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

SMS Gefion[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Gefion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another German cruiser, this was the last unprotected cruiser built in the 1890s. She saw action during the Boxer Rebellion in 1900-01. The ship was out of service by World War I due to a lack of personnel to crew her, so she was used as a depot for U-boats. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Note - for some reason, I forgot to actually transclude this until now. Parsecboy (talk) 12:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

John Wilton (general)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

John Wilton (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I started improving this article on Australia's senior soldier for most of the Vietnam era way back in 2012, partly to follow up my work on his predecessor as Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, Fred Scherger, and partly to see if I could add a general to my list of air marshal and admiral FAs. The "epitome of the professional army officer", as his biographer David Horner put it, John Wilton was as cool and "proper" as his clipped moustache and stern visage suggested, but a leader who always seemed to have the welfare of his men at heart. A great deal has been written about him, so I can only hope I've correctly balanced what to put in and what to leave out. One thing that surprised me was finding no evidence of any memorials (street names, parks, prizes, etc) so if any of you Army types or Canberra residents know of something that can be substantiated by sources or even your own photos, that'd be great. Thanks to Anotherclown for his helpful GA review that just concluded, and to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Very impressive. I found one error: He was appointed to the General Staff Advanced Headquarters Australian Military Force, South West Pacific Area. That's not correct. SWPA had Land, Air and Naval components. The HQ of land one was Allied Land Forces, under Blamey. It had its headquarters (LHQ) in Melbourne. When MacArthur's GHQ moved up to Brisbane, Advance LHQ moved up there. In 1944, Advance GHQ moved to Hollandia, so another headquarters was formed, Forward Echelon Advance LHQ (Forland). This followed Advanced GHQ to Manila. Meanwhile, Advanced LHQ moved to Morotai to provide logistical support to the operations in Borneo. Wilton spent some time with Forland in Manila, before becoming Colonel GS (Staff Duties and Training) at Advanced LHQ on Morotai. Advanced LHQ became Advanced Headquarters Australian Military Forces (note the plural), but only when SWPA was dissolved on 2 September 1945. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Many tks Hawkeye; will check over the Horner bio tomorrow and recast that bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
One more thing: Wilton was accorded a military funeral at Duntroon and cremated at Norwood Park Crematorium. We know where Norwood Park Crematorium is (since it is not far from my home) but I doubt if everyone would know. Unfortunately, neither Norwood nor Mitchell has an article, but I think it should read "... in the Canberra suburb of Mitchell." Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I've had a go at recasting the LHQ bit (as well as a few other minor things) and just settled for "Canberra" to broadly clarify the location of the Crematorium as Mitchell wasn't mentioned in any source I have. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the National Convention[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

List of Presidents of the National Convention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Nominating this for Alist. As you can see I tried to take it to "Good" class but was shut down because it's a list, despite it having significant text. These are the wagers of war during the French Revolutionary Wars (1790s) and it's an important list to have. I've stubbed out all the bios, so there is at least something on each man. Hope it meets with approval. As always, glad to add more, if I can find it. auntieruth (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I don't know a lot about lists, but WP:LEAD suggests the lead should be a summary of what's on the page.
  • " By a vote of the National Convention to execute Maximilien Robespierre, Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, and several other leading members of the revolutionary government. ": No verb.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Dank, I expanded the lead a bit. I also fixed that sentence. auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1[edit]

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

Yugoslav torpedo boat T1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The first in what will hopefully be a series of A-Class nominations of smaller vessels of the Royal Yugoslav Navy. Saw service with five navies, and was part of the escort that was unable to protect the Austro-Hungarian dreadnought SMS Szent István from Italian MAS boats in 1918. Expanded significantly in last few months, and recently successfully nominated for GA. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments: looks pretty good to me. Just a few minor comments from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  • check the English variation, I see some British (e.g. "harbour") and some US (e.g. "defense")
  • "fitout" or "fit-out"?
  • the first sentence of the Interwar period section seems a bit long and might be smoother if it were split somehow.
  • are there any details about what the ship was used for during the Interwar period?
  • in the References, London is probably overlinked
  • the licencing of the image used appears correct to me (no action required)
  • All done. Added a bit about the interwar period, but she was a small ship and they didn't have much money. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries, thanks, I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. Part of my series of variants of the M3 Half-tracks. Created this article back in January. Sent it to GA last month and passed quickly. I would say this is short on coverage, but since the low amount of refs mentioning it, I'm stuck with what I have for know. Thanks for your responses for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Wolf-Dietrich Wilcke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Wilcke was one of the German fighter aces of World War II to become a wing commander. He had fought on the Western and Eastern Front and was killed in 1944 when the Lustwaffe had lost the air war over Europe. Thanks in advance for your time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support I've only got two comments:

  • The first note needs a citation.
  • There are two "clarification needed" tags in the article
    • I had to revert these. Look for the Note2, it explains the nomenclature of Luftwaffe units. It is never spelled out, it is either a regular number, for squadrons, or a roman numeral, for groups. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the rest of my comments seemed like nitpicks, I did them myself.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Pamphlet[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

Operation Pamphlet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Operation Pamphlet was an convoy operation of World War II in which the veteran Australian 9th Division was transported home from Egypt. The operation had an unusual precursor, in which Churchill and FDR argued with Australian Prime Minister Curtin and (by proxy) General MacArthur over whether the division should be returned. After Curtin won this argument (largely by default), the troops were packed into four of the famous converted "monster" ocean liners and transported home. The Australian Government was greatly concerned about their safety and, in line with standard doctrine, the convoy was escorted by powerful naval forces, including the main body of the British Eastern Fleet for a period. Happily, it was not detected or attacked by the Axis, and arrived safely in Australia in late February 1943.

