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

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)

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)

SMS Cormoran (1892)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Cormoran (1892) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another German warship up for your delectation, this one was one of a handful of unprotected cruisers built for policing Germany's overseas colonies in the 1890s. Cormoran ended her career by being scuttled in Tsingtao at the outbreak of World War I, with her guns going to arm another Cormoran. Thanks for all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Josef Wurmheller[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Josef Wurmheller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another German World War II fighter pilot I am nominating this article for A-Class. It covers the major aspects of his life but it is a bit thin on his personal life which I am unable to address further. Nevertheless I think it might qualify for A-Class. Thanks in adavance for your feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "at least 18–20": Does this mean one source says 18 and another says 20? Which number seems more believable, and why? - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "were four-engined bombers and 56 were against Supermarine Spitfire fighters.": were and were against are non-parallel; that is, if one of these fits grammatically in the sentence, then the other one doesn't.
  • "8 June 1944 ... 6 June 1944 ... 16 June 1944": It's better not to repeat the year when it's obvious.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Runaway Scrape[edit]

Nominator(s): Maile66 (talk)

Runaway Scrape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I completely rewrote this article from scratch, because of concerns expressed on the talk page thread. Now I would like to see if this passes A-class muster. This is an important aspect of Texas history, but I think it is probably not known to many outside of Texas. Some notes on terminology used: In Sam Houston's time, it was correct to say "Texas", but anyone who lived there was referred to as "Texian" with the "i". I have used the American plural of "cannons" instead of "cannon" when referring to two of them. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, just a couple of minor comments from me at this time. I made a few c/e tweaks also: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • in the Battle of Gonzales section, there is a dab link to "John Henry Moore" that should probably be repointed;
Taken care of. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • is there a reference/citation that could be added for this: "However, Houston had no doubt that Fannin's company were taken as prisoners"?
Reworded and cited. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • in the Twin sisters artillery section, this appears to be a sentence fragment: "to prevent the Mexican army from crossing". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops! Removed. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy edits also. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • "twelve hundred fifty to fifteen hundred" --> I think this should be presented as "1,250 to 1,500" per WP:NUMERAL;
Corrected. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I think "File:Braches House and Sam Houston Oak.JPG" and "File:Twin Sisters, San Jacinto.jpg" will need a US freedom of panorama licence/tag added to the image description page. More information can be found here: [1]
  • "File:Come And Take It Mural.jpg": not sure about the licence on this one. It seems to be stating it is PD because it was published before 1923, but from what I can tell it was published in 1938 (see the inscription on the bottom right hand corner). Are we certain it is PD? Can you please check this licencing and adjust if appropriate? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the images altogether. I know nothing about images. The mural is hanging in a museum in Gonzales, and I think you are correct in questioning that date - it does say 1938. The tree is just a tree that's been there for more than a hundred years, so I'm not sure why it needs a tag. And the cannons are replicas, but I don't know when they were installed. But I take you at your word that you know what you are talking about. It was easier to just remove the images than for me to try and figure it out. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I think you mean the house, not the tree, is the need for the tag. Taken care of. Now that this has come up, I bet a lot of NRHP photos don't have that tag. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Howcheng, the Twin Sisters cannons was uploaded at Commons by you, and has an OTRS tag under "Permission". Can you please comment here as to the licensing? — Maile (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I am no longer on the OTRS team, but IIRC the photographer Ernest Mettendorf sent in a good number of photographs, all of them released to the public domain. howcheng {chat} 05:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for responding. AustralianRupert, as instructed on the image "Permission" line, I have posted an inquiry on the OTRS noticeboard Here. Will let you know the response. Thank you for being so thorough on the images. — Maile (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • AustralianRupert, per Commons OTRS Noticeboard, the Twin Sisters image is now nominated for deletion at Commons. All issues you mentioned so far have been taken care of. Thanks for being diligent about this. — Maile (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Not quite the result I was hoping for, but thanks for following it up. I've added my support now. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. It wasn't the result I wanted, either. I sure did like the image of the Twin Sisters. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The deletion request is incorrect. US copyright law does not apply to the design of utilitarian items (see Commons:COM:UA). howcheng {chat} 08:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow! You are on the ball, Howcheng. I have posted on the Deletion Request page. Hopefully, we can keep the image and stick it back in the article. — Maile (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • AustralianRupert, Howcheng and Lupo I have a question about a different image since we had to delete a 1938 museum banner from the Gonzales section of the article. Over on Commons is C:File:Gonzales cannon 2005.jpg. Now, I know this cannon has to be a reproduction because the original was most likely melted down by Santa Anna at the Alamo. However, over at Deletion requests/File:Twin Sisters, San Jacinto.jpg. Lupo makes the argument that a replica does not create a new copyright. Is it possible we could use this image of the Gonzales cannon in the article in the section re the Battle of Gonzales? — Maile (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The image description page states that the cannon is indeed the original, but even if it were not, the same logic applies. So yes, you can go for it. howcheng {chat} 23:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I added it. I figure the photographer saw something at the Gonzales Memorial Museum that says it is the original brass cannon. In reality, it went to the Alamo and Santa Anna melted down all brass found inside the mission after the battle. There's no way to prove either situation. Either way, thanks for letting me know I can use the image. — Maile (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • AustralianRupert, The Twin Sisters image is back in the article. The decision on Commons was "Keep" and it's properly licensed. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    • G'day, that's good to hear. I still believe that it needs a FOP licence due to the building in the background, though. I'm not going to harp on about it, though, but please note that the issue of a FOP licence may be raised if you take this to FAC. Anyway, I will leave it up to you. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. I just stuck the FoP-US tag on the image at Commons. Seems like a good idea. — Maile (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • AustralianRupert, I would like to withdraw this article from A-class review at this time. Close it down now, please. I see nothing in the instructions about how to withdraw the nomination, but that's what I'm doing. There is a valid statement on the article's talk page about not enough emphasis on the civilian side. However, I do not have access to the book mentioned, nor am I ever going to have access to that book. But this isn't going to pass A-class because of that. Thanks for your help. — Maile (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • G'day, that is something that the Milhist co-ordinators do. I will ping them now and see if someone can close it for you: @WP:MILHIST coordinators: can someone please close this as per the nominator's request? Thanks, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Egon Mayer[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Egon Mayer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am asking for another A-Class review, thanks to all contributing. I am pushing the envelope on this one with respect to my own expectations regarding the coverage of this article. The article is really pretty thin on his personal life. However, I don't think that there are more sources available to consult, if there are, please let me know. Thanks again and I hope you at least enjoyed the read. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: G'day, MisterBee, I only took a quick look, sorry. I think there is a little inconsistency between the lead and the body. In the lead we have "volunteered for military service in the Luftwaffe of the Third Reich in 1936" but in the Early life section we have "Following his graduation, Mayer volunteered for military service in Luftwaffe on 1 November 1937". Should the "1936" in the lead be changed to "1937"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

good spot! 1937 is correct, must have been a typo. Thanks for the catch MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • there is some English variation inconsistency: "organisation" (British) but "Defense" (US)
  • is there are citation that could be provided for Note 1?
  • "Recent research suggests that..." perhaps say who carried out this research. For instance, "Recent research by historian John Smith suggests..."
  • do we know the names of his parents? If the sources don't say, no worries...
  • are there any details about a wife/fiancee? If the sources don't mention anything, that is fine...
  • "File:Rsjhnson.jpg": the source on this is Wikipedia...is there a better source that could be used, i.e. what is the original source before upload to Wikipedia? Additionally, is there a date that could be provided? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

