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 Kaiser Karl der Grosse[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)


Another German battleship article up for ACR, this one was another early pre-dreadnought that didn't see combat during her career, though she was mobilized for service early in World War I. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Link magazine, deck, reserve, and machinery spaces
    • Deck and reserve linked, but I don't see the other two anywhere.
  • in the central portion might be profitably be replaced by "amidships"
    • Are you sure you're looking at the right article? A lot of your comments seem to not be related to this article. For instance there's no mention of landing guns, anybody named Brosch, etc.
  • Do we have a link for landing guns.
  • It's probably just me, but I find the lede a bit too detailed. I really don't see any point to providing semi-detailed construction and builder info, forex, and only orient the reader in the decade of construction when all of that info will be repeated in the main body.
  • French abandoned its attempt Wrong pronoun I think.
  • Redlink to Brosch to match your treatment of the other admirals
  • Add an ampersand to the references to match the format of your cites.
  • Links to the Garbet sources should be added.
  • There's no source given for the infobox photo so how do we know that it's legal to use?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Weltrundschau zu Reclams Universum is a contemporary journal - it'd be nice to have more specific publication data but knowing it was the 1902 edition is good enough. I can beef up the citation though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Joachim Müncheberg[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it recently passed GA without much concern. The article addresses all the phases of his life with a strong focus on his fighter pilot career. Please help me improve the article further. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

  • "was a German Luftwaffe fighter ace during World War II. A flying ace or fighter ace is a military aviator credited with shooting down five or more enemy aircraft during aerial combat.[1] He is credited with 135 enemy aircraft shot down claimed in over 500 combat missions.": I recommend: "was a German Luftwaffe aviator during World War II, a flying ace credited with 135 enemy aircraft shot down in over 500 combat missions." I don't think that many readers won't have a clue what an "ace" is, and even if they don't, there's probably sufficient context when the sentence is worded this way. Your second sentence is the only one that currently cites Spick; if you want to keep Spick, you specifically mention the ace MacLachlan in the text, and this sentence and citation wouldn't be out of place there. Also, I removed "claimed" because that word means that we're relying on his word, whereas "credited" means that we're relying on someone else (even if the someone else is largely relying on what he's telling them).
  • "Of his 102 aerial victories achieved over the Western Allies, 46 were Supermarine Spitfire fighters.": Adding "against" after "were" will work, or you could say that out of a certain number of planes he downed, 46 were Supermarine Spitfire fighters.
  • "Geschwaderkommodore (Wing Commander) in training to JG 51 wing commander Karl-Gottfried Nordmann": ... in training under ... - Dank (push to talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I followed your guidance MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

This article had an A-class review six years ago. I happened to consult it and found it to be not up to what I would call par, so I've done a considerable amount of work on it. Before bringing it to FAC, I'd like opinions from this neck of the woods. Note that I haven't done one of these in several years so please bear with me and give me a chance to make corrections.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I made a few tweaks, but nothing too serious; this will probably pass FAC, judging from the first few sections. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood (naval)[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)


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

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

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

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

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

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

Support -- I reviewed, copyedited and passed at GAN, treating it as an ACR-in-waiting. Having checked changes since then I see no reason it shouldn't pass here, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot Ian Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Support with comments

  • Date in infobox could be simplified to "22–29 August 1944"
    • Done
  • A map with broader coverage might be more helpful to locate the area for unfamiliar readers
    • I'll keep looking
  • "Despite the strength of the anti-aircraft units at Kaafjord, the German Air Force (Luftwaffe) had few fighters stationed at the nearby airfields" - think you might do more to explicitly connect these two
    • Not sure what I was thinking there... I've removed the first half of the sentence as it's a bit pointless.
  • Were the intercepted radio messages sufficient to determine their plans, or only their presence?
    • Only their presence: I've replaced 'intercepted' with 'detected' which should be clearer
  • Only see 20 Corsairs in the Opposing forces section but then 24 in the actual attack - where were the other four?
    • oops - I can't add up. There were actually 30 Corsairs onboard HMS Formidable (18 with 1841 Squadron and 12 with 1842 Squadron). Fixed.
  • Times: what time zone are we in, and do you prefer to use lowercase or uppercase AM/PM? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Local Kaafjord time, and I prefer uppercase and have standardised on this. Thanks very much for your comments Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments - not much besides nitpicks:

  • "22nd" is incorrect per the MOS (I know, I find it rather frustrating to not be able to use the construction but it is what it is)
  • Sure, Tirpitz might have been able to break out into the Atlantic, but the Germans would never have done that by that late in the war, so is it worth mentioning?
  • "pass over the minefield" - shouldn't it be "pass through the minefield"?
  • "first detected the British fleet...were detected" - can we reword that to remove the repetition of "detected"? Maybe something along the lines of "The Germans were alerted to the presence of the British fleet on 21 August when radio messages from the carriers were detected."
  • "500 pounds (230 kg) bombs" - I suspect there's a convert template that needs the |adj=on parameter
  • I'd link to armor-piercing shot and shell in the 24 August section
  • Might it be worthwhile to include a photo of Tirpitz in the article?
  • I find it odd that historians have concluded that the Barracudas weren't capable of carrying bombs large enough to sink or otherwise incapacitate the ship, given that the Germans themselves concluded that had the 1,600lb bomb that hit the ship on 24 August exploded, the damage would have been severe. Just a general comment though, nothing for you to address. Great work on the article! Parsecboy (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Operation Rösselsprung (1944)[edit]

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


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

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

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

Comments

  • Some units needed a convert template.
  • got them all I think.
  • consistency: northeast, south east. British and Australian English use a hyphen more often than not.
  • all consistent now.
  • "Importantly, the 4th Krajina Division of the 5th Corps was deployed between Bihać and Bosanski Petrovac": important why?
  • Because of their positions in terms of the German thrusts, I've added a bit
  • Words like Abwehr need to be translated.
  • done
Thanks Dan, I'll get onto those points. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment

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

Comment by nominator

  • I am just squaring away some edits made by an enthusiastic and helpful editor who can read the Yugoslav sources far better than me. If you are planning to review, just relax for a tick, I'll have it sorted shortly, and will note it here when I'm done. Thanks everyone, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I have now got the additions into shape. I will now address the outstanding comments already here. Sorry about the delay. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick comment: The article should use Mrkonjić Grad, not "Mrkonjić-Grad". 23 editor (talk) 14:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations[edit]