I started this article last year after stumbling on a surprising number of references concerning the operation, and it reached GA class in November. It's since been expanded and copy edited and I'm hopeful that it is of A-class standard. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


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

  • "subsequently": same as last time. One was redundant after I moved things around; the other two mean "soon" or "later" or variations thereof, and I can't tell which.
  • "United States": I reduced this in a few places, as I often do, to US, U.S., American, or nothing, depending on context. There are conflicting opinions and some confusion. The bottom line is that frequent use of "United States" as an adjective sounds wrong to most people, in and outside the US, and influential US style guides (such as Chicago and AP stylebook) reflect this. No one, AFAIK, has a problem with saying "United States" at first mention or occasionally, in any context, but especially in formal contexts; thus WP:ARTCON. It won't bother me if you want to revert some of my edits back to "United States", but please don't revert all of them.
    • Thanks Dank, that looks better. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I read Maughan to say that the cable from Churchill about retaining the Australian forces' heavy equipment probably came in November. The text currently says "On 21 November, the commander of the 9th Division, Major General Leslie Morshead, was informed by General Harold Alexander, the commander-in-chief of the Middle East Command, that a decision had been made to return the division to Australia. However, Churchill subsequently informed the Australian Government that due to a shortage of shipping the 9th Division would not be permitted to take its heavy equipment ...". I can't support a blanket prohibition on "however" at the start of a sentence, as some Wikipedian copyeditors do; it seems like a reasonable way to start some paragraphs. But that's the point ... it signals a break, a change of direction, and often, quick jumps aren't the best way to minimize a reader's memory load. Better here, I think (with slightly less detail, if that works for you), would be "In November, the commander of the 9th Division, Major General Leslie Morshead, was informed by General Harold Alexander, the commander-in-chief of the Middle East Command, that the division would return to Australia, though Churchill added that their heavy equipment was to remain behind." (I read Maughan to say that the heavy equipment was staying not just because they were going to have a hard time shipping it, but because they wanted to keep the equipment.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
    • That's a good point: I've tweaked this para to make it a bit clearer Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. The changes are acceptable, for A-class and FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Support

  • I copyedited this after its GA review and am satisfied with info/prose changes made since then.
  • Structure and level of detail look good to me, sources/citations likewise.
  • Image-wise, suggest all could use PD-1996 (as the Preparation one does already).
    • Well-spotted - fixed Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Ian Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


Comments

  • I'd never heard this codename. It is much less well-known than Operation Stepsister (which has no article).
  • I'd be interested in Dank's opinion on whether "the maximum which Queen of Bermuda could maintain" should be "the maximum that Queen of Bermuda could maintain". I get confused about this.
    • Butting in, I think it should be "that", now you mention it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There is no use of Hasluck's account in The Government and the People 1942–1945 pp. 193-203, which is odd. There are some bits that could be elaborated on to more fully explain the background of the operation. I think that most of the reader interest in the operation would be more on the reasons why than the operation itself, which is well done in any case.
    Hasluck notes the reasons:

    There were, however, many reasons besides any danger to Australia behind the recall of the 9th . There was the need to relieve the burden placed on the 6th and 7th in New Guinea, allied with insufficient military faith in the militia ; the old principle that the Australian Army should fight as one army under one commander ; the difficulty of maintaining reinforcements for a division overseas ; the ambition to strengthen the South-West Pacific Command for an eventual offensive ; the political difficulty of extending the area in which the militia could serve (owing to Labor objections to what was termed conscription) so long as there was still a volunteer expeditionary force in an overseas theatre; the"psychological" effect of absence on the men of the 9th. (p.193)