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

  • " a secondary school built on the mid-level Realschule": I don't know what that means. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • " Hegau-Gymnasium": Not for A-class. If sources (English sources preferably, but in German if that's all you can find) support an article on the English WP, create an article and link to it. If the article is deleted for lack of notability (unlikely), then we shouldn't be linking to it even in the German WP, because a link to any article implies that it's linkworthy per en.wp standards; in that case, go with "He went to school at the Langemarck-Realgymnasium (now the Hegau-Gymnasium) ...".

Comments

  • Copyedited so happy with prose but let me know any issues; one outstanding point:
    • Seems the first thing that happens to him in WWII is the award of the Iron Cross 2nd Class on 25 October 1939 -- is there no info on why exactly, or at least what he did between 1 Sep and 25 Oct?
      • Thanks for the ce, so far I was unable to identify what happened in this timeframe MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Just a thought, have you been able to get hold of this book? Only snippet view on GoogleBooks but appears to have an overview of his career... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Thanks for looking into this. No I don't have access to this book. Although I don't know for sure, I have my doubts that another generic German aces book would cover a very specific timeframe of Mayer's career, a timeframe which had little relevance in comparison those periods which made him excel above others. Since the book was written in 1982, I would assume that Stockert would have incorporated this info into his book. I believe this is a gap of 2 months in his career which we can't addess at this moment. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Sure. Just to be clear, it wasn't the two-month gap in his career in itself that interested me, it was what he might have done in that period to warrant the award of the Iron Cross 2nd Class -- so I take it that, as well as Stockert not mentioning how he earned it, there's no equivalent of The London Gazette that might include the citation for the award? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
              • I understand what you are asking, and I asked this question myself. I have to admit that none of my sources say what he did in this timeframe. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Aside from the above, detail seems fine; at MilHist ACR level, I'm not too fussed about personal life being a bit thin, though it may be considered more of a concern at FAC.
  • Structure is straightforward.
  • No image issues from me except I echo Rupert's query re. File:Rsjhnson.jpg.
  • No sourcing issues from me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

William of Wrotham[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

William of Wrotham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I would like some military-type eyes on things, as well as more people's eyes on any missing context or problems with the prose. He's destined for FAC shortly. Has had a copyedit, but suggestions always welcomed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I did my thing, but found nothing to do. Good to see you at A-class! - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yay! I've been wanting to see this article at A- or FA-class for a while. Thoughts:

  • "Little is known of the background of William or his family" - I might simplify that to "Little is known of William's background or family".
  • "£1100" - "£1,000"?
  • "As part of his work with the stannaries, he became the first warden of Lydford Castle after it was constructed in the 1190s.[6][a] He was involved in a dispute in 1199 with another official, Hugh Bardulf, over the stannaries. In 1200 William lost his office as sheriff and temporarily lost control of the stannaries. " - stannaries in three successive sentences. I might suggest "As part of his administrative work, William became the first warden of Lydford Castle following its construction in the 1190s. In 1199 he was involved in a dispute over the stannaries another official, Hugh Bardulf, temporarily losing control of them - along with his office as sheriff - in 1200."
  • The second paragraph of "royal service" uses "William" to trigger five sentences in a row; maybe replace with "he" a couple of times for some variation?
  • "directing the efforts of the Cinque Ports in naval affairs and the seaports of south-western England" - I can't parse this. Was he distinctly directing the Cinque Ports and the seaports of south-western England, or..?

Otherwise, perfect as always :). Ironholds (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done the first, the second - I usually go with no commas in thousand-level numbers. Took your suggestion on the third. Varied that second paragraph some. On the last ... changed to "In late 1213 William was directing the efforts of the seaports of south-western England as well as the Cinque Ports in naval affairs." .. he was directing both groups - which are distinct. Does that help? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hmn. What about "The seaports of south-western England and the Cinque Ports in naval affairs"? A bit tighter. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Took that. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth55[edit]

Lovely article. I too have some prose questions, plus a few content questions.

  • William's main administrative work was naval. He was in charge of the royal fleet in the south of England in 1205, and was one of those responsible for the development of Portsmouth as a naval dockyard. ... Could this be streamlined? Although William had a variety of administrative roles, his primary contribution ... or William had particular administrative charge of the royal fleet in the south of England in 1205....seems like the intro sentence is repetitive.
  • William's brother Richard was named as his deputy in William's deputy or his father's?
  • why was it important that no ships sailed without royal permission? (taxes, defense)
  • why was the award of churches important (revenue for William?)
  • what made William "evil" or was it simply his association with John? Do we know why he participated in the baronial rebellion?
  • Oh, and Portsmouth is linked twice....
  • Again, nice job!  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
I was taught to try to use topic sentences, especially when introducing a major change in direction such as the first point. I've added a clarifying "William's" in the bit about his brother. As for why it was important - none of the sources I have directly state why - at least in connection with William. Traditionally the English kings restricted movement to and from the continent - this remained true until Elizabethan times. There were many reasons - but not so much taxes or defense as just plain old control. Added an explanatory footnote on the church issue. As to what made William "evil" - we don't know why Roger of Wendover selected some of the "evil councillors" - it was probably just them being associated with John. Others are pretty easy to see as "evil" from their actions - William doesn't appear to have been one of that type. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Note - I've seen these comments and hope to get to them in the next few days... I should have known that when I put something up for assessment that life outside Wikipedia would go bonkers... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
If it makes you feel any better, noticing this change on my watchlist is part of the first editing I've been able to do in 2-3 days. No pressure; do what you have to do in meatspace :). Ironholds (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • New: additional comments pending support: In May 1216 William was offered a safe conduct by the king, which noted that William had fled overseas. How about In May 1216, the king offered W a safe conduct, which noted that William had fled overseas.