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


This article successfully went through GA, and has subsequently been tweaked. It covers controversial negotiations between the German forces in Yugoslavia and senior members of Tito's Partisans in March 1943 that went beyond prisoner swaps. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. "The Fateful Path of the South Slav People": If the book has been translated and that's the chosen title, keep it. If not, then I'm wondering if "... one of the South Slav ethnic groups" might be a better translation. - Dank (push to talk) 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the c/e, Dan. I'll follow it up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
That is the best translation of the title. It is referring only to "the Croats", ie "The Fateful Path of the (Croats)" (to condense it a bit). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed at GA and have now looked over the changes that have been made since then and believe it meets the A class criteria as well. Anotherclown (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Comments/suggestions: looks quite good. I made a few tweaks (please check you are happy withem) and only have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about this point, but I wonder if the article title is descripive enough: what about "German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations during World War II"?
      • Seems a bit too much to me. Partisans could possibly be expanded to Yugoslav Partisans, but I don't think the war is necessary. The Yugoslav Partisans are well enough known to place the negotiations during WWII.
        • "German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations" would work for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think that the lead manages to explicitly outline the extent of the negotiations. For instance, something like this might work: "The negotiations - focused on obtaining a ceasefire and establishing a prisoner exchange - were used to..." (You would then need to adjust the following sentences slighlty).
      • Have incorporated your idea, let me know what you think?.
    • is there an iconic photo depicting the two forces in combat? If so, perhaps it could be added to the lead?
      • Nothing that iconic that I can use, but I've added a pic.
    • "The former US diplomat Walter Roberts opined that the Abwehr were considering ..." when did he express this opinion? After the war, in his book?
      • In the book, clarified.
    • this seems like editorialising (albeit minor): " The three Partisans tasked with the negotiations show the importance that the Partisans placed on the outcome".
      • It's actually from Tomasevich, I've attributed in-line.
    • not sure about the semi colon here: "They were; Koča Popović, Spanish Civil War veteran and.." (I'd suggest a full colon) AustralianRupert (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
      • You're right, should be a colon. Fixed.

Angevins[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have improved it as far as I think I can without feedback and would like to move it forwards towards FAC.

Will be away for a couple of weeks at the end of July/beginning of August is case you wonder why I don't respons immediately

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose at this stage:

Can you give me a bit of help on this one @Hchc2009: - what is the best method of doing this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
There's some formal guidance somewhere (which I can never find...!), but I think that the way that SabreBD did it in a note in England in the Late Middle Ages's talk page might be fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Some glitches have appeared with the editing and the cut and pasting, e.g.
  • "Eighteenth-century historian David Hume wrote that the Angevins were pivotal in creating a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain" - the cited source doesn't say the Angevins, but simply talks about Henry II.
  • "Henry's role in Thomas Becket's death and his disputes with the French were considered praiseworthy by contemporary Protestant historians." - there were no Protestant historians at the time...! The original article had this placed in the 18th century.
  • Some of the bibliography still has the original alphanumeric lettering in from the source article, e.g. "Gillingham, John (2007a)" - if you're only using one item by Gillingham in 2007, though, you don't need the "a", it can just be "2007",
  • I think the two books by Turner are the same volume, by the way, just republished by different publishing houses.
  • Generally, I'm not convinced that the article covers the core issues around the Angevin kings. The "Angevin empire" is mentioned occasionally, but never really explained; the unusual circumstances of having a sequence of monarchs whose ancestral home was in Anjou, and lived much of their lives on the continent, travelling around a vast area of personal possessions, linked by rivers and the Atlantic sea routes, doesn't come across. There isn't any reference to Fontevraud Abbey, the family abbey and mausoleum, etc. I'd definitely recommend reading Gillingham's "Angevin Empire" as a starting point for all of this.
Thanks, will doNorfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Another serious gap is the role of Richard in popular culture... out of all of the three kings considered here, he's surely had the most substantial impact, given the Robin Hood genre?
  • While they weren't great palace builders, all three did a lot of work on castles... Goodall, John (2011). The English Castle has a chapter, I think, called "Angevin castles", covering their architecture etc.
  • I'm not entirely sold on the title of the article - would "Angevin kings of England" or something like that be more accurate, as it doesn't really cover the Angevin rulers of Anjou? Also, if it genuinely is about the Angevins, as opposed to the Angevin kings, it needs a bit more on Geoffrey, Young Henry etc., who don't get much of a look in at the moment.
  • "This article is about the English royal house of the 12th century" - 12th-13th century?
DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Worth checking the material in the lead is all in the main body of the article; some of it doesn't seem to be.
  • "The Angevins were a family of Frankish origin..." A little bit confusing, as it sounds as though Henry, Richard et al were a family of Frankish origin, which isn't really the case.
DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The Angevins struggled successfully for regional power with neighbouring provinces such as Normandy and Brittany," - they didn't really struggle with the provinces, but rather the Duke and Count respectively.
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "Finally, Fulk married his son and heir (Geoffrey) to Henry's daughter—and only surviving legitimate child—Matilda, beginning the Plantagenet dynasty." - or rather, surely more pertinent in this context, the Angevins? NB: this end bit is missing a reference.
  • "Matilda's father (Henry I of England) named her as heir to his large holdings in what are now France and England" - they were called France and England in the 12th century as well.
  • "Although Geoffrey had little interest in England, he supported Matilda by entering Normandy to claim her inheritance" - Geoffrey was, however, very interested in Normandy - he wasn't supporting Matilda in Normandy, he was taking what he regarded as his own property.
  • "Matilda landed in England to challenge Stephen, and was declared "Lady of the English"; this resulted in the civil war known as the Anarchy. " - the sequencing is wrong here - the civil war had begun well before she was declared Lady of the English.
  • "Matilda was never crowned, since the English conflict was inconclusive, " - not really... She wasn't crowned as she was forced out of London by the crowds, before she could be crowned at Westminster in 1141.
  • "Three of Henry's men murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral (probably by misadventure)" - you can't really murder someone by misadventure (murder typically has to be deliberate). Barlow's authoritative book on Becket would be a much more reliable source than Schama here, by the way.
  • "he was forced to walk barefoot " - not exactly forced... Probably also worth noting how Henry then used the cult of Becket for his own purposes.
  • "The knights assumed the role of colonisers, accruing autonomous power (which concerned Henry)." - the bracketing here doesn't help the flow, and could probably be removed.
  • "When Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift of three castles," - on its own this doesn't make much sense; the key point was that they actually belonged to Young Henry, not Henry II...
  • "Louis VII encouraged the elder sons to destabilise his mightiest subject" - the article doesn't really explain previously that Henry was Louis's subject, which makes this odd for the casual reader.
  • "Henry was reluctant to have a sole heir" - I'm not sure this fits with the specialist literature on Henry II, and Jones isn't a great source for an exceptional statement (I'd use Warren in the first instance for Henry II).
  • " When he died shortly afterwards, his last words to Richard were said to be: "God grant that I may not die until I have my revenge on you" - as written, this sounds like it was probably true; it's not taken that seriously by Henry's current biographers though, from what I recall. Again, Jones isn't a great source for this period.
  • Some duplicate references present (e.g. refs 83, 84 and 85)
  • (NB: I've paused at "Decline") Hchc2009 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, interesting article. Thanks for your work on this. I only had a quick look, but I have a couple of suggestions (mainly focusing on references/formating): AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