    • Whoops! I'd actually bookmarked the relevant section of my copy of The Government and the People, but then must have forgotten about it! I'll add some stuff in. I'd rather stay clear of his blow by blow account of the foreign policy manoeuvring, but there's certainly more I need to add; his description of why the division was wanted in Australia is well presented. Nick-D (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
      • (As a note, I will get up to this later in the week: I've had limited editing time this weekend) Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the reader might get the impression that the return was MacArthur's idea. It actually stemmed from Blamey's proposed restructuring of the Army in September 1942
  • The target date for Lae-Salamaua was May 1943. (This slipped to September.) But all the five available US (32nd, 41st, 1st Marine) and AIF (6th, 7th) took heavy casualties in Papua and Guadalcanal. Also, in November 1942, faith in the Militia and the US divisions was at a low ebb.
  • The plan to send the US 25th Division to Australia was aborted, and it was diverted to Guadalcanal. This would probably have been in MacArthur's mind. The US 24th and 1st Cavalry Divisions were earmarked, but neither arrived until the second half of the year
  • Not all of the promised air reinforcements eventuated either; I don't think that the RAAF ever reached 75 squadrons.
    • Butting in II, actually the article says 73, not 75. No it didn't quite reach that but it came close (70 or so in all I think) so I wouldn't have thought elaboration was necessary in this case, FWIW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      The article is correct; it was 73 squadrons. I'm not sure it is worth mentioning; but the 1943 allocation of aircraft to SWPA meant that the RAAF was limited to 45 squadrons in 1943. (p. 212) Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D and Hawkeye7: Just considering listing this on the coord talk page for closure (though I can't promote myself) -- been very quiet here so wondering if there's anything still outstanding from the above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ian - I need to add some stuff from Hasluck (which has been delayed). I'll try to do this tonight. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, done. Thanks for suggesting this Hawkeye; hopefully it does the trick without getting into the blow-by-blow details of the diplomatic dispute around the division's return to Australia. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • All images have alt text (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of the location of a couple of the publishers in the references section. Specifically some you give as "Canberra" others as "Canberra, Australian Capital Territory".
    • Some minor inconsistency in presentation of editions for instance "1st ed" vs "Third revised ed" i.e. numerals vs spelt in full (minor nitpick).
    • "During 1940 and 1941, three infantry divisions and other units assigned to I Corps of the Second Australian Imperial Force (AIF) were transported to the Middle East..." I wonder if an explanation as to what they were doing there is needed for context for readers not more well acquainted with the topic. For instance "During 1940 and 1941, three infantry divisions and other units assigned to I Corps of the Second Australian Imperial Force (AIF) were transported to the Middle East, where they were subsequently involved in fighting German and Italian forces..." or something like that. It is of course implied but it might be helpful (suggestion only).
      • Done Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
        • They fought a campaign against the Vichy French as well. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I made a few minor MOS edits and added an OCLC, pls see my changes here [1] and amend as req'd if I got anything wrong.
    • Otherwise I found the article to be well written, flowed logically, was concise yet covered the topic well, and provided some very interesting insights (e.g. Curtin's concern for the convoy etc). Well done in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot for your edits and review Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

T48 Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

T48 Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. The T48 Gun Motor Carriage was a widely unknown tank destroyer produced by the U.S. on a Anglo-American requirement. It served with the Soviet Union (which accepted 650), United Kingdom (which accepted 30), and the U.S. Army (which accepted 1), with the rest (281) being converted at Chester Tank Depot.

The article underwent a GA Review earlier on this month, while after the GA review it underwent some recent copyediting. It is currently undergoing a DYK, and I hope this passes this review. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The original design had a gun shield taken from the T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" - should "T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" be red linked?
  • "Learning from experience with the M3 Gun Motor Carriage, demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood" - this is a bit unclear: what was this experience, and why was deformation of the hood a bad thing?
  • "but by the time they arrived" - when was this?
  • Over what period was this vehicle produced? Is it possible to provide a breakdown of when deliveries took place?
  • "while some of these brigades took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" - given that it's earlier been said that only two brigades used the type, this is unclear (were they issued to other units?) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence reading "When the M3 Gun Motor Carriage was rushed into service, hoods were deformed in the Phillipines, which while it was tested after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, was fixed with demountable headlights" is rather over-complex, and not very clear: I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of these units took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" is still unclear: these operations occurred pretty much simultaneously, and you've only identified two units here. Was it one brigade per campaign, or where other units equipped with these vehicles? Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I could not clarify if it was used by one of the brigades in the Berlin offensive and one in the Prague offensive, since this is what Zaloga states on p. 36:

The first of these to see combat was the 16th Separate Tank Destroyer Brigade which went into action during the Dnepr River offensive in August 1943. The 19th Brigade fought during the Baranow bridgehead battles in August 1944, and some of these units served in the Berlin and Prague offensives from April to May 1945.

  • I'm surprised that the usually very precise Zaloga wrote that; it must have slipped through Osprey's rather hit and miss editing. The problem is that it doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I might have clarified it a little bit with an addition of two sentences about another unit it was used in, although it still may not make sense. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The American requirement was dropped later." Does your source give any indication as to why?
    • Sorry, but it does not state why it was dropped.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was intended solely for Lend-Lease, the T48 was never officially type-classified." Do you think that should have a ";" instead of a comma?
  • "The gun on the pilot model had a traverse of 27.5 degrees" Consider wikilinking "traverse" to Gun laying. People without a military background might not know what a traverse is.
  • "the British had already won the war in the Western Desert and the appearance of the 75 mm gun," I'm sorry, I don't understand where this 75 mm gun has come from.
  • Wikilink "Dnepr River"
    • I addressed all of the issues except the first one.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The biography of one of the main regional warlords that dominated the fracturing Abbasid Caliphate in the early 10th century. As general and as ruler of Syria and Egypt he showed himself capable, wily, but also prudent and restrained. I greatly expanded this article in January, using the main prosopographical study on him and a few complementary sources. It passed a thorough GA review, and I feel it is ready for ACR scrutiny. With whatever suggestions for improvement made here, it will hopefully one day make a fine FA candidate. Constantine 16:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I'm making some small tweaks to make it more accessible to a broad readership, but overall, your writing skill is terrific. Your articles brighten up the Main Page.
  • " he was later released and spent his life until his death in 957 in retirement": "his life until his death" is discordant, and "retirement" raises an unanswered question (what he was retired from). It's probably better to say that he wasn't doing (whatever he wasn't doing), if that's the point.
  • " Thus in 936/7 or 937/8 (most likely in autumn 937)": Personally, I think this slows the story down; I'd just go with "Most likely in autumn 937"
  • " The meeting was not entirely fruitless, as al-Ikhshid secured from the Caliph the recognition of his authority over Egypt, Syria with the thughur as well as the Hejaz (carrying with it the prestigious guardianship of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina) for himself and his sons for thirty years, an arrangement that echoed the similar agreement between the Tulunid Khumarawayh and Caliph al-Mu'tamid in 886." I don't follow.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As usual, thanks for your thorough and well-considered copyedits. I've further rewritten the areas mentioned in the 2nd and 4th bullet points above, hopefully for the better. On the third, I did consider it but the gain in text fluency is IMO not that great. I prefer to leave it as it is. Constantine 11:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. What does 936/7 mean? MOSNUM has advice on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It is the common way in literature of rendering the Hijri years into Common Era ones in the usual case where they don't coincide (in this case AH 325 and 326). Constantine 12:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