Otherwise: GREAT! auntieruth (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, interesting article. Just a couple of minor comments/suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

  • is there a reference for this sentence: "He continued as Lord Warden of the Stannaries until 1215"?
  • in the References section, for the Rose work in Hill's book, is there a page range that could be added for the chapter?
  • "File:050715 140 lydford castle.jpg": the image description page probably needs a freedom of panorama licence as well as what is also there. You can find information about this here: [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, until 1215 has a source - the ODNB. Added. Page range for Rose's chapter added. Template added. If someone at FAC screams about it being there, I'm throwing YOU to the wolves... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments. A first rate article. A few queries.

  • "Although a 13th-century source says that William held a royal office under King Henry II of England (reigned 1154–1189), the first contemporary reference to William is in 1197". "Although" seems to suggest that the Hundred Rolls statement is not reliable. Is this intended?
  • advisors is usually spelled advisers in BrEng.
  • Cite 3 in the lead seems unnecessary when the quotes are cited below.
  • "In 1197 he granted William a manor at Sutton-at-Hone, Kent, which was supposed to become a hospital, but instead eventually became a preceptory for the Knights Hospitaller." I found this a bit confusing. It seems to imply that it was intended to become a hospital when William acquired it, but the source states that this was later.
  • "The reason for the loss of these offices is unclear.[7] He continued as Lord Warden of the Stannaries" "Restored" rather than "continued"?
  • I am not sure whether "naval commander" is the right expression for someone who probably never commanded at sea.
  • "William supported John, and remained in England." No change needed, but did opponents generally leave England?
  • Dudley Miles (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the intent of the ODNB is pretty clear that they think the reference is a bit dodgy. I haven't looked at the Hundred Rolls entry that's referenced, but my guess is it's a reference to Wrotham having held the office/land by some later office/landholder who may or may not have known a thing. Golding states that it's specifically a "late-13th century" source - which would put it at least 100 years after the fact. Advisers now, not a yankeeism. I'm going to leave the cite in the lead, my understanding is that quotes should always be cited wherever they occur. I've added in "later" to the hospital/preceptory sentence - which should resolve the issue. on the stannaries office - how is "After restoration to office, he remained as Lord Warden of the Stannaries until 1215." instead? On commander - Golding states "command of the fleet of the Cinque Ports. Thereafter he had, until 1215, effective charge of John's naval affairs" - I'm open to other phrasing ... but Golding specifically gives him command of a fleet there. Some opponents did - especially ecclesiastical ones - see Geoffrey (archbishop of York) for one example. During the interdict many bishops left the country. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support and a couple of suggestions. I would add "late" to 13th century in lead as well as in main text. "commander of King John's navy" would avoid expression "naval commander", which sounds wrong to me, Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Should get to these in the next few days... It's been a wild couple of weeks in RL... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support from me. Ironholds (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks to me like we have a consensus to promote. Any repachages? Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Kehl (1796–97)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Siege of Kehl (1796–97) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the format and content of other similar articles. I look forward to some constructive critique. Cheers! auntieruth (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Ruth, I've done some copy editing. Please check my changes and adjust as you see fit. I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria, but I have a couple of suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • please check your time format, I think per WP:MOSTIME "1000" should be "10:00" etc.
  • fixed
  • should the article be re-titled as "Siege of Kehl (1796–97)" given that it spanned the two years, and also given how the lead starts?
  • sure, but my wikimagic didn't allow me to name a page with an – in it. Or to rename it. If you can do it, please .,...
  • Thanks! And when I find the info below, if I find it, I'll add it in. auntieruth (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • "General Clark..." do we know this officer's full name? If so, can this please be added.
  • If you know it, please add it, but I've not found it.
Found in the course of tweaking my manuscript. Added! auntieruth (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • inconsistent presentation: "21st century" v. "twenty-first century";
  • fixed
  • this sounds a little repetitious: "Charles advised his brother...refused by his brother".

AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Based on comments received on Siege of Hüningen I added some text to explain the "German states" phrase. (see comment by Dudley). auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I copyedited down to Background. That section looked a little rough: "an event between the French king and his subjects", "the situation surrounding his sister", "in consultation with French émigré nobles and Frederick William II of Prussia, he issued the Declaration of Pilnitz, in which they declared" (the nobles declared?) - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

tweaked. Thanks.  :) auntieruth (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I can do more if this is headed to FAC ... is it? - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The fortunes of Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach, and those of the Alsatian city of Strasbourg were united by the presence of bridges and a series of gates, fortifications and barrage dams." I do not understand this. Fortification covered both so if one fell the other would?
  • exactly
  • How about something like "Kehl, part of Baden-Durlach, was connected by bridges to the Alsatian city of Strasbourg on the other side of the Rhine, and the fortifications covered both towns so that the loss of one was likely to lead to the loss of the other." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Twiddled with it, and the related part in the article. Hope it's clearer now. auntieruth (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you take another look - your revision has gone wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Jean Victor Marie Moreau, almost upset the siege" Perhaps almost broke the siege?
  • fixed
  • "The defeat of Jourdan's army at the Amberg, Würzburg and Altenkirchen" "at the battles of Amberg..." would be clearer.
  • "Even though the French still held the crossing at Kehl and Strasbourg" crossing or crossings?
  • yes. several.
  • "maintaining control of them had been critical in relative ease of the French crossing to the German side of the Rhine." This does not seem grammatical - had been critical to the relative ease with which the French had crossed?
  • "Clarke, their envoy" I would give his first name.
  • it's linked, but I added his full name.
  • "Most commonly, armies established positions around a city and waited for the surrender of those inside. Quite commonly," Repetition of commonly.
  • fixed.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Their control of these provided essential positions from which the French established their operations." A bit clumsy.
  • Fixed.
  • "This allowed Austrian marksmen close access to the bridge works, where they could, ostensibly, pick off French defenders." What does ostensibly mean in this context?
  • fixed
  • "The arrival of General Desaix earlier in the month had strengthened the French garrison" Just the general or him and troops?
  • thanks for looking.
  • lol. yes both. fixed.
  • A first rate article. Of course revert any of my copy edits you are not happy with. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Rudolf Frank[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Rudolf Frank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review to see if it meets the criteria. The article follows the layout of similar articles gone to A-class. Unfortunately it is rather thin on his personal life so the reviewers may feel that the article is not quite up to A-class standards. I am thankful for any constructive feedback. I hope you enjoy the read. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Support Very interesting article, and nicely done, as usual. Yes, it is thin on his personal life, but he's notable for things beyond that. And he was so young!

