, in spite of immense efforts by gunners and roadmakers between the 4th and 12th of October, it was found impossible for most batteries to reach by the gth, or even by the 12th, their intended positions. In I1 Anzac, for the artillery in the 3rd Division’s sector, a circuit road had been planned. the engineers to work on the northern half and the 3rd Pioneers on the southern. But the time was too short ; the plank supply almost entirely failed, and the track was impassable. Many batteries, including heavy ones, had to be stopped on the forward slope of Frezenberg ridge in positions in full view of the Germans.

  • Change down man and find your neutral space. I realised that the year should be 1933 months after the article was B classed and have been amending the references as I revisit articles. Notice also that the point is made in a note and refers only to the judgement made by Bean on Godley et al., rather than as an analysis of all the problems in preparing the 12th October attack.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The work of the gunners and sappers deserves more attention I think.
  • The logistics of the operation don't get much of a mention either. Face-sad.svg
  • Any sources? Sadly the deficiencies of the article go further than stylistic infelicities and differences of opinion over details. Even Der Weltkrieg is sketchy on the battle, which I why I thought it was worthy of a B but no more. Others disagree, which has led to some welcome piecemeal improvements but also some retrograde changes. Still, mustn't grumble too much, at least some bugger's read it. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

On the matter of the bibliographic details for Bean, it is my understanding that the citation should refer to the specific version that was consulted. The details should include the edition (if not the first edition) and the year published is the year that the particular edition became available (see Help:Citation Style 1#Dates). It is acknowledged that there are (at least potentially) variations between editions as distinct from reprints. If the online version from the AWM was the source then I would suggest these would be the details, though there may be a better choice of fields/formatting.

Cinderella157 (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, the 1941 (11th edition) is a version of the first (1933) edition so I've altered them all to be 1933 for the year and 11th edition 1941 for the edition:

* {{cite book |ref={{harvid|Bean|1933}} |title=The Australian Imperial Force in France, 1917|series=[[Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918]] |volume=IV |last=Bean |first=C. E. W. |authorlink=Charles Bean |year=1933 |publisher=Australian War Memorial |location=Canberra |edition=11th, 1941 |url=http://www.awm.gov.au/histories/first_world_war/volume.asp?levelID=67890 |accessdate=23 March 2014 |isbn=0-702-21710-7}}Keith-264 (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look at the link Help:Citation Style 1#Dates. There are also other links I could find but the date/year is for the publication of the edition. You are not incorrect in saying that every edition is a version of earlier editions however, in citing references, every edition is treated as if it were a discrete work. See Citation#Concepts about supplying "detail to identify the item uniquely". See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications. If I were actually sourcing from my University of Qld reproduction (I have one) then I should be citing IAW this. Consider the Chicargo Manual of Style. The first edition appeared in 1906 and it is now in its 16th edition. The main point is that the 1933 edition is the first edition and the 1941 edition is the 11th edition and they are not the same. To refer to the 1933 11th edition is incorrect. Also note that the 1941 edition was published by Angus and Robertson Ltd. Please check the title page of the web version. "An ISBN is assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book." (International Standard Book Number#Overview) However, ISBNs date from ca 1970 and lack of discrete ISBNs for earlier works is likely an anachronism. In short, if you were refering to the AWM online version, it would be my position that you should be citing the 1941, 11th edition. I hope this is sufficiently convincing. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Why does the template have a year criterion and an edition criterion? Isn't 11th 1941 enough?Keith-264 (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Short answer - it does. Practice is to give the year and, if not the first edition - the edition. It is possible to have more than one edition in a year. I won't swear to it but I am pretty certain I have seen that. 11th edn 1941 is enough or did I miss something? Cinderella157 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't care who's right but having changed them once, I'll wait until everyone else has made their minds up before doing anything else.Keith-264 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Can understand your frustration but is anybody else quoting material. A lot of wiki stuff lacks clarity but Help:Citation Style 1#Dates is specific: "Year of publication edition being referenced." I suggest perhaps this should be adjudicated Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Citing sources - "A citation, or reference, uniquely identifies a source of information." [My emphasis]. Mixing identifying details degrades the capacity to uniquely identify the source. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not frustrated, I'm waiting.Keith-264 (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Reprints of older publications see hereKeith-264 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I actually refered to this.
See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Reprints of older publications. If I were actually sourcing from my University of Qld reproduction (I have one)[in regard to Bean's Vol IV] then I should be citing IAW this (see http://www.worldcat.org/title/official-history-of-australia-in-the-war-of-1914-1918-vol4-the-australian-imperial-force-in-france-1917/oclc/59249704 My copy states it was reproduced from the 1943 version).
It is not at all inconsistent with what I have been saying. The example is for a 1959 reprint of the first edition of On the Origin of Species. Somewhere, I have a penguin version of the first edition, which would be different again. There were six English (printed in England) editions. See On the Origin of Species for the referencing of five of these. They clearly show the relationship between date and edition when giving a reference. Looking at the further reading (http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_OntheOriginofSpecies.html) There are two separate editions listed for the same year for the American editions. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I was actually defending that 1941 was correct and, not wanting to be accused of not carrying my end of the stick, I have made corrections to the reference and the inconsistency caused by the a mismatch in the date. I have also proposed an edit to clarify this on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Date/year, edition and location - clarification required Cinderella157 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fine. Just adjust the 1941 in the text to 1933. (Who is robbing this coach?) Now, I have a another bit, which should be rewritten completely:

By a succession of attacks with objectives of diminishing distance, with increasing numbers of infantry, behind a bigger multi-layered creeping barrage and with standing barrages on the objective lines during consolidation, German counter-attacks would be confronted by a defence in depth, with infantry in communication with its artillery and with much more local support from the Royal Flying Corps, rather than the former practice of looking to exploit success by occupying vacant ground beyond the final objective.

  • First of all, this sentence is ridiculously long
    Secondly, the {{Main article: The British set-piece attack in late 1917}} belongs here and not in the next section
    Now we get the the crux of the problem, which is that it is wrong on many points:
    1. Step by step merely involved a series of bite and hold attacks. It did not involve "diminishing distance" or "increasing numbers of infantry" or "behind a bigger barrage". The distance was set by the range of the 18-pounders: less than 6,000 m. So if the guns are 2,000 m back, then you can advance up to about 3,000 m. In fact, the way they did it involved moving the guns forward on every other attack. The width of the attack was determined by the number of guns and the amount of ammunition available.
    2. The standing barrages were on the objective lines. That would be silly. They were about 100 m beyond it.
    3. German counter-attacks were not confronted by a defence in depth, but by the standing barrage and the consolidating infantry
    4. The infantry was not in communication with its artillery. In fact, they even dropped the use of signalling flares. Instead, the artillery fire was on a fixed schedule. The infantry had no way of calling the gunners and asking for changes like fire to be directed at a particular position, or the creeping barrage to be held up.
    5. While the RFC was involved in spotting, the main burden of locating the enemy batteries was with the sound rangers. It was the job of the heavy artillery to deal with the German guns
  • Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
None of the above is accurate. The distance was not set by the range of field artillery but the design of the German defensive system. The depth attacked was determined by the quantity of artillery - particularly the 650 extra guns moved into the front during September. The use of leap-frogging meant that each objective was consolidated by the troops which attacked it, creating a series of defended lines and localities intended to create a defence in depth. Every method available was used to communicate with the artillery - signal lamps, flares to show contact-patrol aircraft the position of the infantry (and rockets to signal direct to the artillery), pigeons, messenger dogs, runners, all observed by balloon observers, contact patrol aircraft, separate counter-attack patrol aircraft and reports from fighter pilots who had been ground-strafing. Sound ranging was less effective in Flanders because the the German guns were behind the slight rises in the ground. The air with sounds from the guns often moved westwards and upwards and didn't register. The British used every method they could find to locate German guns - captured records, prisoner interrogation, air reconnaissance, wireless interception and plotting the smoke screens the Germans used when firing, as well as flash spotting and sound ranging. I suggest you add citation needed where you want more links to the sources.Keith-264 (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