American Expeditionary Forces order of battle[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

American Expeditionary Forces order of battle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class standards. Just an order of battle for the American Expeditionary Forces. Might be a little short on content for the history of corps, but since I could not find anymore RS's for content, I just left it there for now. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • CommentsInvolved Support (any closing co-ordinator pls note I have significantly contributed to this article now during the cse of this review – 99 edits at the time of writing)
    • Good work so far, just a few quick comments from me:.
      • Organisation above corps-level should probably be included – my understanding is there were two armies (First United States Army and Second United States Army), with a third forming.
      • The lead includes some good information; however, it probably needs to be referenced in this case (as it is not just a summary of information included in the sections below it with refs).
      • The planned size of the AEF (4 million) and the fact that some 2 million men had reached France by the Armistice is probably worthy of being included in the lead (its currently in the infobox), but would of course need to be supported with a citation.
        • No citation, might want some more reliable info.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I found a citation and added something for this now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I have made a bunch of copy edits, mostly to formatting but a few others too – see here [2]. Pls check I didn't muff anything up. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Also some of the images had been lacking some of the req'd bibliographic details / licensing information, especially File:AEF marching in France.jpg. I've gone ahead and made the changes I think were req'd now; however, if someone with more knowledge about images is able to have a look and check what I've done and make any further cmts / changes as req'd that would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • There are a few notable units / formations that are mentioned in the ORBAT but aren't wikilinked – in particular some of the subordinate brigades. It might be a good idea to wikilink these where pages exist. This category might help you locate which have articles – Category:Infantry brigades of the United States Army. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Those changes look good to me, thanks for that. I've continued to copy edit and make some further changes, pls see here [3]. If there are no issues with those I'm now fairly comfortable with where this ORBAT is at (although I'm no expert on the AEF) and only have one more point:

In the lead you currently have "When it was sent to Europe, it had seven corps...". Is 7 correct? Only 5 US corps are listed (with two attached French corps). Can you pls check this? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, there were nine corps, but there were only structure info for only five of them.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries – could a note be added to explain this (with a ref)? Anotherclown (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Note added with ref.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
In its current form this note is not clear enough and the reference given (Gibbons p 91) does not seem to mention anything about nine corps [see the Project Gutenberg copy here [4]. My assumption is that the plan was for nine corps but only five had taken the field by the time of the armistice. Indeed from what I can tell the General Organization Plan of the AEF planned for it to consist of 9 corps in three field armies and there is structure information for all of these organizations actually seems to be here: [5] (including Third Army and VI-IX Corps which are not currently listed in your ORBAT). As these appear to have actually been formed and served during the occupation of Germany these need to added for completeness. Quite a few publications state that only five had been formed by the end of the war (including several already cited, but also Gibbons p. 388 which states: "By the 1st of September, the United States of America had five such army corps in the field, martialling a strength of about one and one-half million bayonets." As such the way forward as I see it:
  • Make the lead clear in regards to the fact of the planned vs actual size at the armistice; and Yes check.svg Done - decided to have a go at this myself
  • Expand the ORBAT to include the missing army and corps; and Yes check.svg Done – I have fixed it--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Lastly I am concerned about the accuracy of some of your referencing. Can you pls clarify the cause of the Gibbons p. 91 discrepancy? Unless I missed something this does not support the information you stated it does so I'm left to wonder if the other refs are accurate. Was this a one off mistake? Can you pls double check your other refs? Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've reworked the lead myself IRT the nine vs five corps issue, so have now marked this as done; however, this still leaves the issue of the structure being incomplete (i.e Third Army and VI-IX Corps). A few other points come to mind as I've worked through this:

  • Ranks for commanders should probably be included;
  • The list of commanders for most formations appears to be incomplete (these are available from the two Army War College Historical Section publications; and
  • Are there page numbers available for the Coffman and Pershing references? This really needs to be added to satisfy WP:V. Anotherclown (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I could not find any page numbers for those two refs.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Also it occurred to me that the American Expeditionary Force Siberia and American Expeditionary Force North Russia should probably be included. I'm not really very familiar with US military history though so I wonder what others think about this. Anotherclown (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't think adding AEF North Russia and Siberia is really necessary, as I wrote the article to be about the AEF (hence the name and links), and I am pretty sure they served at the different fronts, times, and reasons (aka. The AEF North Russia and AEF Siberia were sent to support the White Russian side in the Russian Civil War, with other Allied Powers (including Britain and France).). -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Howdy. Weren't the AEF North Russia and Siberia still part of the American Expeditionary Force though? As someone not familiar with the topic the name alone would suggest so to me at least (and therefore possibly to other readers). That said I agree with your reasoning for not including here, but only if the ORBAT you are currently working on is intended to only cover the AEF on the Western Front (which again seems a valid limit to me and I would recommend doing so). If this is the case then it needs to be made clear that this ORBAT is only for the Western Front, whilst I think mention of the AEF North Russia and Siberia could still be made in the lead (for instance you currently mention those deployed to Italy) for completeness / accuracy. A suggestion as to how we make this distinction clear though doesn't come easily to me at the moment though. So again I'm open to suggestions / opinions of others. One possible way might be a name change for the article e.g. to something like Order of Battle for the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front or some such variation (there is a List of orders of battle which may give you some ideas for names as there are quite a range of variations and as far as I'm aware no real policy to dictate naming conventions). Anotherclown (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • I've continued to help expand the ORBAT today and made a few more changes, some outstanding points / questions I see:
  • Blurbs need to be added to most of the formations (all Armies and Corps need one), and others need to be expanded (like what you have II Corps for instance). At the least I'd recommend that they should mention date of formation, key activities and demobilization.
  • Do you intend on adding ranks for the commanders? I think it would be appropriate.
  • Some formations have complete lists of commanders, whilst others only have one (presumably that at the time the ORBAT is correct as at) – as such you probably need to standardize on one or the other (I am partially responsible for adding some of these, sorry).
  • Standardized, but since I don't know the last couple, I just left them there.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you intend on listing all commanders then the date of their command should be included too (you do this in some places but not others).
  • Is the infobox really appropriate? Most ORBATs I have seen don't use them, and this one mostly seems to duplicate that at the American Expeditionary Forces article.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok I've gone through and completed a final copy-edit. Well done in seeing this project through to this point, quite an effort. I'm not in anyway an expert on the AEF; however, from my limited understanding of the topic and the research I've done during this review I think that this is a fair attempt at a ORBAT and am willing to give it my support for promotion. Pls note though that during the cse of this review I have made quite a few edits – 99 at the time of writing – admittedly most were copy-editing but there has also been some content, so I think that I would be considered by others to have contributed to it to the point where I am no longer uninvolved. Per current processes ACRs require the support of three uninvolved editors, so if this is to be successful we will probably need a few more editors to review it and support it as well. If I can assist later in the review I will attempt to continue to do so though of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work on this so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • the first sentence of the lead seems quite awkward and probably should be rewritten
  • please use a consistent date format. For instance compare: "12 July 1918" with "August 15, 1918"
    • Fixed
  • I don't think the Key section is really necessary
  • grammar "The I Corps" (and similar constructions); this should just be "I Corps" as it doesn't need the definate article
  • what's the Baker misson? It gets mentioned in one of the photo captions without any context. Could you provide a link to an article that explains it?

Support

  • I Corps painting image should mention it is a depiction by Don Troiani. It is currently presented as if it were an actual photograph.

Other than that I don't see any problems. The article's title is a bit of a mouthful but I suppose there isn't much room for rewording that. Freikorp (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:America's_First_Convoy_1917.png: should the publisher be Houghton Mifflin?
  • File:Americans_in_Champagne-Marne_offensive.jpg: source says that those pictured are National Guard, not that the artist himself is – do we have sources to verify the license given? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks, @Nikkimaria:Nikkimaria, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. Does the uploader of Americans_in_Champagne-Marne_offensive.jpg have the right to release it under that license? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
        • I found it on Flickr, and I am pretty sure it was released under the specified license that it was stated on the page.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 22:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Yes, that's fine, but since the uploader is not the creator, are we sure the uploader has the right to release the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Support

  • although I have I suggestion. Some of your corps are dated as of a battle (or campaign) and others have a date. I suggest in particular that they have dates and other information as available. For example, I Corps (structure as of the Battle of Saint-Mihiel) tells me nothing about when....auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was developed further following its GA review (copyedited once more by GOCE) and I think it meets A-class criteria Tomobe03 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "made no explicit reference to Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.": The text should explain the relevance of these chapters.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment - a brief explanation is added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Changed to "would have permitted" (which is best if that's correct). Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Are there more images you could add?
  • Could not find any that specific to the topic. Generic images of UN peacekeepers are available, but none of UNCRO specifically.
  • Several external links are dead or have connection issues.
  • Updated a couple of UNGENSEC reports urls, and rescued the rest from wayback machine. All urls reported fine by checklinks now.
  • Please try to use American or British English, not both (ex. centred or criticize)
    I think I got them all now to BE (except one in references, reflecting exact source wording)
  • No DAB's
  • No bad citations
  • May want to seperate ORBAT
  • Give the size of the mission info, I'd rather not - if it is not a dealbreaker here.
Thank you for the comments, cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: good work, this looks pretty good to me, although I am not a subject matter expert so I couldn't really check it for content etc. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • in the order of battle table, I suggest adding the year to the month as it is not clear whether it is March 1995 or March 1996 you are referring to;
  • Added
  • I found the first paragraph of the "Response to Croatian offensives" a bit awkward. I had a go at copy editing, but wasn't really able to come up with anything better, so it might need another set of eyes, sorry;
  • Had another go at ce of the paragraph - could you have a look to see if it is any better now?
  • in the References, some works have place of publisher and some don't. For instance compare O'Shea with Ramet. If possible, please make this consistent.
  • All book sources now have the location parameter.
Thanks for your comments. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review: where did you get the data reflected in the map? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