  • I've made some minor tweaks throughout: verbs, a few spelling glitches (usually betwixt between American and British English) and smoothed out a few phrases. Feel free to revert or discuss.
  • I did not do a photo check, but leaving that to someone who is a master of those things.
  • I thought article met A class review requirements. auntieruth (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

  • c/e'd a few minor things, feel free to revert.
  • suggest deleting Note 1, which disrupts the flow of the lead, and adding a "See also" section
  • suggest Bomber Command of the Royal Air Force (RAF)

more to come

Early life and career

  • The use of Mittlere Reife without providing a translation is problematic, a reader has to follow the link to even get an idea what we are talking about, I suggest inserting (school leaving certificate) after the link.
  • 2nd squadron and 1st squadron further down appear to be a proper title of a unit, suggest 2nd Squadron etc
  • drop "the" from at the Nachtjagdschule 1

World War II

  • for consistency with use of German ranks, private should be Gefreiter

Night fighter pilot

  • "Mk V" doesn't need scare quotes
  • do we know when he qualified on the Do217J night fighter?
  • Not mentioned by Schumann, do you know? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • it is probably worth pointing out that the Do217J was a night fighter variant of the Do217 bomber
  • suggest flew further missions in
  • suggest Frank avoided an official reprimand
  • Frank and his crew? Wasn't it just Frank and Schierholz? If so, I'd say that.
  • one of the instances of "night fighter" is hyphenated, I don't see the need
  • suggest crew were again, or Frank and Schierholz
  • suggest 14th victory overall
  • suggest TheHis unit
  • this might sound a little better his aircraft was hit in the right engine by enemy fire
  • no idea what model the British intruder was?
  • I checked again, not mentioned in my reference MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross

  • suggest Frank managed to bring the aircraft down at Gießen.
  • do we know when he got married?
  • Unfortunately I don't, my sources only show his wedding picture without a date. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • shot down in the early morning at 02:11 is tautological, suggest shot down at 02:11

Death and posthumous honors

  • suggest Debris from the Lancaster
  • Geschwaderkommodore Oberstleutnant Lent should just be Lent per WP:SURNAME
  • suggest moving on 27 April to the beginning of the sentence
  • Generalleutnant Schmid, commander of the I. Jagdkorps should just be Schmid per WP:SURNAME
  • suggest Frank was also posthumously promoted to Leutnant
  • the image licensing seems fine to me.
  • all images have alt text
  • all toolchecks are ok
  • no overlinking

So, largely prose-related comments, the article is in great shape. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

  • " a secondary school built on the mid-level Realschule": I don't know what that means.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments: just a couple of quick comments from me at this stage:

  • "1st night fighter school" --> I think this should be captialised as "1st Night Fighter School" as it would appear to be a proper noun (for instance compare it to "3rd Night Fighter Wing");
  • same as above for "1st destroyer school" and "1st supplemental training squadron";
  • in the notes section is it necessary for "List of German World War II night fighter aces" to be presented in italics? It seems inconsistent with other links. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment -- Sorry it's taken me so long to show up, MB... For the benefit of other reviewers, I copyedited, commented upon, and passed the article at GAN. The only caveat I raised there for higher-level assessments was the website references Aircrew Remembered, Royal Air Force Commands, and Airwar Over Denmark. Not having come across them before, they look to me like the work of quite serious enthusiasts, and I would've thought we could do better than these at ACR (or FAC). Alternatively, perhaps the info cited to these sources is not so vital that it couldn't be dropped if no other sources can be found. So I can't see myself supporting for A-Class at the moment, but happy to discuss... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this reference other than this was the only source I found whichs links these claim to an explicit aircraft. Regarding Aircrew Remembered you find a reference to the book, which I don't have access to, in the further reading section of the article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
G'day Ian Rose, just to clarify, are you opposing here? Otherwise, I'm going to put it up for closure on the basis of a consensus to promote. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Tks very much for checking, PM. Yeah, I guess I need to declare an oppose here for now. Sorry to be a hard-arse on this but I'm yet to be convinced that we should be treating these particular websites as having the same reliability as the book sources. Having examined each instance in which the websites are used, it seems to me that they are just providing a little extra detail on the aircraft shot down, but not on the fact of the shootdowns themselves from Frank's perspective. IOW, as far as I can see we could remove the sources and any extra info they provide without hurting the key facts in the article, and be left with a more robust set of references in the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Acknowledge. I understand Ian's position here. However I am going to leave the article as is. When the review period expires I suggest to not promoting the article. I believe leaving the information in is in better interest of our readers, even if it means that the article does not get promoted. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)[edit]

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

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

During the lightning-quick Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the 4th Army earned the dubious distinction of having virtually fallen apart due to fifth column actions and Croat desertions even before the Germans crossed the Drava. A whole regiment rebelled and took over a largish town. After the 14th Panzer Division drove 160 km and captured Zagreb on 10 April (along with 15,000 soldiers and 22 generals) in a single day, the Germans facilitated the proclamation of the notorious fascist puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia. The mostly Serb remnants of the 4th Army continued to withdraw into the Bosnian interior until the capture of Sarajevo on 15 April. The article has been improved considerably since it passed GAN, using detail mainly drawn from Yugoslav sources. I believe it is comprehensive and meets or is close to meeting all the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Images all have Alt Text (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)
    • One duplicate link to be removed per WP:REPEATLINK:
      • Slatina
    • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing [3] (no action req'd)
    • This is a little repetitive: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the post-coup government of Dušan Simović until 3 April 1941, out of fear that such orders...", consider perhaps: "Orders for the general mobilisation of the Royal Yugoslav Army were not issued by the post-coup government of Dušan Simović until 3 April 1941, out of fear that they..." (suggestion only)
    • This doesn't sound quite right to me: "...the Yugoslav 601st Independent Battalion on the border in the Prekmurje region forward of Detachment Ormozki were attacked...", should this be "...was attacked..."?
    • Also a little repetitive: "...orders to parts of the 104th Infantry Regiment ordering...", perhaps consider: "...orders to parts of the 104th Infantry Regiment instructing'..." (suggestion only).
    • Otherwise this looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review, Ac. All addressed. These are my edits. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
        • No worries, those changes look fine. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: G'day, great article. I believe it meets A-class requirements. I have a couple of suggestions below for you to consider, though: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • "On 6 April, the mobilisation of the 4th Army as a whole was only considered partial". Who considered it 'partial'?
      • Terzić, I've attributed in-line and removed "considered"
    • "and had to deploy on foot as infantry, and the division". Run on sentence; perhaps start a new sentence after "infantry".
      • Good point. Done.
    • "all but two battalions revolted and refused to deploy into their allocated positions". Do we know why they revolted?
      • the same reason as all the others, Ustasha propaganda. I've clarified.
    • "By late on 7 April, Petrović's" --> "By late evening on 7 April"?
      • Good point, typo. Fixed.
    • "the line Slovenska Bistrica—Ptuj exposed…" I think that this should be an endash, not an emdash;
      • Indeed. Not sure what happened there.
    • Unless I missed them, there do not appear to be any consolidated figures regarding the unit’s casualties. Do these exist? Do we know how many became prisoners of war in total?
      • Due to the confused nature of the fighting, the fact that the Army disintegrated, and the Germans didn't hang around in enough numbers to round up and disarm all the former soldiers (or count them against individual formations), casualty figures for the Yugoslavs are just not available. Same with numbers captured, as the Germans almost immediately released Croat soldiers to prop up their political treatment of the Ustashas.
    • Is there an inline citation that could be added for Note a? AustralianRupert (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Not to my knowledge, I've treated it as WP:BLUE because it isn't controversial, IMO. Several divisions make a corps, several corps make an army. The Yugoslavs just skipped a level, I've never been able to establish the reason they decided to do it.