PS Standing barrages fell 200-300 yards beyond the objective and sometimes swept back-and-forth.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Made some changes for clarification and added a few citations.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about the distance to the standing barrage, and about the establishment of a defence in depth, which had been British doctrine since the middle of the year; but this took time to set up. During a battle, the barrage held off the counterattacks. The only point I disagree with you on is the matter of the depth of the attack. The breadth of the attack was set by the number of guns (because you wanted so many per yard), but the depth was due to their range. A bite and hold attack simply could not go beyond the range of the guns.
Also, your wording ready to engage German guns which opened fire, with gas and high-explosive shell makes it unclear whether you are talking about British or German guns. (Did the British have mustard at Third Ypres? I can't remember.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
While you're at it, Tactical development on the Western Front in 1917 does not mention the British switch to defence in depth in mid-1917. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Not after 31 July. Opportunities to take vacant ground had been missed at Arras and Messines because of the standing barrages so the plan had provision for an opportunistic advance to the red line with fresh troops (source of much confusion since, when it was treated as the final objective) decided on locally by divisional and corps commanders. The effectiveness of the German defence led to such arrangements being dropped for subsequent attacks, which was the reason for limiting the depth of the objectives. By advancing only into the relatively thinner defences close to the front line, the British would not present the German counter-attacks with exhausted and depleted infantry out of contact with the rear but consolidated defences with fresh local reserves. At each objective, the troops which reached it would dig in and fresh troops continue the advance to the next objective after a pause so that if the attack went well there would be an outpost line, a rear line and a support line in the captured area, beyond the existing British defences at and behind the original front line. Much of the defence would be in captured pillboxes and blockhouses, which took time to envelop and capture and the rest would be dispersed on reverse slopes so that (if it wasn't foggy etc) it could be seen from the rear by artillery observers.

I think what I've done is fail to make it clear that the defence in depth term I used, was referring to the tactical situation in the battle area, rather than the systematic defences all armies used on the Western Front. (I looked at the Wiki page on infantry tactics for a link but there isn't enough detail in it.) If there's a better term to use it can go. The emphasis after 31 July became the defeat of the German counter-attacks, which had forced the attackers back from captured ground considered the most important by the Germans. (The emphasis isn't great in the tertiary literature, which tends to follow an obsolete line that it was only Plumer who gave up "breakthrough attempts", in the three big successes culminating on 4 Oct. The Germans used a period from 4–12 Oct as the crisis of the campaign, which rather contradicts much British historiography.) The British got into Polygon Wood from 10 – 16 August and were thrown out again each time. British methods changed after 31 July but this is obscured by personalising it, when it was actually continuous and can be cited from the OH and some of the other sources like Simpson.Keith-264 (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Suppressed "defence in depth" after thinking it over; made the counter battery sentence clearer.Keith-264 (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

preliminary comments by auntieruth I'm confused. First, where is the nominator in all of this discussion? The chatter here seems to involve Hawkeye, Cinderella and Keith. I know something about this battle (not a lot, but some), and I'm completely confused by the first three sections and the lead. For example, in the lead ..., based on incorrect information that during the Battle of Poelcappelle (9 October), the attacking troops had captured the first objective line. The front line near Passchendaele had hardly changed after German counter-attacks in the afternoon recaptured most of the lost ground, which meant that the final objective for the attack on 12 October was 2,000–2,500-yard (1,800–2,300 m) forward, instead of the 1,500 yards (1,400 m) expected Ummm....where should I start? Okay, so Poelcapelle was earlier. And it didn't go as far as it should have? Or So Incorrect intelligence from the Battle of Poelcappele (9 October) placed the objective at 2,000-2,500 yards forward, 1,500 yards more than the Paschendaele battle plan expected? If this is correct, it doesn't belong in the first paragraph anyway. The lead doesn't take me through, it takes me in a circle.

The First Battle of Passchendaele took place on 12 October 1917, in the Ypres Salient of the Western Front, west of Flemish village of Passchendaele. The attack was part of the x-month long Third Battle of Ypres in the First World War.

The main assault was conducted by the two Anzac corps in the Second Army against the German 4th Army, with a supporting attack by the Fifth Army between the northern boundary of the Second Army and the southern limit of the French First Army. The brigade-sized attacks of the XVIII Corps in the Fifth Army area moved the front line on either side of the Ypres-Staden railway north of Poelcappelle. The Germans defeated the attacks by XIV Corps and retained control of the high ground on Passchendaele Ridge opposite the I and II Anzac corps.