From Balkan Battlegrounds, Map I: National Battalions in UN Forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Early 1993 - I just added that info to the file description at the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Collingwood (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Collingwood (1908) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

HMS Collingwood was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships and frequently served as a flagship during her short career. Completed a few years before World War I, she played a minor role in the war with only participation in the Battle of Jutland enlivening the endless routine of patrols in the North Sea and training. Rendered obsolete by the ever-increasing size and power of more recent dreadnoughts, she became a training ship after the war until she was sold for scrap in 1922. The recent publication of her ship's log has confirmed what I've been otherwise been unable to document and I believe that she now meets the A-class criteria. As always, I'd like readers to look for stray usages of American English and unexplained jargon in addition to the normal things like prose, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • You can get a pretty good level of detail on the Grand Fleet's activities 1914-16 from Jellicoe's memoirs - see HMS Iron Duke (1912) for example.
  • Seems odd that the only 1 paragraph in the Jutland section actually discusses the battle - either add more context to the Jutland section (as I've done with Iron Duke) and split off the rest or remove the subheader altogether. I prefer to give a little more context, but it's a matter of taste.
  • Would probably be worthwhile to point out that after the 18 August operation, Jellicoe basically decided to abandon the southern end of the North Sea due to the threat of mines and U-boats unless there were good odds of a decisive engagement (again, see Iron Duke)
  • Got a Harv error in the ref section.
  • I spot an "armor" - watch out for ENGVAR
  • According to the caption on File:First battle squadron in the North Sea (April 1915).jpg, the third ship from the left is Colossus, not Collingwood - this also has a dead link from DANFS
  • You might want to add File:Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916.svg. Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and link to Action of 19 August 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing out Jellicoe's memoirs, so I've expanded that section quite a bit using it. I've also expanded the Jutland section as you suggested. Don't know how you got a harv error since I don't use harv or sfn cite formats. See how it all works and let me know if there's anything that I missed or need to further expand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Nevermind that bit, Anotherclown fixed it earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Some images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement)
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Some inconsistency in presentation of name of class of ship with "St Vincent class" vs "St Vincent-class" (I don't know which is right but imagine it would probably need to be used consistently through out the article).
      • The hyphenated version is a compound adjective that modifies "ship" or "battleship". The unhyphenated version isn't a compound adjective and so lacks the hyphen.
        • No worries - I think you might have explained this to me in the past (I still don't understand it but no worries!) Anotherclown (talk) 13:33, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Some inconsistency in the capitalization of Zepplin.
      • Good catch.
    • Perhaps wikilink "U-boat".
      • Done.
    • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your taking the time to look this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I reviewed this article at GAN in December 2014, and have looked at the changes made since.
  • image licenses are all ok.
  • no initial conversions of the guns?
    • Not if they're linked.
  • 3 inches (76 mm) roofs should be 3-inch?
    • Indeed, good catch.
  • the lead could be expanded a bit with some detail. It is a bit short at the moment, I know she didn't have that exciting a service life, but some more detail on Jutland or the later Action would be good. Even that Prince Albert was on board at Jutland.
    • Expanded a little, but there's really not a whole lot to work with since she didn't have a prominent role in Jutland and never even fired her guns in the near-battle on 16 August. If you've got any other suggestions, I'll be happy to incorporate them.
  • what was the Battlecruiser Fleet?
  • the Germans mustered 18 battleships and 2 battlecruisers what type of battleships? dreadnoughts?
  • Fleet on the 21st does this conform to MOS:DATEFORMAT?
    • No, but the reviewers at FAC don't seem to be insisting on it.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I think that I've addressed all of your points so see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Happy now, supporting. Well done. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

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)

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

  • "the heavy Austrians fire": ?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but I didn't tackle the lead, which jumps around and is hard to follow. It will need some work if this one is headed to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments: (I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow, so I'm posting these piecemeal today)

  • "Austrian and imperial troops"
Link to imperial, few readers will understand the reference.
Ive added this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "At Kehl and the city of Strasbourg lay a complex of bridges"
Does this mean "Between Kehl and Strasbourg"? In any event, remove "and the city" because that's already mentioned in the para above.
Generally I find the third para of the lead very difficult to understand. I think it needs a re-write.
These issues have both been addressed. I'll start working on the body now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments This article is in good shape, and I have only the following comments:

  • I'd suggest mentioning what war this battle formed part of in the first sentence
  • The para starting with "The French plan called for two armies to press against the flanks" and the next two paras would benefit from the addition of the approximate dates when the events it describes occurred Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Support My main comment is now addressed. I'd still suggest moving a mention of the war into the first sentence, but it's not a big deal given that it's at the end of the initial (short) paragraph Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "and earlier in 1796, when the French crossed into the German states on 23–24 June." You link 1796 to the first battle, but I would spell it out.
    • fixed
  • "the autonomous corps of Wilhelm von Wartensleben" I would move note 1 explaining autonomous corps to here.
    • fixed
  • The infobox gives the date of the battle as 13 to 18 September, but you only mention events on the 18th in the lead and do not spell out that they were the Battle of Kehl.
    • fixed
  • "Control of the surrounding territory there prevented the French from crossing to safety in Strasbourg". I do not understand this. If the French controlled Kehl and the bridges, and the Austrians the surrounding territory, then how could the French retreat to Basel and not across the bridges?
    • if you're referring to the aftermath section, I think I've fixed it.
  • There is no background section. Some of the second paragraph of the lead could be moved to a short paragraph which covers the earlier history and the war before 1795.
  • Is no map available? The description of the dispositions of the forces is incomprehensible without one.

