Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members
Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an an article:

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five.
  2. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  3. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
  4. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  6. Consider reviewing another article, either at peer or A-class review to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory).

If an article is nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be demoted:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1).
  2. Update the link for the last review in the {{Article history}} on the article's talk page.
  3. Update the transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page, found by using the "What Links Here" feature.
  4. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new nomination page).
  5. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the nomination statement (e.g. "Prior nomination here.").

There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.


The new Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

After A-Class

Feel free to ask reviewers to help prepare your article as a featured article candidate. We're hoping that more FAC prep will help draw some of the regular FAC reviewers to our A-class review page.


Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

Hermann Graf[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

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


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

Bill Denny (Australian politician)[edit]

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

Bill Denny (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Denny was a South Australian Attorney-General who enlisted as a soldier in the AIF aged 43, rose to the rank of captain and was awarded the Military Cross. Returned to SA after the war, and was twice more appointed as state A-G. Article created and brought to GA since early January. An Australian for a change... Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

  • SupportComments - a remarkable fellow, very surprised we didn't have an article until recently so great to see this gap filled.
    • 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).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd - although I added PD US tags, I believe this is correct but pls revert if I got this wrong).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool shows no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd)
    • Possible MOS issue with date range format. You use "1910–1912", I believe it should be "1910–12" per WP:DATERANGE
    • Some minor inconsistency with presentation of percentages, see "80 percent" vs "9.9 per cent".
    • Inconsistency with both "World War I" and "First World War" used in the article.
    • In the lead you say he was "he was severely wounded", however in the body of the article only that "he was wounded".
    • This is a little repetitive (and might be confusing to some readers): "returned first of three in Adelaide with 30.2 per cent of the ballots cast.[20] He returned to Australia via the United States of America on 2 August 1919,[2] returning to his seat..." Specifically repeated use of the word "returned" or variations of it, used to mean different things. Perhaps reword or clarify? (suggestion only - I know what you mean and its not very unclear I agree)
    • Some inconsistency in how you refer to his brother. Specifically at first you refer to him as " Reverend R.P. Denny", then "Rev. Richard Power Denny" and then just "Rev. Denny". I would suggest at first use he should be introduced as "Reverend Richard Power Denny" using full name and title per WP:SURNAME and then subsequently as "Reverend Denny" (expanding the abbrevs).
    • I made a couple of minor changes and tweaks - here [1].
    • These fairly minor issues aside this article looks very good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

USS New York (BB-34)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)

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


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

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

  • a couple of the external links appear to be 404/dead now: [2]
  • Several terms appear to be overlinked: 14"/45 caliber gun; Babcock and Wilcox; Hugh Rodman; United States Atlantic Fleet; 5"/51 caliber gun;
  • in the Sources; the Beigel work appears to be out of alphabetical order and is inconsistently formatted when compared to the others;
  • in the Sources is there an OCLC or ISBN for the Joes work?
  • 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"
  • inconsistent: "beam of 95 feet 6 inches (29.11 m)" (in the body of the article) v. "Beam: 95.2 ft (29.0 m)"
  • inconsistent: "draft of 28 feet 6 inches (8.69 m)" v. "Draft: 28.5 ft (8.7 m)"
  • typo? " 1926-26"
  • inconsistent: "maximum speed of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph" v. "Speed: 20 kn (23 mph; 37 km/h)"
  • "1940–1941" should be "1940–41" per WP:DATERANGE
  • "carried 21 5 inch 51 cal" --> "carried twenty-one 5 inch 51 cal" to avoid confusion caused by the two numbers appearing close together
  • "1925-6" --> probably should be "1925-26" for consistency
  • inconsistent: "upper casemate had 6 inches (150 mm) of armor" v. "Upper casemate: 6.5 in (165 mm)"

SMS Dresden (1907)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Dresden (1907) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Another German cruiser article - this one was the one German ship to escape destruction at the Falkland Islands. I'd like to get the article to FA to run on the centenary of her scuttling at the Battle of Mas a Tierra in March this year. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments - I did the GA review for this article but that was nearly 18 months ago. Taking the opportunity to review this article again with fresh eyes, I only have the following comments to make:

  • Lead: "...but was prevented from doing so by the outbreak of World War I. Just a suggestion
  • "Mediterranean Division (Mittelmeer-Division)": The English-langauge of this term is introduced first rather than the German, in contrast to the other translations provided.
  • "...with only 160 t (160 long tons; 180 short tons)": should that be "with only 160 metric tons (160 long tons; 180 short tons)", for sake of consistency? There are a couple of others later in this section as well that may need similar treatment.
  • Some duplicate links: Kiel, Hamburg, SMS Bremen, SMS Karlsruhe, armoured cruiser, battlecruiser, Punta Arenas, barque.