  • in the lead, "Many historians consider the Angevins..." --> this construction may be contrary to the guidance at WP:WEASEL. Is there a different way to say this?
    • Done - is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Getting there, most certainly, but I think that the second sentence now needs a little tweak. Currently it says "These historians..." but I don't think it has been defined who "These historians are" due to the earlier change. This is potentially going to be a difficult issue to deal with. This isn't a subject I know anything about, so I can't speak with any authority I'm afraid (and I hope I'm not giving you bad advice here), but my suggestion is that if there is a way to define which historians think this then I'd use that. For example is it possible to mention in the lead which historian first wrote that they were a distinct royal house? If this is known, then perhaps the first paragraph could go something like this: "The Angevins /ændʒvɪns/("from Anjou") were a family of Frankish origin descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble. According to the chronicler Joe Bloggs the Angevins were a distinct royal house and the word has been used collectively for the three English monarchs—Henry II, Richard I and John—but within historical accounts there is disagreement over whether the Angevins were separate from the Plantagents. Historians who have agreed with Bloggs record John's son (Henry III) as the first Plantagenet king of England, while historians who do not distinguish between the Angevins and the Plantagenets consider Henry II the first English king..." AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternatively, you could safely avoid the point about differences in the first paragraph - it's not the most important aspect of the Angevins. You could go for "The Angevins /ændʒvɪns/("from Anjou") were a royal house of England in the 12th and 13th centuries, and comprised King Henry II, Richard I and John. The Angevin family line was descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble, and took its name from the County of Anjou, which Henry inherited from his father in..." - and then note that some people prefer the term Plantagenet, and that some people use the term Angevin to talk about the entire Anjou dynasty, in para 2 or 3. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you both - I have tried to go with Hchc2009's suggestion (sorry Rupert) as his knowledge of the period seems exemplary as ever. What do you both think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • No worries. I made a slight tweak. I think you need to be careful with using the term "some people" though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • listed as a short citation, but not in the Bibliography: Dyer, Coss, Duffy, Martinson, and Palmer
  • additionally, the above should use the same format as the other short citations (e.g. use of the "harvnb" template);
  • "Anouilh, p. xxiv." --> is this from the same work as "Anouilh 2005, p. xxiv"? If so, it should be presented the same
  • check the alphabetical order of the works in the Bibliography, for instance Elliott shouldn't come before Contramine; Flori shouldn't come before Danziger; Gillingham shouldn't come before Favier etc. (there may be other instances as well);
  • in the Bibliography, are there page numbers for the Barratt chapter within the Harper-Bill and Vincent book?
  • same as above for Bevington, Brand, Curren-Aquino, Maley etc.
  • in the Bibliography, some works have places of publication and others don't. For instance compare Brand (2007) with Carlton (2003).
  • Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Rupert, positive and supported as ever. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
      • No worries at all. Happy to help where I can. Sorry I can't do more, but my knowledge gap is huge with this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting comments per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Regarding WEASEL above, note from Weasel word#Origin that the original reference was to the "egg-eating habits of weasels", rather than weasely behavior :)
  • "consider that": Avoid this ambiguous phrase. It's meaningless in American English, and in British English, it seems to be used in place of "considered ... to be", "decided", and "supposed", at a minimum.
  • I'll stop there for the moment, and come back after this one is a little farther along. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

There is more to do here than I thought - I am going away for three weeks so please leave this open until I get back and can start again in earnest. Might even take up HChc's suggestion and take Gillingham's Angevin Empire with me for some light relief!! thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Bombardment of Cherbourg[edit]