**looking for one. Added auntieruth (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Further comments

  • "On 18 September 1796, the Austrians temporarily acquired control of the tête-du-ponts (bridgeheads) joining Kehl and Strasbourg until a strong French counter-attack forced them to retreat, leaving the French in control of the bridges but the Austrians in control of the territory surrounding them." I would merge this into the first sentence. It is confusing to have the first half of the battle at the beginning of the lead and the rest not until the third paragraph.
  • Much of the second paragraph of the lead seems to me to belong in the background section.
  • "After he tried to force his way through, the Austrians fell back to Weingarten at 49°3′5″N 8°31′50″E and waited there for the French to catch up.[11] By the time the French arrived, Scherb found himself caught between detachments of Austrians by the Kinzig river and behind him." This is a bit confusing. "catch up" sounds as if they are on the same side, and "By the time the French arrived" sounds as if there were two French forces. Perhaps delete "to catch up" and change the next sentence to "When Scherb arrived, he found himself caught..."
  • "The Austrians had insufficient reserves to meet the fresh troops from Strasbourg. By 23:00 though, the French had recovered Strasbourg, the village of Kehl and all of the French earthen works." Were the fresh troops the ones mentioned before or new ones? Also why "though"?
  • Looks good. A few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I've dealt with all these now. auntieruth (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - although I am not really happy with the lead. You have not dealt with the first two points in 'further comments'. I still think that you should say in the first paragraph that the French recovered the ground lost by the initial Austrian success rather than leave the reader to work it out from the wording of the 3rd para, and I also think that some of the 2nd para belongs in the background. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OH! I finally understand what you were asking me to do. I think....auntieruth (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

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)
An update, have found some statements in the article which are not supported by the citations as given. There was also some cases of near direct quoting from source and/or too close paraphrasing of source. Suggest assessment put on hold until these issues are addressed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: "There is evidence that indicates those 36 M2A4s were shipped off from North Africa..."
Can this be elaborated on? The implication of the sentence is that either of the two regiments were equipped with the M2 in North Africa, which I can almost say with certainty is not the case. If I am not mistaken the of all history has a table that breaks down the tank type and the M2 is not listed.
The two regiments mentioned in that sentence were the regiments that used it in Burma, not North Africa.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Before the regiments were dispatched to Burma, they were not - as far as i am aware - equipped with the M2, rather they were equipped with the M3. Following their redeployment, practically every source mentions them still equipped as such and it seems they were literally thrown into the fighting with little time to acclimatize etc. The two sources used, which state there is evidence for their employment within the two regiments, do they state when the regiments were possibly given the tanks/trained on them etc? How they came about using them despite shipping to Burma with their equipment?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
As for when the two regiments were in Burma, one of the chaps on the project has a copy of the OH for India and Burma and may find something else, however every account I have read states the two regiments were equipped with M3s ranging from General Slim, regimental accounts, a boast of historians, and the published books by the chaps at the British tank museum. I am not saying remove it, but what's there needs to be better worded IMO as there is a lot of contradicting information out there.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is going to sound harsh, but... When I first read the article in its previous state I could barely make sense of it. The lead was completely confusing, the history section was both repetitive and contradictory, and the article sections were disorganized. I can't believe this passed a GA cycle. In any event, I've been trying to beat it into shape by re-organizing the lead and the body sections, and trying my best at the history. However, the article still retains many contradictory statements, especially about armament, and the specs need to be re-done as a table. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

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)