Several problems plagued the British attack. The previous Battle at Poelcappele had generated erroneous intelligence on the goal of the operation. German defenders had frustrated attempts on 9 October to establish a line deeper into the salient, which made the goal of (coords) 1500 yards further expected. Furthermore, inclement weather hampered movement and communication for both sides. British attacks were postponed until the weather improved and communications behind the front could be restored.

This was among the most costly single actions of the War. Two German divisions intended for Italy were diverted to Flanders, to replace "extraordinarily high" losses. The battle was a German defensive success but was costly for both sides. The ANZAC forces....

It would help to say what the goal was at Poelcappelle, rather than simply talk about yards of difference. Yes, I know that yards of difference made a difference, a huge one, but....auntieruth (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

How about the amendment? Keith-264 (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
HOw about my tweaks? Also, I'm still not sure where the nominator is in all of this? auntieruth (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that the Lead and edits must have been less clear than I thought. ;O) I think Labbatt's out to lunch. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm moving jobs and from one country to another. I have become rather indisposed as of late.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Would anyone like to co-nominate this article? - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
What is going on with this? Perhaps the nom should be withdrawn until Labattblueboy can return to handle it? auntieruth (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm only here because I put most of the material in the article and feel responsible for errors and omissions. I'd be happy to wait for Labatt to settle his arrangements.Keith-264 (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

On Images[edit]

It's always worth checking to see if a higher resolution copy of the image is available. I haven't carefully checked every image, but I can tell you that, of your images, three are from the National Library of New Zealand.

Of these, the copy on Wikipedia is about 500x300px, but, if you sign up for a free login, you can get a really nice image of around 5000x3000 px. This is a much better image to use, and, with not that much work, these are probably featureable, getting your article on the main page - call it twice more, as the funeral image will probably focus on the more relevant articles.

I'll update those images for you this time, but I don't check every A-class review, so this is worth keeping in mind. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Keith-264 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Kehl (1796)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Battle of Kehl (1796) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think (I hope!) it meets the requirements. It's had several thorough goings-over, and the only glitch that arose during the GA process was in the image review--I swapped out the controversial image with one whose authenticity I can verify. This is one of several that have been through A-class review (or are in review) related to the Rhine Campaign of 1796. This battle is actually the one that marked the start of the campaign in the Rhineland. auntieruth (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this for GA and I think it has the legs for A-class. I have a couple of nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • "between the French king and his subjects" --> I think this would be clearer as "between the French king, Loius XVI, and his subjects..."
  • "24–year–old General Abbatucci" - minor nitpick, but the dashes here should probably be hyphens
  • same as above for "dual–pronged"
  • same as above for " 7,000–man militia"
  • Renchen appears to be overlinked
  • the Sources section appears to be slightly inconsistent in its presentation. For instance consider how Bertaud has the year near the ISBN, but the Dodge, Phipps, and Smith entries have it in brackets near the name
  • I wonder if the subsequent siege of Kehl shouldn't briefly be mentioned in the Aftermath. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Rupert. I think I've fixed all your comments above. Added something into the aftermath as well. auntieruth (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments, very close to a support:

  • "Initially, the rulers of Europe viewed the revolution in France..." - as the first sentence of the first section, this hasn't established which revolution you're referring to (there are quite a few revolutions in France!). I'd advise "Initially in 17xx, the rulers of Europe..." to contextualise the material that follows.
  • done
  • "They threatened ambiguous, but quite serious, consequences " - you could lose "quite" here without losing the meaning
  • done
  • "The French émigrés continued to agitate for support of a counter-revolution abroad." - unclear what "a counter-revolution abroad" means in this context; is it that the emigres, who were abroad, were agitating for support, or that the emigres wanted action to take place outside place? Or both...?
  • fixed
  • Is the Rhine linked?
    • In lead
  • Consistency of 21st century / twenty-first century / eighteenth century
  • fixed
  • Worth linking Trier and similar German states/places
  • done (in caption and in text)
  • "(including the three autonomous corps)" - I'm not sure you've explained what these are yet, so it shouldn't have the definite article (indeed, does the article ever explain what they are?)
  • clarified. Also added a note.
  • "and had already made itself onerous, by reputation and rumor at least, throughout France. " I'd advise "and already had a poor reputation throughout France" - at the moment it is hard to see if the article is saying it really was onerous or not.
  • clarified
  • "After April 1796, pay was made in metallic value, " - does this mean "pay was issued in coins rather than in paper money"? If so, worth being clear here.
  • done
  • "from the free imperial cities, and other imperial estates, " - worth checking capitalisation of "imperial" here, I'm not sure its right/consistent
  • Imperial City of Rottweil. imperial cities (generally). Imperial Cities of the HRE.
  • " Army of Sambre-et-Meuse" - consistency of how you're italicising these
  • done. Dj and I have a long-standing disagreement about this.
  • "the Swabian circle polities" - do you explain/link what these are anywhere?
  • Yes in the Geography and political complications section
  • "his troops assaulted the advanced posts in Strasbourg, " - I'm not sure what "advanced posts" means in this context; is it that they were "advanced"/sophisticated, or that they were "forward posts"?
  • forward.
  • "With French occupation, the Swabian Circle was vulnerable to be treated as an enemy" - this felt a bit ugly as a phase; is there any alternative? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • yes. Fixed.
  • I just saw this. I'll get to it later today. auntieruth (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I don't know what "The fortunes" means in the first paragraph; does it refer to something connected to that paragraph? Also, "Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach" suggests that Kehl wasn't just a city in Baden-Durlach (since the usual way to say that is "in") ... what was the relationship of Kehl to Baden-Durlach? Otherwise, the lead is fine. That's all I've got. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • okay, I think I've fixed it. auntieruth (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Now I get it, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments - not much to nitpick here, great work.

  • In the lead: "...and earlier in 1796, when the French crossed into the German states on 23–24 June" - this appears to reference the topic of the article. I'm not sure what should be here instead. It seems to be a copy-paste mistake from Second Battle of Kehl (1796)
  • Sometimes, the German term is given first, followed by the translation, and other times the reverse. It should be standardized one way or the other.
  • Might be worthwhile to explain why Fröhlich attacked the Swabian camp in the Aftermath section. Parsecboy (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • That was quick! There was one tweak I made you should check, but everything looks good to me now. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "the French drove the Swabians from their positions and controlled the bridgehead on both sides of the Rhine." It might be clearer to say the French already controlled the bridgehead on the western(?) side and now gained the eastern one.
  • "the fates of Kehl, a village in Baden-Durlach, and those of the Alsatian city of Strasbourg". Similarly, I would add for clarity Kehl on the east side of the Rhine and Strasbourg on the west.
  • "A key to the French success was the army's ability to cross the Rhine at will." This assumes that you have already said the French won. Maybe "The French were victorious in the war, and a key to their success..."
  • "in such paces as the former rapids at Laufenburg, it moves in torrents." moved in torrents?
  • "When viewed on a map, the Empire resembled a "patchwork carpet")" Stray bracket.
  • "Both the Habsburg domains and Hohenzollern Prussia also included territories outside the Empire. There were also territories completely surrounded" Repetition of "also". I do not think the first one is needed.
  • "amounted to about 125,000" - presumably 125,000 troops.
  • There seems a contradiction saying the Directory did not budget for pay and that pay was in metallic value but in arrears. The first statement implies no provision and the second inadequate provision.
  • "In spring 1796..." I am not sure I follow this paragraph. You say it was largely guesswork where troops were placed then apparently contradict this by explaining Charles's reasoning. He expected an attack at Mainz so he put militia at Kehl. He put his weaker forces at Kehl because he did not expect an attack there? If so I think you should spell it out (which you do later).
  • "before Charles realized Moreau had left Spire." You have not said Moreau was in Spire in the first place and it is not linked.
  • "to align his northern flank in a perpendicular line" What does perpendicular mean in this context?
  • "but it was a moot point" - surely moot is understating it as they did not have the weapons - it was pointless.
  • "Even though the French still held the crossing at Kehl and Strasbourg, Petrasch's Austrians prevented French access." I do not understand this. Presumably the French still had access to Strasbourg?
  • "War of Independence in the British Colonies" Which war? If it is the American war of independence it is an unusual way of describing it.
  • Note 9. Why is Military Affairs underlined. There is an error message on n. 17. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Dudley, I think I addressed all your comments. Did some rearranging, etc, clarification. auntieruth (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The Utility of Force[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