Nominator(s): v/r - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

The article was nominated for FA out of sequence, when it failed the suggestion was made to request an A-Class review. Collaborative editors have subsequently made copy edits. The the article is evolving from a stub describing naval activity only, expanded to encompass the combined operations that it was -- infantry, navy, air -- in support of division-level infantry capture of Cherbourg. It makes the distinction between heavy gunnery effectiveness on fixed targets to disable them until capture, versus contributions by destroyer fire support directed by army spotters. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • The lead doesn't summarize the article. There's a lot of leeway ... see various A-Class and Featured articles ... but not this much leeway.
  • "Following the initial beachhead lodgment in Europe on D-Day, as the Allied push east stalled around at Caen, the 1st U.S. Army, VII U.S. Army Corps, was to turn west": There are several things that make the time sequence harder to follow than we like to see at A-class. Don't say "Following ... D-Day" if you're really talking about something that happened weeks later, don't say "as" if you mean "after", and don't say the corps "was to turn west", as if you're talking about the planning stages, if you're telling us about what happened when they actually did turn west. (None of those things is fatal to the reader's understanding by itself, but together, they frustrate the readers' attempts to get a sense of the time frame.)
  • "Cherbourg, the major port facility": the major port facility in Cherbourg
  • "To support their advance": pronouns should usually refer to nouns in the same sentence, but never in the previous paragraph.
  • "COMBINED TASK FORCE 129 ...": People will sometimes put lists, such as orders of battle, in one of the last sections, but inserting a list in the middle of an encyclopedia article makes it look ... like it's not an encyclopedia article. (This is discussed at WP:EMBED.) Also, avoid all capitals in prose per WP:ALLCAPS. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks, all items I can act on. It's especially important to avoid stylistic conventions in the sources which are not applicable on WP.
Another editor collaboratively uncapitalized Army and Navy throughout the article as found in both army and navy sources, because they are common nouns at Wikipedia...I take it that would also be the WP:MILITARY punctuation convention for the marine corps and air force as well.
Likewise, although I had technically used "comprised" correctly as sourced at Talk, it seems it is reverted without discussion so often that trying to maintain it would simply make the article unstable in the face of well intentioned editors without a grasp of the term's military usage in sources and as explained by modern linguists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
My sympathies. I see "comprise" isn't in the article now, which is probably a good solution. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
On further review, it seems to me that the Bombardment of Cherbourg#Destroyers section should be split off into another stub or list article. I'm not sure mechanically how to do that in conformance with WP:MILITARY convention. It is clearly related, but only tangentially to the main subject of the article [naval] Bombardment of Cherbourg, however personally interested I may be in the WWII destroyers my father served in, Atlantic and Pacific. It would be a shame to lose the Table of Organization by destroyer division which accounts for their losses, but as an editor/writer, I really am interested in perfecting Bombardment of Cherbourg. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Consistency needed: Ninth Air Force, IX Army Air Force
  • Consistency needed: 18 June, June 22
  • German ranks probably need translation.
  • In general, the narrative jumps around a bit. I copyedited per my copyediting disclaimer, down to Battle groups 1 and 2. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Consistency now throughout for 'IX Army Air Force' and date 'June 22'. I am an English editor using English sources, so I used spelling of German ranks used in sources as they are found in English editions, without trying to translate them into their disparate US or British equivalents. Is there a standard reference in use, or consensus translation tables in a Wikipedia list article?
Other sources don't always follow Wikipedia policies, such as WP:UE (Also see WP:Use English. These pages are specifically talking about using terms in page titles, but have applicability to page content as well.) Wikipedia articles do a good job of translating ranks. It's fine to list the German as well, if many relevant sources list the German, which is often true for WWII history. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I've expanded the introduction with two paragraphs at your editorial direction. Is there an example of an A-Class WWII battle that I can refer to, so I can have a better over-all picture of the standard in practice? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
At for instance User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Military history, click on "A" or the number beside it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I found Bombardment of Papeete using English titles for the German commander. Morison titles von Schlieben both as "Generalleutenant" and "General", so I’ve chosen Morison’s "General" in English, so as to follow the scholar, and not my own untutored original research. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── All copyedit suggestions are met to the best of my ability. The drive on Cherbourg was intended immediately at invasion just as the drive on Caen, but the passage has now been rewritten so as to narrow the article's scope as you suggested to avoid confusing the reader. The introduction is expanded to align with A-class articles. What's the next step? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, interesting topic/article. Thanks for your work on it. I made a couple of tweaks to the article, so please check you are happy with my changes (if not, please feel free to revert). Additionally, I have the following suggestions:

  • I think the prose probably still needs a little work. For example watch out for clarity of expression: "General Pete Quesada of the Ninth Air Force flew Liberators..." This makes it sound like Quesada flew them personally, when he probably just commanded them. Is there a way that this could be made a little clearer?
  • measurements including distances should be converted where possible to help readers not familiar with some measurements (for example "15,000 yards"). I performed an example edit on the article to illustrate how to do this.
  • in the Battle groups 1 and 2 section, something like this might make the paragraph a little smoother: "The task force was divided into two divisions: Group 1 under Deyo and Group 2 under Admiral C.F. Bryant. Deyo's Group 1 consisted of Tuscaloosa, Quincy, Nevada, HMS Glasgow and five destroyers: Ellyson (flag), Hambleton, Rodman, Emmons, Murphy, and Gherardi, and it was assigned to bombard Cherbourg, the inner harbor forts and the area west towards the Atlantic. Bryant's smaller Group 2 was to take "Target 2", the Hamburg Battery. Located near Fermanville, inland from Cape Levi, six miles east of Cherbourg, Group 2 was made up of the aging Texas, Arkansas, and the destroyers Barton (flag), O'Brien, Laffey, Hobson (pennant), and Plunket. Nevada in Group 1 was to use its major battery to silence "the most powerful German strongpoint on the Cotentin Peninsula".[3] Then Group 2 would complete the destruction, and pass westward to join Deyo's group."
  • where you use quotations in the body of the article, in most cases they should be attributed in text. For example, "According to Smith, "in all cases, it was the responsiblity of the ship to determine..."
  • watch out for duplication. For instance, this seems to duplicate what is said earlier in the paragraph: "This was possible because each bombarding ship was provided with an army officer who tracked positions of Allied forces ashore"
  • a couple of paragraphs seem to be uncited. For instance, the first and second last in the Combined Task Force section, and the paragraph starting "In the World War II U.S. Navy destroyer..." and then the discussion of the ships in that section onwards
  • could this be clarified: "All planned long-range shots on seaward batteries were cancelled" (why was this done?)
  • "Destroyer Emmons..." (and other similar constructions) seem a bit awkward. Perhaps "The destroyer Emmons..." (etc.) might be smoother;
  • in the References section, I'd advise against using constructions like "op cit". While they work in paper-based work, on Wikipedia where references can be deleted rather quickly, they are not really applicable. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the critique. I need to translate out of the source conventions found in naval sources, "Destroyer Emmons"... I wrote drafts from sources, so I may have lost citation coverage with later paragraphing. This should be easily remediable.
Cancellation of long range shots on seaward batteries was due to additional care to avoid friendly fire casualties. The army did not have confidence in naval target acquisition at that time. At the end of the engagement, the cruisers on leaving the immediate area continued an extended barrage as they set out to sea since the army command was more confident in naval gunnery accuracy. I remember clearly from the sources there were investigations after friendly fire incidents in the initial phases of Normandy Invasion. My impression is generally, during infantry support missions, ships navigated closer in the mine fields, bombers flew lower to better acquire targets, artillery units detached forward spotters, infantry detached liaisons to ships, army air spotters adjusted naval gun fires -- Supporting arms took more losses for the cost benefit to avoid friendly fire losses.
This was important to me personally to expand out of the stub so I could read it to my father, who was on the destroyer which ran reconnaissance under the Cherbourg guns provoking fire so an army air pilot could map the German battery positions. The ship not only constantly changed course radically, it also varied speed, but the Germans were still able to bracket the ship with fires. He said that the German slave labor sabotaged their ammunition, and that is why the ships which were holed during the Bombardment of Cherbourg were not sunk. But other than a British Admiral's tangential assessment that close in operations were not a good idea, I have not found a source to confirm my father's recollection.
He was really active in publication and video documentary about Normandy before he died. He had some stories about destroyer picket duty off Okinawa, but he really did not have a lot to say about the Pacific island mop up operations in the last phase. Although grateful for mutton from Australia for the duration, he did not eat "lamb" for decades after the war.
I very much would like to write in such a way that the complexity of the inter-service operation is conveyed. In a small scale combat example from the Vietnam era, I personally have heard an army helicopter pilot in distress receive a "green deck" to land on a ship and then reply "all the decks are grey", with tragic results. I wonder whether an hour's video orientation course in ship operations might have helped during some All Officer's squadron meeting.
Ah yes, op. cit. a couple years ago that convention was still an acceptable alternative in the MOS. This is an early effort on my part, but I still do not have my Wikipedia sea legs on referencing. I know that there is a convention which renders a,b,c Smith, John. "The Book Title" ISBN paging convention...but I am not fluent yet I am afraid. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
G'day, I generally use Template:Sfn to help format refs in articles I write, but this is not a requirement. There are many ways to format references in a manner that is acceptable at A-class. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Further comment/suggestion: I had another look at it this morning and I think that it might make sense to restructure the article a little. This might help with the narrative flow a little. I'd suggest the following structure: Background (level 2 header), "Assigned forces" (level 2 header) with various level 3 headers such as "Battle Groups 1 and 2", "Air support" and (maybe) "Fire control measures", then another level 2 header called "Bombardment", with two level 3 headers "Initial bombardment" (reusing the content in the current "Fire support areas" section) and "Exenstion to the bombardment". Finally, you could finish the article with a level 2 header called "Aftermath" (or Outcomes if you prefer). Not sure about where "Destroyers" would fit in as currently it doesn't seem to fit within the narrative in its current format (it could potentially be included in Assigned forces or Bombardment depending on what is included in it). Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I like the proposed restructure as it highlights the joint nature of the enterprise and the coordination achieved.
The destroyer section is almost like a table of equipment rather than the task force table of organization. Should it have it's own stub article, WWII Atlantic destroyers?
The introduction has been expanded to better hit on the main points covered in the article, whereas before it was too abbreviated per the previous critique. Does it suffice?
Thanks again, lots to work on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow up comments: G'day, this evening I had a go at copy editing the article a bit more. In the process I moved some of the text around as per the above suggestion. Please review my changes and adjust if you they are not to your liking. I also have a few more suggestions:
    • Regarding the lead, I think it has a decent level of coverage now, but it might pay to have someone else also look at it;
    • Regarding the Destroyers section, I think it would be a good idea to move the majority of the information out of the article as it seems to probably place undue focus on the topic;
    • the See also section should probably be reduced. Where you have already mentioned a ship in the body of the article, the link should be included at first mention, and then there is no requirement to add it to the See also section;
    • I've added a "citation needed" tag where I think a reference is required. If you can, please add a citation where I've marked;
    • if possible, I would like to see more coverage of the air cover and the anti-submarine/minesweeping operations;
    • is there any information about casualties amongst the ships' crews that could be added?
    • I suggest splitting the footnotes and citations into separate sections in the references. For instance, the way in which it is done on USS Monitor is a possible solution (although it isn't the only one).
    • be careful with forcing the size of the images, it might be better just to use the "thumb" parameter, rather than forcing the sizes (e.g. "360 px"), as this can create some issues on different sized computer screens;
    • Anyway, that is probably all I have. I will come back later to see how you are getting on, but unfortunately after next Saturday I will be offline for about three weeks, so I might not respond promptly. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

  • von Schlieben was a Generalleutnant per this (among many other sources) which was equivalent to a US Army Major general per Stein (1984) The Waffen SS: Hitler's Elite Guard at War, 1939–45 p. 295. I know he wasn't Waffen-SS, but the relevant page of Stein provides Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS equivalents in the US Army. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Second checklist update[edit]

Generalleutnant is added, Destroyer section deleted, and Morison p. 198 citation provided as requested. See also is reworked, new section Ships assigned.
Another editor provided the specific a/c types without references, should they be deleted, or is it common knowledge which aircraft were assigned to each squadron? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Expanded narrative on minesweepers, Bibliography section, separated notes from references.
General histories in Google searches for IX Army Air Force or IX TAC gloss over air spotters for sea bombardment coordination, although it was mentioned in dispatches from the German commander. The focus is generally on providing support to the infantry, and the coordination was not yet perfected. Putting the same radios in aircraft and ships was later adapted to putting the same radios in aircraft and tanks for better spotter and direct air support.
Still searching for naval casualties during the bombardment. Crews were at battle stations in condition Z during combat operations, so although several ships were holed, casualties were reported as light. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island[edit]

Nominator(s): v/r - TP


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am attempting to bring Pearl Harbor to featured topic status. For this article, I would like to bring it to featured article status and have it lined up for the main page on Dec 7, 2014. I was assisted by User:Mark Miller and User:Mareklug in developing this article.v/r - TP 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

@Dank, Hchc2009, Lineagegeek: Hi folks - don't mean to be a bother, but could I ask you to review the corrections please?--v/r - TP 21:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
As you said, done. I have no remaining reservations. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Mark Miller, Mareklug: I started the GA review while the nomination was still pending but when I went to actually paste in the review I saw it had been withdrawn. My comments are here. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Meant to @TParis, I fail at copy/pasting. Sorry Dan. Protonk (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem. I've added a subsection below for any comments you want to pull over to this page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Dank[edit]