Support 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: [7]
    • 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)
      • I believe most of my comments have been addressed. I will likely not be around much over the next couple of weeks to a month, so I will add my support now, so as to not hold the article up. Good luck taking it further and thank you for your hard work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • 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.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Not entirely. Boilers need to be added to the power line and the ihp figure needs to be converted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What's a naval defense mine, as opposed to a normal mine?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Use single quotation marks around the single letters of the turret names and tell the reader that the names ran from bow to stern.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Two inches of armor on the turret sides seems awfully thin, doublecheck that figure against Friedman.
    • That's the number I've seen. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fairly certain that the German edition of Breyer in your bibliography is just a reprint of the 1970 original, just like the English translation.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • AFAIK dissertations don't get ISBNs, so fix Jones.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Be sure to put all titles in your references in title case.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Do you happen to know which magazine? —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Naval Institute Proceedings, but remember that magazines use an ISSN, not an ISBN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For the sake of consistency, add |lastauthoramp=1 to Gardiner and Gray to get the ampersand to display in the bibliography as well.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cannon is both singular and plural so no 's'.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't capitalize radar.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You'll need to link to Wikitionary to tell readers what an overhaul is.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • conducting training and fleet problems until 1937 Probably best to say that she participated in fleet problems. And link fleet problems.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 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.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • see an American ship comparable to a dreadnought up close Rephrase this, NY was a dreadnought.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Missing a lot of hyphens for compound adjectives like 5-inch, 51-caliber, etc.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • Convert the displacement figures in the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I don't know that the stuff on the earlier New York (or at least the fate of the ship) is all that relevant to this article.
    • Stuck that there because the Navy history makes such a big deal of the number of ship to bear the name. Thought it might be worth a mention to avoid confusion with other ships. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Link caliber to caliber (artillery) (or add a footnote explaining the difference, as most readers will mistake 45-caliber for .45 caliber
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On the excess conversion issue Sturm mentioned above - the armor paragraph is a good example of where these should be trimmed.
  • The squadrons of the Grand Fleet began escorting convoys to Norway due to German raids with cruisers and destroyers in late 1917, which culminated in an abortive sortie by the High Seas Fleet in April 1918 - the Grand Fleet also put to sea, but too late to catch the Germans - I seem to recall from Massie (Castles of Steel) that the American BBs were involved in the convoy escort duty - I'd add a bit on this (basically as in HMS Emperor of India), since this did mark a significant change in how the fleet was being used.
    • Do you have a ref? I've been having a hard time finding anything on this. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll check Massie tomorrow and see if my memory is correct. Parsecboy (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Obsolescent" is probably a better word than "obsolete" in the second para of the interwar section
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What type of ship is Leary?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Check for missing hyphens - for instance, the link to the St. Louis class cruisers should be rendered with the hyphen.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be worthwhile to add a bit of context to the neutrality patrol para - sure, many readers will know this is during WWII, but there are probably a fair number who will not.
  • Probably better to link directly to Invasion_of_Iceland#United_States_occupation_force
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd not link Imperial Japan in the sentence about the attack on Pearl Harbor - especially since the way it's worded seems a little WP:EGGy to me - I expected it to link to the Imperial Japanese Navy article, for instance.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "attacked Safi harbor, supporting landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division in the harbor" - "harbor" twice in one sentence seems a little repetitive - I might change it to "landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division there." - you might even omit everything after Division, since it should be obvious from context.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a total of 60 14-inch (360 mm) rounds." - this should be "sixty 14-inch" per the 4th bullet in WP:NUMNOTES
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "breaking down at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way" - "on the way" twice in one sentence is repetitive.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Any more details available on the effects of the Able and Baker tests? See Japanese battleship Nagato, German cruiser Prinz Eugen, or USS Nevada (BB-36) for the level of detail I'd like to see. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR requirement).
      • Done. —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions looks fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • "...and provided artillery support for...", would "naval gunfire support" be a more appropriate term? (suggestion only)
      • Done. —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • The language here seems a little redundant: "Armor on New York consisted of belt armor..." (armor consisted of armor), perhaps reword (suggestion only)
      • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I did a copy edit, tweaked a ref template, and made some MOS changes, pls see here [8].
    • Otherwise looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks! —Ed!(talk) 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • all ACR toolchecks ok
  • only U.S. ship to have sunk one suggest adding "in World War I"
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • sixteen 5"/51-caliber guns? I thought MOS required "5-inch"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • the reduction to 16 5-inch guns seems to be repeated. Suggest moving the sentence beginning After arriving in the United States... down to the interwar period section and removing the repetition
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • suggest three additional 3-inch (76 mm) AA guns were added, bringing the total to five.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • suggest limiting the infobox to her specs "as built", which seems to be the standard practice
  • suggest adding ship types when you introduce ship names, Arizona, Pennsylvania etc
  • and Queen Elizabeth, New York sailed please have a look at this sentence, it doesn't read well
  • suggest New York saw her first major action during
  • Attached to the Southern Attack Group tasked with attacking "attack/attacking" seems repetitive
  • defended the transports?
  • just watch the convert templates, 14-inch is variously converted to 360 mm and 356 mm, same with 5-inch
  • Further attempts at attacking the landing force with shore batteries were destroyed is clunky, suggest Further shore batteries were destroyed
  • New York remained on station off the coast?
  • some grouped citations are not in numerical order (36,35) for example
  • at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way "along the way" is repetitive
  • they arrived at Iwo Jima on 16 February
  • She stopped by Leyte on 14 June

« Return to A-Class review list

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,[9] 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

Oppose 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)
    • You're still trying to cram too much into a single sentence so split this in half. And, honestly, I'm not sure the compression ratio is worthy of note, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 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)
      • @Tomandjerry211: - are you around to address these or other issues? Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
          • You've improved this article greatly, so it grieves me that I must oppose on the basis of completeness. The vehicle's Korean War service needs to be expanded to match the WWII coverage and post-war service with other armies, if any, needs to be covered. If this material is added, I don't see any significant issues for the next ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @Sturmvogel 66: I would love to keep on expanding this article, but unfortunately I could not find anything else about it's Korean War history anywhere without original research, but I have found content on foreign use from Zaloga ad have added it. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
              • I wish I knew of a source that covered their service in Korea, but I don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
                • I found a book that has first-hand accounts and I am working on adding the necessary information.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
  • 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 reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • I've done a copy edit and consolidated refs etc. As my points seemed like nitpicks so I just went ahead and did them myself, my edits are here [10]. Anotherclown (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)