The Utility of Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This isn't really my comfort zone, but it passed a GA review quite easily thanks to Hawkeye so I thought it might be worth getting a bit more feedback. I wonder how it would fare at FAC? I didn't have such lofty heights in mind when I wrote it—I was just amazed we didn't have an article and thought I'd put something together—but any comments would be appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

G'day, Harry, sorry for the limited feedback but this one is probably beyond me. One quick suggestion, though, is to include more images to break up the text. This may not be possible, but is there an image of the author you could use, or anything else that is relevant? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
From a counter-insurgency theory perspective, the article's perfectly competent, and I'd support at ACR. My thoughts would be:
  • Images. I'd recommend an image from the Balkans (e.g. UNPROFOR) for the Background section; perhaps Clausewitz or Napoleon to illustrate industrial warfare; and an Iraq photograph for the war among the people section.
  • Critical reception. For FA, I'd consider advise restructuring it around the themes rather than the reviewers; for the average reader it matters less probably who said what ("X said Y about the book") and more what the themes were ("responses to the book have stressed A, B, C"). You could then include more material/reviews, while avoiding any repetition. Would be good to see what the British Army Review has said on it, and what comparable US and Chinese service publications may have commented. I'd also be looking at the "The Accidental Guerrilla" to see what Kilcullen's reflections on it was, in terms of how the volume has driven counter-insurgency thinking. There may be some further framework pieces in Marston and Malkasian "Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare" and similar volumes, or in the Small Wars Journal. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Concur with Hchc about the structure. In general, the Reception section is a bit dense
  • Lead is quite long relative to the length of the article
  • "devised a strategy for the multi-national UN force deployed to intervene effectively in the war, it having been deployed" - this sentence is rather awkwardly phrased, as is the last sentence in this section
  • Any more details on production? Has this been translated or republished? Who designed the cover?
  • Srebenica or Srebrenica?
  • Suggest providing a brief inline gloss for rhizomatic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "war(s) amongst the people": use some synonyms for this, to vary the prose. Also, either use quote marks every time, or use them more sparingly.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Really good writing, Harry. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Disclaimer: I met Smith briefly, and served under him (very indirectly) in Bosnia.

  • link major general at first mention
  • Niall Ferguson is overlinked
  • "again lacking defined objectives" this does not follow. What earlier air strikes involving Smith lacked defined objectives?
  • "commanders now operate inside the theatre" requires some explication
  • there is a tension between the use of "second half" and "final third" when describing the narrative, which needs to be resolved.
  • otherwise, I am very impressed with the article, I believe it captures Smith's work (which I have read) quite well, as well as the valid criticisms and observations of it made by others. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Image lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR requirement - suggestion only).
    • External links check out (no action req'd).
    • Image use seems appropriate and has a fair use rationale (no action req'd).
    • Caption looks fine (no action req'd)
    • No duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK (no action req'd)
    • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • "...subdue but not necessarily end the conflict." Not sure about use of "subdue" here - seems like something one does to an opponent not to "conflict", perhaps consider rewording?
    • This is a little repetitive: "Reviewers also felt that Smith under-emphasised the extent to which "war amongst the people" has always existed. Nonetheless, reviewers praised..." specifically the second instance of "reviewers". Perhaps reword one?
    • This is also a little repetitive: "Smith then proceeds to discuss each of the six themes in detail. Smith discusses..." (discusses). Perhaps consider something like: "Smith then proceeds to cover each of the six themes in detail. Smith discusses..."
    • Prose seems a bit choppy here: "...he opines that the soldiers undertaking the counter-insurgency operations did not have the proper skills...", perhaps consider something like: "...he opines that soldiers undertaking counter-insurgency operations in that conflict did not have the proper skills..." or something like that.
    • "Roberts believed that Smith over-stated the transformation into the new paradigm of war by playing down the extent to which there have always been wars amongst the people...", should wars amongst the people here be in quotation marks for consistency with your other usage of this term?
    • ISSNs could probably be added to the references (available through WorldCat.org). Anotherclown (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day HJ Mitchell, where are we this one? I see several reviewers have made comments... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
    • G'day @HJ Mitchell: Harry, I'm thinking this has been open since 29 October and should probably be closed with no consensus to promote. Any objections? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
      • @Peacemaker67: I'd love to do more on this, but I've not had time recently and I'm not likely to in the next few days. Feel free to close it and I'll re-nominate it if/when it's ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)