  • "Ford Island was the site of an ancient Hawaiian fertility ritual. It was converted into a sugarcane plantation, sold to the US Army for an aviation division in Hawaii, and then taken over by the US Navy ...": I like the fact that you don't put dates on everything, but it's hard to follow the narrative here with no dates at all.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "hundreds of millions of dollars in investment": I guessed infrastructure and real estate development; correct that if it's wrong.
    • It's good--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "225,000 gallon": needs a conversion template, with "|adj=on".
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " a 4,000 feet (1,200 m) runway down the center. The island is connected to O'ahu via a 4,672 feet (1,424 m) bridge": Both conversion templates need "|adj=on". - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • " 'ume", " Kahi‘ukā": Sometimes you use a straight single quote mark for the okina, sometimes an inverted comma. Be consistent, and probably go with the inverted comma. (I'm assuming that's an okina in 'ume.)
    • There is an RFC going on about the use of Okinas right now and I was waiting for the result before changing the article but it looks like that's the way it's going to go so I'll go over this and make sure it's consistent.--v/r - TP 23:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • From our article on ʻEwa: "Along much of the South Shore of Oʻahu, ʻEwa is a reference to the direction of ʻEwa Beach, roughly westwards along the shore." If you're really referring to the west side rather than to ʻEwa Beach, then it might be better to say that.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Done for the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, ʻEwa may or may not need an okina. - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "There are no historical records to give an exact date, but some literature believe that the island was given to Francisco de Paula Marín on 9 February 1818": "some literature believe" is probably a typo. Why does anyone believe that it happened on 9 February 1818 if there's no evidence for that? - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • It's based on two sources, I only used one and it's a letter archived at the Dept of Archeology which was a telling by a source who repeated an oral story she herself was told. Records were not kept until the mid-1800s about land ownership. The first secondary sources don't give a date of ownership, but the oldest dates back to 1818. The claim of 1791 comes from Marin's own journal, but he didn't even start his journal until 1809.--v/r - TP 00:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
      • That evidence probably isn't solid enough for A-class, unless noted historian(s) accept it, in which case, at least one of the historians should be attributed. Also, it's not clear what you mean by ownership if "Hawaiians generally refused to recognize land ownership by foreigners" (my rewording). - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
        • Records from that period arn't solid. Hawaiians didn't believe people could actually own the land. The land held almost God-like status in their religion and the thought of man owning it seemed backwards. Marin thought it was given to him, but it was never deeded. At some point, the King and his sister 'repossessed' almost half the island and then after they were done with it, they sold it at auction.--v/r - TP 04:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Let's put in a quote supporting that from the best historian you have. But what won't work is to say (paraphrasing) "Marin owned it, but people couldn't own land, then the King owned it". - Dank (push to talk) 10:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
            • @Dank: I've rewritten this part, is that better?--v/r - TP 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
              • I don't really follow it, but maybe I'm just slow on the uptake today. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I copyedited the article down to Sugar per my copyediting disclaimer. These are my edits. I also commented at the Peer Review. I normally don't comment on sourcing, but the sources seem a little thin for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 11:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

Support Comments: G'day, good work so far. Just a quick drive-by look at the Bibliography and References from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  • is there a place of publishing for the Burlingame work?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • are there oclc or isbn for the Curtis, Deerr and Pratt works?
    • Yes check.svg Done Curtis and Pratt--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • year of publication for the Day work?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • please check the location of publication for the Day work. Currently it says "Australia", but the edition I found Worldcat indicates it was published in the US. If published in Australia, please list the city as well;
    • @AustralianRupert: I couldn't find the book at the library - I assume it's checked out. I looked online and I can't find any reference to Austrailia at all. I've updated the publisher and location to the Google books result.--v/r - TP 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • place of publication for the Prange work?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 02:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • References # 7, # 8, # 24, # 25 and # 62 (where the full book citation is provided) should probably use the same style (short citation) as others like Reference # 41 for consistency. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm on it. I had planned on working on this this weekend, but I got selected for promotion on Thursday and that's filled up my weekend. But I will get on these all. I see Dank has worked on the article quite a bit too.--01:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
If promotion is a good thing, gratz. - Dank (push to talk) 02:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I have been out of it. Dealing with another issue on this project and some other stuff in personal life.--v/r - TP 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Follow up comments: G'day, I had another look at the article today. Your changes look quite good and I think you are getting there, although I think it still needs a copy edit. I had a go at fixing some of the issues this morning (please check you are happy with my changes), but I don't really have time for much more at the moment, sorry. I don't know if Dank has time to come back, but if not I'd suggest seeing if someone from the WP:GOCE can help. I'd be happy to support promotion to A-class once this has been done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
    • @AustralianRupert: The copyedit has been completed by User:Miniapolis. They identified a sentence with a poor source that doesn't support the material. I'm working on correcting the source.--v/r - TP 23:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • @AustralianRupert: I've corrected the sourcing issue.--v/r - TP 22:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Great, thanks for that. I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Lineagegeek[edit]

  • Air Service/Air Corps use needs work:
All Air Corps unit names, except for the 6th Aero Squadron are anachronistic and do not give the names of the units at the time they were at Luke Field. Part of this appears to be the source used for the information, which after looking at, I would not consider a reliable source. The squadron names are close enough to cite the correct ones by searching Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1982) [1969]. Combat Squadrons of the Air Force, World War II (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-405-12194-6. LCCN 70605402. OCLC 72556. .
Units not mentioned include the 5th Group (Observation) and several non-flying organizations. Information on the 5th group is at Maurer, Maurer, ed. (1983) [1961]. Air Force Combat Units of World War II (reprint ed.). Washington, DC: Office of Air Force History. ISBN 0-912799-02-1. LCCN 61060979. . Your list also separates units that had different names while at Luke. Right now this is a problem with B2, but it's fixable. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi - I'm a little confused by some of what you're saying. So you're saying that I'm not using the unit names as they were at the time they were stationed at Luke Field and you want me to research, using your sources, the names during that period? I can do that, I just want to be clear on what you want.--v/r - TP 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That's right. For example, the two entries for the 6th Aero Squadron and the 6th Fighter Squadron [sic] are for the same unit, which was designated 6th Aero Squadron, 6th Squadron (Observation), 6th Squadron (Pursuit), and 6th Pursuit Squadron while at Luke Field (never Fighter Squadron). It also was at Luke until 1927, not 1926. The "394th Bomb Sq" was the 4th Aero Squadron and 4th Squadron (Observation) and was at Luke from 1920-1922. The 4th Observation Squadron was also the 4th Reconnaissance Squadron (same unit as before) and returned to Luke from 1927-1939, not 1929-1937. The 23d was the 23d Squadron (Bombardment) and 23d Bombardment (not Bomb) Squadron. The 72d was also a Bombardment Squadron. The "431st Bomb Squadron" was the 50th Observation Squadron and 50th Reconnaissance Squadron and was at Luke until 1939. So, yes, I bellieve the current table needs editing to merit a higher assessment.--Lineagegeek (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC).
Okay, no problem Col, I'll get on it.--v/r - TP 22:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 21:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments Support - Hchc2009[edit]