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

  • "Armijski đeneral": Give the translation; in the first sentence of the article, don't even give the foreign term. Give your readers a chance to trust that reading effort will be rewarded before you give them tough things to chew on.
  • Judging from the first few sections, the prose looks good enough to head to FAC. I got down to Deployment plan. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Got a little bit farther, down to 42nd Infantry Division Murska. Now I'm not so sure about FAC; this article is list-y, and sometimes reviewers frown on that. Not sure what to tell you; I think other A-class reviewers will have a better sense than I do about this. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dan. Do you mean that because it includes the order of battle of the Army, or because of the chronological organisation of the content? I'm not sure this will ever go to FAC under my watch, and if it did and that was an issue, it could potentially go to FLC instead. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, if it's not going to FAC, don't worry about it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 25 December 2014 (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)

Ulysses S. Grant[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk)

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

Featured article candidates/Ulysses S. Grant/archive1
Toolbox

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

Comments: G'day, great work in bringing this one up to scratch. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I am having trouble loading the article fully on my machine so I can review in too much depth, but I will try to offer some comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • the first paragraph of the Memorials and Presidential library section appears to be unreferenced, for A-class I think we would want at least one citation at the end of the paragraph;
    • I added some citations. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • are there citations/references that could be added for the information in Notes C and D? I notice that you have citations for all other notes;
    • Done.
  • "89 of the nation's 364 railroads went bankrupt", according to WP:NUMNOTES we shouldn't start sentences with numerals;
    • I wasn't aware of the rule. I rewrote the sentence to fix it. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • is there a reference for this: "In the election of 1876, the remaining three Republican governments in the South fell to Redeemers, and the ensuing Compromise of 1877 marked the end of Reconstruction."?
    • Done.
  • according to the MOS year ranges such as "1869–1877" should be presented as "1869–77". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Didn't know that one either. I prefer the other way, but no one is above the MoS, I suppose. Fixed.
      • G'day, yes it seems a bit strange, apparently though there are a couple of exceptions to the rule also. For instance, date of birth and death parenteticals, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the thorough review! If there's anything else you think is lacking, please let me know! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
      • G'day, I had another quick look and made a couple of minor adjustments. I'm still having trouble loading the page - I think my old cluncker of a computer is on its way out. One thing I wonder about is the size of the lead: I got pinged by another user who must have seen the ACR announcement I posted on the Milhist or US Wikiproject pages and they suggested that it might be too long. What are your thoughts about that? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I think the lede is about right, but that may be because I know it used to be much longer. It's been a constant battle to keep out new tangential additions to the article. If you see something irrelevant or unnecessary, by all means strike it out. I'll give it another look today and see what can be trimmed. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
        • I trimmed it a bit yesterday. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Image review

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. This looks a lot better than when it was at FAC. I got down to Civilian life; so far so good. I'm not supporting, but I think the prose will be good enough to put it up at FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dank, your copyedits are always welcome and appreciated. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Wehwalt Starting ...