And that is it from me. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

M15 Half-Track[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

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


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,[3] 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 [ 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

British contribution to the Manhattan Project[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British contribution to the Manhattan Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Originally, the Manhattan Project group of articles included Tube Alloys, but this is about the British efforts independent of the American Manhattan project. (I may fix it up one day.) So I created a new article about the British involvement in the Manhattan Project. The name comes from a number of articles with titles like "Australian contribution to..." Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Support: great work as usual. I have a couple of nitpicks/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • "Major-General" or "Major General"...both are currently used (also see below);
  • inconsistent presentation: some ranks appear hyphenated (e.g. Brigadier-General), but others do not (e.g. Vice Admiral);
    I had thought that BrEng uses hyphens, but the British Army website does not. (Debretts is annoyingly inconsistent.) So removed the hyphens. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Tube Alloys were..." or "Tube Alloys was"? I think it should be "was"...but currently both constructions are used;
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • overlink: Imperial Chemical Industries, German nuclear energy project;
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • is there a place of publication for the Priestley work?
    Auckland. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed at GA and have checked over the changes made since then and believe it now meets the A-class criteria. I made a few minor edits whilst proof reading, pls see here [4]. Anotherclown (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • All fine. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I'm sorry, but I have to be tougher on lead sections these days. Per WP:LEAD, "Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence", and "simply describe the subject in normal English". The first sentence said "The British contribution to the Manhattan Project involved participation in most aspects of the project", and that's not going to fly; details on request. I took a stab at it, but you might want to mention other types of contributions to make it work. LEAD recommends against bolding in these cases, but some people like to put the most important proper noun in bold, and I have no objection if you want to ... that would be Manhattan Project. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    I don't understand. MOS:BOLDTITLE says: include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English.. I've tried re-wording the first sentence.
    Not a problem, I'll throw this into the pile of TFA issues to sort out. Whether it's okay at FAC will be up to the FAC reviewers.
    A class criterion A4: The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    (NB: I removed a false title; British reviewers regard this as an Americanism.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    That's not a false title in the sense that that article defines it, though it may well be regarded as a false title by some. I have no problem with your edit.
    Apart from the issue I mentioned, which may or may not be a problem at TFA, the lead looks great. Stopping there per WT:MHC#New job. - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
    On second thought, maybe I'm being a little harsh. I'll finish up, revert your edit to the first sentence, and support. Whether the coords want to promote this if you revert back is up to them. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " The two ten-stage machines were delivered in August and November 1943, but by this time it had been overtaken by events.": I don't know what that means.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "As a result, Chadwick and Oliphant were able to persuade Groves to reduce K-25's enrichment target": Sorry, as a result of what? What persuaded Groves? - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Taking a guess it's "this opinion" that persuaded him, so maybe change "1944. As a result, Chadwick" to "1944, but Chadwick". - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
      Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • " Chadwick and Groves reached an agreement by which ore would be shared equally.": I went with " Chadwick and Groves had reached ..."; fix that if it's wrong.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Note that this is the version I'm supporting; whether future versions should be promoted will be up to other reviewers and the coords. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Your edits have dealt with all of my concerns, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

First Battle of Passchendaele[edit]

Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk)

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


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)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Battle of Kehl (1796)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

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


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

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

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

Comments, very close to a support:

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

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

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

Siege of Kehl (1796–97)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

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


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)
Dank, yes probably. I'd like to get the whole set of Rhine campaign 1796 at FAC, DJ's done a lot on those articles also. auntieruth (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


  • "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)

Comments - close to a support, but some concerns over the lead.

  • I'm not at all sure about the way the lead is structured. The first paragraph ends in a sentence which is hard to place chronologically - is it a statement that comes before the siege or after it? The second paragraph is primarily background, and doesn't actually get to the siege until the very last sentence, and isn't written in a way that focuses on the siege in question. It then ends in a paragraph with a couple of brief sentences on the actual siege itself. I'd recommend trimming the background back, and then expanding it with the details of the events in the siege itself (e.g. it would be good get phrases like "action of 22 November" in there, as it forms a section heading, or information on the expansion of the siege).
  • fixed

"The Siege of Kehl lasted from October 1796 to 9 January 1797, during the War of the First Coalition (part of the French Revolutionary Wars)." - starting the first sentence of the article with parenthesizes looked a bit ugly to me; there's probably an easier way to express it.