Comments:

  • Good to see an article on this kind of topic! Various copy-editing comments follow...
    • Thanks!--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Given the length of the article, you could afford a fourth paragraph in the lead if you wanted - there's a lot interesting information that follows that could potentially go in.
    • I'll split the second paragraph into two.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 20:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "sold to the US Army for an aviation division in Hawaii in 1916" - "for use by an aviation division"?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The island is connected to Oʻahu" - I'd forgotten the relationship of the island to O'ahu at this point, and it might be worth adding a few words into remind the reader
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "organic compound" - worth a wikilink
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the endemic Pueo" - should this be really capitalised? (it isn't capitalised in the Pueo article)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Francisco de Paula Marín introduced edible cactus to the island " - should this be edible cacti?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ancient Hawaiians called the island Mokuʻumeʻume, meaning "isle of attraction"" - minor, but does this statement really need five citations to support it? (it seemed like overkill)
    • It's contentious. A minority of sources have translated it as "Island of Strife" and also I felt that discussing an island that ancient Hawaiians used for what Protestant & Christian Americans would consider swinging, it needed extra citations. The literal meaning of Mokuʻumeʻume is "Island of push and pull".--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Those touched would find a private section of the island." - if we mean that they had sex together, we should say so.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • " Marín's claim of ownership over the island was as clear to him as he believed." - I wasn't sure what this meant (who is the "him" and "he"...?)
    • I left out a "not" in there. Him and he refers to Marin himself. The sentence was supposed to read "was not as clear to him as he had believed". Essentially, Marin and Kamehameha were speaking two different languages (while literally speaking the same language). Kamehameha gave Marin the island for his use, but Kamehameha had no concept of a person owning land. That wasn't something that Hawaiians understood at the time. It was a miscommunication.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • " arrived in Hawaii to ascertain defensive capabilities" - "its defensive capabilities"?
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "with the selling of lands but never spoke out against it." - selling of land generally? Hawaiian land? Or this particular sale?
    • At the time her concern was Hawaiian lands. Though not connected to this article, and I don't know about her particularly, the entire Bishop family was and still is angry over the sale of the land that is now eastern Pearl Harbor on O'ahu and Hickam AFB. That land was all owned by the Bishop family and it was a major sore spot for them. But it happened after this point and isn't relevant to Ford Island. I've fixed the sentence. Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "speculation on what extent the cession would include became unpopular with the native Hawaiian people" - I think there's an error there; the cession was presumably what was unpopular, not the discussion about it?
    • I'll check, but the Hawaiians were angry about it before the cession even happened. Kalākaua was strongly advised against it.--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "may have caused the king's return to drinking" - the MOS would have this as "the King's" (ditto similar examples later on)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "But with the California's support," - not quite right; "with California's support" or "with the Californians' support" would make sense though
    • I think it originally said "the state of California" but Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "In 1875, the United States congress again agreed to reciprocity for an additional seven years, fearing that any treaty between Hawaii and Australia or New Zealand would result in annexation to one of those two countries instead of the United States, if Kalākaua would give the United States Ford Island in exchange." - the last bit of the sentence is orphaned from the respective clause at the start.
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "from the Ii estate" - I couldn't work this out at first, as it's previously referred to as the "John Papa Īī estate" (NB: you later call it "the John ʻĪʻī estate"
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the land would by sold" - "be sold"
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The aviation division of the US Army was generally favorably received amongst the Hawaiians, who saw military investment in their land as a compliment" - all military investment, or "who saw the military investment"? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done--v/r - TP 19:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments by Protonk[edit]

Originally written for a GA review and posted at User:Protonk/Ford island GA. Dan pointed out that it would be easier for folks to reply to them here. Protonk (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