Lede
  • I'm a bit wondering at the leading the Radical Republicans bit. The Republicans were already starting to be in retreat on Reconstruction, and Grant's policies continued that trend.
  • Do you mean just to remove the word "radical"? If so, done. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "In his second term, the Republican coalitions in the South fell apart and conservative Democrats regained control of each Southern state." This sounds like a cause and effect. I'd make the argument that the Democrats bore some responsibility. Certainly in South Carolina, the Democrats basically won on terror and fraud. And why is this mentioned two separate places in one paragraph? And can't the two Indian war references in that paragraph be consolidated?
  • Changed the redeemer sentence to "In his second term, the Republican coalitions in the South fell apart as conservative white Democrats regained control of Southern states through terror and disenfranchisement of black Southerners." And I consolidated that whole last sentence, which was just repetitive.
  • "Alabama Claims" Alabama should be italicized.
  • "Their consensus remains below average." I know what you are trying to say here, but some rephrasing is needed.
  • Yes, I wasn't happy with that, either. Should be better now. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Military career
  • "divided his army" I would say "divided his forces" to avoid a repetition of army later in sentence.
  • "Grant chose to remain in the U.S. military after his mandatory service had expired in 1847.". This feels awkward, and I think it's the "after" in combination with the past perfect. What about "Grant's mandatory service had expired during the war; he chose to remain in the Army."
  • Changed to "Grant's mandatory service had expired during the war, but he chose to remain in the Army." --Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "That same year," maybe "Later that year",
  • "repeal the resignation" probably better, "refuse the resignation". I think I commented on this on my earlier run through the article.
  • Done. Sorry, I thought I'd fixed all of the problems from the failed FA.--Coemgenus (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Civilian life
  • "By August 1863, " I think this sentence should be in the Civil War section, it's where people would look for this information
Civil War
  • " inexperienced volunteers" I would cut "inexperienced", I'm not sure it adds anything. Besides, they weren't inexperienced for long.
Shiloh
  • "had grown" Why "had"? Have we gone back in time? When are we speaking of here, anyway?
  • Changed to "now numbered"
  • "the Confederate army of roughly equal strength " probably should be "a Confederate army ..." I note you use "Confederate Army" with caps later in the paragraph.
  • "Pittsburg Landing near Shiloh . [57] " spacing problem here. I'd fix it but am doing this offline.
  • "having lacked reinforcements " lack of reinforcements
"stopped fighting" this reads oddly, like they went on strike or something. Is there a more military phrasing that can be made?
  • Changed to "halted".
  • "to date, " this is unclear in meaning. You probably mean "to that point". More died at Antietam, as I recall, but that was later.
  • Yes, you're right. Changed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  • You are not consistent re-election vs. reelection
  • Should all be unhyphenated now. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Vicksburg
  • I'd mention what state it is in at some point. Better yet, a map.
  • I added the state. I'm not sure there's room for a map without cutting a picture. I'll think about it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "did support" perhaps, "showed his support for"
  • I don't like the way this gives the setting for Vicksburg, then goes back and discusses Gen. Order 11. I would move the info on the order and other 1862 material into the previous section. Go from the setting of Vicksburg to the Vicksburg campaign.
  • Moved and tightened prose. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Grant then made a series water movements and diggings attempting to bypass Vicksburg guns" missing "of" before "water" and probably an 's after "Vicksburg". Also, what "water movements and diggings" are is not clear to me.
  • I changed that whole awkward sentence to "Grant then attempted a series of maneuvers through the water-logged terrain to bypass Vicksburg's guns; these proved ineffective."
Chattanooga
  • Two consecutive sentences begin "On November 2x,"
  • Thanks for noticing. I hate that lazy form of prose that runs rampant across the encyclopedia. Changed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "the city's bluffs" Which city? Was Petersburg a city in 1864?
  • Yes, this was confusing. Changed to "in the James River". --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Lincoln's assassination
  • "army intelligence sources were able to narrow the existing threats in Washington " Huh?
I cut the two sentences there -- too much information in an already over-large article. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Commanding general
  • "At the war's end, Grant remained commander of the army, with duties that included enforcement of Congressional Reconstruction of the former Confederate states" Congressional Reconstruction could not have started before Congress convened in December 1865 and didn't get started in earnest until the following year. Before that, it was Presidential Reconstruction.
  • I don't know how the word "Congressional" got in there Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Johnson argued for a moderate approach to Reconstruction," Hm. Perhaps rather than the conclusion, put in the specifics here as you have them in the sentence beginning "Johnson advocated". I think the way you have it might be disagreed with, with the key word being "moderate"
  • Yes. I reworked he section to state the facts of what Johnson wanted, instead of a lazy characterization. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Johnson was about to attempt to unilaterally seat Southern Congressmen" I don't see how he could do this, and more than that, why what you relate regarding weapons would prevent or otherwise him from doing it.
  • Yes, that misunderstands the source material (here. I corrected it. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • " lest he be rendered politically irrelevant" Short of being found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, I don't see how Grant becomes politically irrelevant here. He's still General of the Army and a huge hero and the favorite in the next election.
  • Yes. Deleted that clause. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "This public humiliation" humiliation seems a bit strong.
  • Changed to "public insult". --Coemgenus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
1868 campaign
  • "Grant at the age of forty-six was the youngest nineteenth century presidential candidate to take office." Unless I'm missing someone, he was the youngest president to that point, period.
  • "Johnson declined to ride in Grant's carriage or attend the inauguration at the Capitol." The Johnson article says Grant would not ride with Johnson. If I recall correctly, my Seward sources say the same thing. Also that Grant refused to appoint a liaison to the outgoing administration, as was customary.
  • There was snubbing on both sides, but it looks like most of it was on Grant. Changed it, with citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Presidency
  • "Secretary of Navy" "of the Navy". Similarly, "of the Treasury". Used in subsequent sections as well. Also "of Interior", later.
  • What's the 1789 statute all about?
  • Explained and reworded, with citation. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Fifteenth Amendment" is not linked on first use.
Indian peace
  • Your capitalization of "army" seems inconsistent (check lede for examples, but I just noticed it in this section)
  • Fixed for this section. I'll keep an eye out in for it as I go. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Grant's Peace Policy" why the caps? (used twice)
  • Not quite sure. I don't think it's well-known enough to be considered a proper name. Fixed. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I find it surprising the article lacks a mention of the transcontinental railroad, completed under Grant, and that certainly affected his Indian policy, among other policies.
Just flipping through some of the sources now, I see that the railroads opposed Indian citizenship, but I see little mention of Indians and the transcontinental. If I come across more, I'll add it where appropriate. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Foreign policy
  • I don't recall Seward trying to buy any more of the Dominican Republic than Samana Bay, and don't recall Haiti
  • Two concepts got conflated there. Seward recommended the Danish Virgin Islands, Johnson (and the DR goverment) wanted all of Hispaniola. Fixed now. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "William H. Seward, Secretary of State under Lincoln" and Johnson
  • "it would decrease the number of autonomous nations run by Africans in the western hemisphere" to zero, unless I'm wrong. If I'm right, Sumner's objection, to eliminating the only nation outside Africa run by Africans, could be stated more clearly.
  • Yes, that makes sense.
  • Is there a reason for a second link to Hamilton Fish?
  • No, it's close enough to the first that we don't need it linked again. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Sumner opposed the third-party negotiated Johnson-Clarendon Convention settlement, that was rejected by the Senate," You might want to mention this was under Johnson's presidency and that the Johnson of the settlement's name is a different Johnson.
  • I removed the "Johnson-Clarendon" name, and hopefully clarified it a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not sure that the stated reason for the Alabama claims makes it clear to the reader why the US considered Britain liable. Though Seward most stridently did object to the declaration of belligerency.
Better now (?) --Coemgenus (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Gold standard
  • The description of Gould and Fisk's maneuvers seems overly detailed.
  • I condensed it a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The tale of Grant trying to get the nation back on the gold standard is presented very approvingly. I doubt a Keynesian would agree. Just saying.
  • I'm not sure I agree, either, but it was the economic consensus at the time, I think.
  • "Since his first election Grant sided with both capital and civil rights interests that alienated some party leaders." This could be written more clearly.
  • I think it's clearer now. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "enforce its recommendations" implement its recommendations, perhaps.
  • Done. --16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "Many of such men bolted" ahem
  • "Many of that faction split from the party in 1872..." Better? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I did not know that. Glad to hear it! I'll take a look if I can. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The meaning of the cartoon used to illustrate the 1872 campaign is probably incomprehensible to the reader, who probably can't tell which Greeley is without a scorecard. I would find a more illustrative Nast cartoon. There are plenty on the web and at Commons.
  • "gold dollar as the monetary standard" I would insert "sole" before "monetary". The dollar had always been defined in terms of gold, the change was it was no longer defined in terms of silver.
  • "Critics who wanted more money in circulation to raise prices" well ... I think the point was easier credit, though they certainly, taking the debtor's standpoint, didn't mind inflation.
  • "Critics who wanted more money in circulation to facilitate easier credit..." might be better? --Coemgenus (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "failing to fully sell bonds" this reads a bit foggily.
  • "After the Panic, " since it really wasn't over yet, I would omit this phrase. The end of the sentence dates it.
  • I would make it clear what specie is in the text.
  • "the number of greenbacks " amount, not number.
  • "Grant's first endorsement" perhaps, "Grant's endorsement in advance"
  • ""Interior Department" is not consistently capitalized.
  • "increased qualified candidates" increased the number of qualified candidates, perhaps.
  • "to schools that have any religious affiliation" reads oddly, (the "any"), perhaps "to schools with religious affiliation"
  • The caption on the BEP portrait of Grant should not end in a period as it is not a complete sentence.
More anon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Even with your change, you are still italicizing and capitalizing Alabama claims three different ways.
  • "That case, which was unpopular with business interests, held that the federal debt incurred before 1862 be paid in gold, not greenbacks" I don't understand this. Business preferred to be paid in greenbacks?
  • "Conking. Conking ... Cushing. Cushing" back to back names are disfavored
Election of 1876
  • You have three consecutive sentences that start "Grant".
World tour
  • "Travelling to London, the Grants dined with Queen Victoria at Windsor Castle, and Grant gave several speeches in the city" The "Windsor Castle" is causing a problem with "city" as of course Windsor Castle is not in London.
  • " Siam (where Grant met King Chulalongkorn,) Singapore, and Vietnam" so you're using the old name for Thailand but the current name for Vietnam?
Third term
  • " Electoral College-214 to 155" hyphen trouble
Business ventures
  • The machinations of Mr. Ward are given in too much detail.
Memoirs
  • "After private services, the military in New York placed Grant's body on a special funeral train and traveled via West Point to New York City," So the military went via West Point?
  • I'd shorten Grand Army of the Republic to GAR instead of saying "Grand Army" for short.
Historical reputation
  • I'd split that first paragraph somewhere
  • Dictionary of American Biography probably should be italicized
  • "Grant's reputation, for the most part, remained popular" are reputations popular?
  • Why is Grant & Ward italicized?
  • I would more clearly separate his military reputation from his political one if possible. You seem to jump around a bit, and there are some questions of chronological order as well. Saying that Grant was savaged by the Dunning School in the early 20th century near the end, when you've mentioned more recent and more favorable comments, seems a bit out of order.
  • That's it. It's much improved from last time I saw it. I especially like the historical section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dassault Rafale[edit]