  • fixed
  • " Habsburg and Württemberg regulars, numbering 40,000," - as it's the lead, would suggest "regular forces" to make for easier reading.
  • "Initially, the rulers of Europe viewed the revolution in France..." As this is the first section, it isn't clear which revolution the article is referring to (there have been several).
  • fixed
  • "He and his fellow monarchs threatened ambiguous, but quite serious, consequences if anything should happen to the royal family. " - "quite" isn't needed here to carry the meaning
  • fixed
  • "The Coalition's Army of the Lower Rhine counted 90,000 troops. " - suggest "comprised"
    • fixed
  • "observing the French bridgehead at Düsseldorf. " - the verb gave me images of the whole 20,000 men observing it; there might be a better verb.
  • "The garrisons of Mainz Fortress and Ehrenbreitstein Fortress counted 10,000 more. " - again, the "counted" verb felt out of place in this construct.
    • Ok.  :) fixed
  • "At this point, the inherent jealousies and competition between the French generals came into play." - "inherent" in what way? I'm not sure you need the adjective here, and it does raise questions about its meaning which aren't answered.
    • fixed
  • "a position scarcely less impregnable than that which it had abandoned" - if the French were forced to abandon their previous position (see the beginning of the paragraph), then it wasn't an impregnable position.
    • It was nearly impregnable, except that Charles was about to encircle him.
  • "The Austrian army occupied a line which passed obliquely across the extremity of his right, and another line which passed along his left; they both intersected in front of him, where the main force of Charles' army blocked any movement forward. " - I found this description a little bit difficult to follow.
    • probably not necessary for this article.
  • Worth checking the wikilinking of the Imperial locations - some aren't linked I think.
    • some really cannot be linked, unless I go to the German wiki....?
  • It takes a long time before the article explains what Kehl is - you have to wait until "diplomacy and politics" before it is explained that it is a village, and even then it's thinly described. Is it possible to get a sentence or two on the location of the siege earlier on?
put it lead
  • "The process of laying siege was complicated." - I'd suggest "The process of laying siege in this period was complicated." would make it clear that the statement is about sieges in general, rather than this particular siege. Were many fortifications betrayed during this period though?
  • The fortress by Stockach was (at least by local repute), but not sure of many others.
  • "Until the invention of gunpowder-based weapons (and the resulting higher-velocity projectiles), the balance of power and logistics definitely favored the defender. With the introduction of gunpowder, cannon and mortars and howitzers (in modern times), the traditional methods of defense became less effective against a determined siege." - very true, but I couldn't see the relevance to this siege, as gunpowder had been around for many centuries by now.
    • fixed
  • "Schutter" - I wasn't sure what this; I'd suggest "the River Schutter"?
    • fixed
  • "16,000" "3000" - "1,000" - check the consistency over how thousands are expressed
    • I think I've got them all.
  • "3000–4000 " - typo in the formatting
  • " twelve Imperial battalions " - I think the MOS would have this as 12.
    • fixed
  • "and following 50 days of open trenches," - I don't think you've explained what an open trench day is. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I've rebalanced it somewhat, removed wht might be extraneous stuff and put in a section on an earlier attack at Kehl. auntieruth (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
      • @Hchc2009: did you want to revisit before we list for promotion at the Coords' page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I did a minor CE, removing some unnecessary whitespaces. You may want to check into the use of vague terms. - "some", "several", "a few", "many" ... MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • reviewed once more and removed a few extra words.  :) auntieruth (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Image review -- all licensing looks satisfactory.
  • Source review -- references appear reliable; formatting-wise I'm not sure everything is consistent given the lack of templates, so suggest you revisit before nominating at FAC if that's the next step, but shouldn't hold up promotion here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)[edit]

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

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


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 [5] (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)

Support Comments

  • I don't love using "Reich" to refer to Germany - I'm guessing the idea is to refer to the state that incorporated Austria and parts of Czechoslovakia and Poland? In that case, "Greater Germany" (or even Nazi Germany) would probably be better.
    • There isn't an easy alternative in my view, especially when we are dealing with the border with what had been Austria. Greater Germany is Germano-centric, Nazi Germany is worse. Reich is pretty common in sources, and I use it consistently to refer to this border throughout articles on Yugoslavia in WWII (and pipe the link to Austria in the time of National Socialism rather than to Nazi Germany). The complexities of the "Austrian" involvement in Yugoslavia (ie use of Austrian-born divisional commanders, Austrian conscripted units, and the general issues that Austrians had with Serbs, lends itself to a more nuanced treatment.
      • Fair enough.
  • I'm somewhat confused by what foreign terms are italicized and what are not - "Luftwaffe" and "Stuka" (both fairly common in English) are italicized, but "Ustaše" and "Sturzkampfgeschwader" (less common in English) are not.
    • Good point, I didn't go through this one and check. Will ping when I'm done.
  • "Across two regiments of the 42nd Infantry Division Murska, Ustaše propaganda meant all but two battalions revolted and refused to deploy into their allocated positions." - this is awkwardly worded - I'd probably say something along the lines of "Ustaše propaganda led the bulk of two regiments from the 42nd div. to revolt; only two battalions from the units deployed to their allocated positions."
    • Good suggestion, done.
  • "About 10:30..." - I'd say "At about 10:30..."
    • A pet hate of mine. IMO, it is either "At (that time)", or "About (that time)".
  • I might split that paragraph (the one on the Gyékényes bridgehead), probably after the abortive counterattack.
    • Done.
  • Actually a lot of paragraphs are rather long and could be split. Parsecboy (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The Utility of Force[edit]

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

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


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)


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

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

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

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

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