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

Prior nomination here.

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

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

Support Comments: G'day, interesting article. I had a quick run through the article and did some copy editing and I have a few comments/suggestions:

  • is there a reference for this: "The four-nation project would eventually result in the Eurofighter Typhoon"?
  • The previous sentence mentions the Eurofighter project, which resulted in the Typhoon. Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • My suggestion then is to move the ref to the end of the paragraph, otherwise it appears to be uncited. Additionally, from a copy editor's perspective I'd suggest rewording it slightly to: "The four-nation project eventually resulted in the production of the Eurofighter Typhoon." AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • is there a reference for this: "The French government would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter."?
  • See below.
  • My suggestion then is to move the ref to the end of the paragraph, otherwise it appears to be uncited. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • additionally, the above sentence might flow better if it were reworded slightly. For instance, "The French government would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter" could be changed to "The French government later announced that it would not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter."
  • Sorry if it is not clear enough. I would've thought that the fact that the French Navy purchased the Rafale is because the government did not buy the F/A-18, and so I think that would be apparent in the article. Besides, I'm not aware of any such announcement. Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, then my suggestion is to change the sentence construction. "The French government did not proceed with a purchase of the twin-engine fighter." would be fine, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • what does "it" refer to in this sentence: "greatly increase the dist

ance at which the Rafale can engage aerial targets when it enters service"? Is 'it' refering to the missile or the Rafael?

  • the information on the bid to supply the UAE probably should be moved to the Failed bids section
  • please check the English variation you are using, I see a mixture of British and US English. For instance, "defense", "kilometers" and "maneuverability" (US) but also "defence" (British). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert: I've converted all instances of defence into defense except for mention of the Indian and Canadian defence ministries, which use British English I would have thought. Please tell me if you would like them changed as well. Appreciate your comments. Cheers Sp33dyphil (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • G'day, ok thanks for clarifying that you are using US English, I actually assumed the other way around but didn't want to tinker without clarifying. There are a lot of British English words remaining. For instance: favoured, optimised, programme, specialised, metres, signalling, reorganised, refueling, litres, modernised, digitisation, prioritises, manoeuvring, minimisation, minimise, colour. Please adjust these to US spelling for consistency. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Why switching to US spellings? I can't clearly tell from the earliest versions of the article which spelling version was established first. But being a European topic, it should proably use British/Inter'l English spelling such as defence, except for quotes and proper names that use US spellings. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • TBH, I've made the changes above because I thought (short-sightedly), given AustralianRupert's examples, that the majority of the spelling was in American English. Which is wrong because I write my articles using British English. I will revert my changes. Sorry for the confusion. Sp33dyphil (talk) 04:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Reference # 1 is just a bare url, which should probably be formatted the same as the other references with details such as the title, publisher, accessdate etc
  • watchout for overlink; the duplicate link checker tool highlights the following possibilities: Delta wing, Afterburner, Carrier-based aircraft, Avionics, Canard (aeronautics), Knot (unit), Data fusion, MICA, General Electric F404, Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses, Thales Damocles, Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, SEPECAT Jaguar. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
  • some of the citations appear to be inconsistent in their presentation. For instance "Eden et al" (and some of the others) uses the harvnb template, but "Buttler 2000" and others do not;
  • in the References does "Sedbon 1986" refer to the Jan 86 publication or, the Jul 86 publication?
  • Reference # 175 (Pockock): should the quote be placed into a note like the others? AustralianRupert (talk) 02:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I've added my support now as my comments have been dealt with. Good luck with the rest of the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see this detailed article back at ACR. I have the following comments:

  • "Dassault describes the Rafale as an omnirole fighter" - does anyone else? I wouldn't put much weight on what the manufacturer calls the type ('multi-role' is the common term, and means the same thing)
  • See below.
  • "capable of simultaneously performing air supremacy, interdiction, reconnaissance, and airborne nuclear deterrent missions" - this might be technically feasible, but an aircraft armed with nuclear ground attack missiles is never going to be used for any purpose other than nuclear strike. More generally, the claim that the aircraft can "simultaneously" conduct these roles is a bit questionable - while ground-attack Rafales might be able to self-escort themselves to targets against modest opposition (a common feature of virtually all modern fighter bomber aircraft), they can't fight other high-end aircraft without first disposing of their ground attack weapons.
  • That's the language used by Dassault, and Flightglobal acknowledges it. Furthermore, the word polyvalent is used by the Interavia when describing the Rafale. It means the same thing as omnirole. Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest sticking with the common term - this appears to be a PR term which Dassault is using to differentiate the aircraft from its competitors, but doesn't hold much water (F-16s, F-15s. Typhoons and Gripens are also very good at a range of roles). Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, are you sure that France conducts nuclear-armed deterrent patrols? - I thought that the countries which did this ceased doing so after the Cold War.
  • I'm not sure if that has stopped. Reworded. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Rafale is distinct from other European fighters of its era in that it is almost entirely built by one country" -doesn't this also apply to the Gripen? (leaving the Eurofighter as the only international project). I suppose that the Gripen uses an American-designed engine, and sensors from various countries though, which is a significant difference.
  • Yes, there's international collaboration on the Gripen. In fact Britain is reportedly likely to block a sale to Argentina due to its involvement in the Gripen programme.
  • The para starting with "During October–December 1978" seems out of order given that it describes events while this was an international project
  • While this is chronologically out of order, I think the setup is justified since "Origins" deals with the background and multilateral projects, whereas information from "Design phase and prototype" onwards deals with France's own development of the fighter. This gives the readers a more consistent recounting of events, as they only have to shift their mental time-frame once, instead of multiple times if a chronological setup was used since there were different conflicting developments throughout the period of 1978–1985. Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how the budget cuts affected the Rafale development program exactly? - it's not stated at present.
  • The 1994 budget for the Rafale was cut by some US$340 million. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I guess what I was asking is how the cuts slowed development: did they lead to fewer prototypes (and hence slower testing), smaller design teams, etc? Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Added info. about reduced order size and rising costs. Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The size constraints were eased by the introduction of the Charles de Gaulle, France's first nuclear-powered carrier, which was considerably larger than previous carriers, the Foch and Clemenceau" - this is a bit unclear: surely the Rafale was always designed to primarily operate from CdG, and vice-versa given that the other two carriers were at the end of their service lives during the development of the Rafale
  • I'm unsure as well. Perhaps I should remove the last clause altogether since I cannot find additional sources. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The first clause is my concern: Rafale was presumably never intended to operate from the old carriers (at least for long), and CdG was presumably always intended to operate aircraft of this type, if not the exact design. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find any other information than what was written in Williams 2002.
  • Replaced the word eased with offset, as eased implied that the size constraints were unintended and were only solved with the CdG's larger size. Perhaps the aircraft was engineered that way because the carrier was larger. Offset is a more appropriate word in this case. Sp33dyphil (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "The service originally envisaged taking delivery of 250 Rafales, but this was initially revised downwards to 234 aircraft, made up of 95 "A" and 139 "B" models",[33][37] and later to 212 aircraft.[36] The Navy, meanwhile, had 60 Rafales on order, down from 86 due to budget cuts.[33][36] Of the 60, 25 would be M single-seaters and 35 two-seat Ns.[37] The two-seater has been cancelled" - when did these changes to the composition of the orders take place?
  • I couldn't find any mainstream sources. Besides, I think adding the years would complicate things further. Please respond if you object to my reply. Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "In November 2009 the French government ordered an additional 60 aircraft to take the total order for the French Air Force and Navy to 180.[39] As of 2014, a total of 180 Rafales have been ordered by France" - the second sentence here seems repetitive
  • The sentence starting with "F3 standard Rafales are capable" is rather lengthy and complex: I'd suggest splitting this into two or more sentences
  • "The Rafale is fitted with the Snecma M88 engine" - one or two of them?
  • "Dassault describe the engine as providing "exceptional controllability, especially during acceleration" - of course they think it's wonderful. What do independent commentators say?
  • "There has been considerable interest in improved M88 engines by potential export customers" - what improvements are they looking for?
  • More powerful engines. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • "In January 2014, it was reported that Dassault offered a contract with full transfer of technology for much lower long-term support costs" - lower than what? (the original price, or the F-35?)
  • What's the timeframe for the Malaysian fighter replacement project?
  • Removed Malaysia section due to lack of widespread coverage. According to Defense Industry Daily, Dassault has not submitted a leasing offer to the Malaysian government. Sp33dyphil (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can you note why Singapore went with the F-15 rather than the Rafale? - Singapore's defence procurement processes are very well regarded internationally, and are considered to be quite influential as a result.
  • "The United Arab Emirates Air Force was interested in an upgraded version of the Rafale with more powerful engines and radar, and advanced air-to-air missiles" - when was this?
  • "Deputy Supreme Commander of the Union Defence Force, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, had called the French offer "uncompetitive and unworkable" - when was this?
  • More generally, the coverage of the UAE procurement seems a bit under-developed that this has been quite a saga (at one stage it looked like the Rafale was locked in, only for this to fall apart)
  • Strange. I couldn't find any sources that said the UAE were close to buying the Rafale. Perhaps you could give me a link? Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sure, these articles refer: [4], [5], [6], and [7] (somewhat speculative!) I suspect that I read this in various Jane's publications, which are difficult to access unless you're a member of an institution with a subscription (which I no longer am, sadly). Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Can more be said about the attempt to sell Rafales to Morocco? This is noted earlier as having failed in part due to poor cooperation between the French government and Dassault, but what this involved isn't stated. Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed - nice work. I'd suggest working on the remaining elements of the comments before any FAC though. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments. I've got the same concerns about your first paragraph as Nick does. The tone is wrong for FAC. It's fine to tell us what the company thinks about its fighter ... but only after you've described it as reliable sources would describe it. That's all I've got for now; copyediting comments would be premature. - Dank (push to talk) 21:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I've removed the omnirole statement. Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Looks fine now. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • When deciding which articles to copyedit, I have to consider the odds that the article won't pass, and this article has only one support in 2.5 months. I'd like to see more activity here before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I see Nick suggests working on "the remaining elements of the comments before any FAC" ... and that sounds like something that should be done before I copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've addressed the three remaining issues. Cheers, Sp33dyphil (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a few edits, but I'm just not comfortable copyediting this. A lot of the material is new to me, and I know that reviewers at FAC are more demanding when articles concern current companies and their products. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • A couple of links to illustrate the point: WP:FA#Engineering and technology and WP:FA#Business, economics, and finance. Very few FACs on products, particularly big-ticket engineering products, have succeeded over the last 10 years. Milhist has had a little more success than most because ... hey, we're Milhist. But in general, reviewers and writers of these articles haven't seen eye-to-eye, and I'm just not sure how to copyedit across the cultural divide, or whether it's worth the time investment to try. Some phrases just in the lead section that you might or might not have problems with, in addition to the ones that reviewers perceive (or misperceive) as military jargon: "high level of agility", "air supremacy", "crucial advantages", and "planned to be introduced". WP:DATED is also cited much more (and applied unevenly) for these types of articles than for historical articles. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)