style/layout[edit]
  • Are any of the names listed in the lede (e.g. Rabbit Island, Marín's Island, Little Goats Island, or Mokuʻumeʻume) redirects to Ford island? If so, should we bold them?
  • Consider moving the Naval aircraft at Naval Air Station Pearl Harbor in 1931 table down a bit (perhaps below the first para about the naval air station)
  • Given that the plan to install SOLAR FREAKIN ROADWAYS (sorry) on the airstrip was not put into place, is a better place for that concept art right above the paragraph starting with "In June 2013 the Navy planned to install 60,000 photovoltaic panels over 28 acres..." (or perhaps not at all)
content[edit]
  • When we say it slopes toward pearl harbor do we mean east, west, south? It's kinda in the middle of pearl harbor.
  • what does "Ford Island proper" mean? Are we just distinguishing it from Ford island + Mokunui and Mokuiki?
  • "In some literature, the ceremony is considered a game." what does Kane say about this, exactly?
  • When did Seth Porter Ford, Jr. die? Or more directly, when was the land sold to the Papa Īī land trust?
  • "The United States purchased the island in 1917." I'm assuming this means the US purchased the remainder of the island or the whole of it?
  • "At the height of World War II, over 40,000 people lived or worked on the island" should go at the end of that paragraph.
  • "which usually hosted an aircraft carrier, was empty" "berthed" may be better
    • Good point. Yes check.svg Done --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "The fleet flagship (the USS Pennsylvania) was also in Pearl Harbor, dry-docked at the nearby Navy Yard. The ninth battleship, the USS Colorado, was being overhauled on the West Coast." not sure why this is relevant to Ford island. Likewise the following sentence.
    • Yes check.svg Done Made relevant by revising. It is indispensable to mention here USS Pennsylvania, if only as the graphic used (saliently) shows it on the map. Ditto for the fleet flagship undergoing refitting stateside, needed by the scope of the USA/Japan fleet comparison at paragraph close. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That's much better. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "Ford Island the communications systems there were inadequate" the two citations here are identical to those cited at the end of the sentence. is there a reason why we don't just cite them at the end?
    • I speak boldly for Tom, but that may be folly. AFAIK the current political climate on Wikipedia fosters such extremes whenever reverencing controversial claims. End of sentence has become NOT ENUF. I personally promise to quietly steel in during the Central Standard Time night and remove the first brace of identical citations from that sentence, per your sane suggestion, once the article passes this certification phase... :/ --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • To be clear, are the 5 pilots shot down in the Aftermath distinct from the search planes shot down during the battle?
  • "The Marines, who had picked up rifles for guard duty..." why is this important?
    • Fixed through removal of erroneous appositive-suggesting punctuation. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "That evening, Hawaiians were instructed to observe an indoor blackout, stay off the telephone..." how is this relevant to ford island? Was it a directive for all of Oahu?
    • X mark.svg Not done IMHO it is perfectly correct in this place. This article is about Ford Island, yes, but it is supposed to leave a vivid impression in the reader's mind, and generalizing the focus with such a pertinent tidbit does not harm things, and is a wonderful device for preserving interest and cohesion. It does not stop us from injecting this lovely passage in a more general article or five, including History of the United States. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • That's ok. Hope you'll understand my desire to push back so we can see where an escape to the general is good for the soul and where it's a loss of focus. :) Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I think it's important to set the stage for the tense feelings all around the island and the fear of another attack which led to the friendly fire. I'm not opposed with describing this another way, though.--v/r - TP 03:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • "On 1 July 1999 all military and civilian general-aviation activity at NALF Ford Island ended when NAS Barbers Point..." why did the closure of barbers point impact Ford island?
  • We'll just call anything a "bridge to nowhere" Ford island, Ketchikan, anything! :) Just a comment, no action needed.
  • "the National Trust for Historic Preservation considered the Navy's communication style more directive than bi-directional" what does this mean, exactly? It's an odd turn of phrase.
  • "It hosts the Pacific Warfighting Center...to simulate real-world conditions for battlefield commanders." this feels a little press-releasey to me. I'm sure that's one of the things the PWC does (no doubt the actual acronym is something like PacWarCenStupidThing), but it also does regular training for random stuff like battery maintenence.
  • "Critics say that the platform has poor emergency preparedness..." who?
  • FIST2FAC. lol. I forgot how terrible navy names for things are
  • "The aircraft carrier which was actually a test dummy, the USS Utah..." sort of awkwardly worded. Also the Utah was a battleship before being turned into a target ship, not an aircraft carrier "test dummy"
    • Yes check.svg Done Comma fixed the awkwardness, and I replaced the ship designation, per our own article content. Error introduced by source and my slavish copying of it. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This article marks the only time Michael Bay has been solemn about anything, so that's something.
  • this external link is to a pd photograph. Would we be better off uploading it to commons and including it in that gallery?
  • this is a pdf. Is there some way to format the link so the reader knows that? Also is this something that would be eventually incorporated into the sourcing?
    • Yes check.svg Done Portable Document Format specified as |format=PDF within the parameters of any cite template in use on Wikipedia (in all language versions) draws a useful PDF icon in place of the default HTML value, that makes the blue NE box and arrow we take for granted. ;) For example: FAA Airport Master Record for NPS (Form 5010 PDF), effective 1999. BTW, did we know that this is an (external) red link? We use this citation twice: in the lede, defining it in Ford_Island#Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Ford Island. --Mareklug talk 01:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I think I'm missing something. I should've specified that the "Mokuʻumeʻume (William Dorrance). Historic Hawaii Newsletter, December 1991, Vol 17 No 12" in the external links is a PDF and doesn't render the pdf icon automatically because the resource is dynamically generated and doesn't end in .pdf (wikipedia's common css has selectors for external links that look for some variation of ".pdf" in the url and place the icon on there). I've since discovered there's a template which can force the icon, {{PDFlink}} and I've applied it to that particular external link. Protonk (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
sources[edit]
  • This is a little picky but this source does a lot of work for us. I think the milhist project has among them enough books on pearl harbor to build a life sized paper mache model of Ford island. Maybe we can use some of them here instead. :

June 1941 uprising in eastern Herzegovina[edit]

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


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was recently listed as a good article, and I believe it meets the MILHIST A-Class criteria. It was a significant revolt that preceded the communist-led uprising that occurred in Yugoslavia post the launching of Operation Barbarossa, and was in direct response to massacres of Serbs in eastern Herzegovina carried out by the fascist Ustaše regime in the Axis puppet state—the Independent State of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work so far. Overall, I found it to be a comprehensive, well-referenced article on a topic that would be very difficult to write about neutrally. Overall, I believe that it is close to promotion to A-class, and I have a few suggestions (mainly copyediting):

  • there are lots of maps, which is great, but the article might benefit from an historical photograph if one exists - if there is only one, it would probably work best in the infobox;
  • the lack of units on the rebel side of the infobox looks a little odd. If there were no formed units, perhaps you could add "No formed units" to the infobox;
  • the opening sentence of the lead might work better if the title construction was dispensed with. For example, "In June 1941 local Serbs rebelled against the authorities of the Independent State of Croatia in an uprising in Eastern Herzegovina...";
  • in the lead, "ruling Ustaše began pursuing a campaign" --> "ruling Ustaše began a campaign";
  • in the lead, "a campaign" --> perhaps we could be more descriptive about the type of campaign here "e.g. military campaign";
  • "several village gendarmerie posts" --> "several gendarmerie village posts";
  • "From 3 July, a NDH" --> From 3 July, an NDH";
  • "the surrender of weapons had been very poor, the deadline for the surrender of weapons..." --> "the surrender of weapons had been very poor, the deadline...";
  • "the newly-raised Home Guard..." --> "the newly raised Home Guard..." (remove the hyphen);
  • "locations; 6th Battalion at Mostar, 7th Battalion at Trebinje, and the 10th Battalion in the Dubrovnik area" (I suggest adding "the" in front of 6th and 7th);
  • not sure about some of the language used, for instance words like " brutally", "ruthlessly" and "crimes" etc may be seen as espousing a point of view and might be against Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch;
  • "seized on a range of supposed grounds" --> I'm not sure about this, "supposed" implies a point of view to me. I'd suggest just saying "seized";
  • "sent the 2nd company of the 7th Battalion" --> "sent the 2nd Company of the 7th Battalion" (capital letter if 2nd Company is a proper noun);
  • "Ustaše Commissioner for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jure Francetić" (second comma after Francetic);
  • "Turks" was a derogatory term used by Serbs to refer to Muslims, who were a reminder of when the Serbs were under Ottoman rule" --> " "Turks" was a derogatory term used by Serbs to refer to Muslims, in reference to when the Serbs had been under Ottoman rule"?
  • "According to Marijan, this choice..." (perhaps you could state who Marijan is and why they are commenting here?)
  • "7th Battalion in Bileća, the balance of the 7th Battalion being divided between Gacko and Avtovac, and a..." --> " 7th Battalion in Bileća (the balance of the battalion being divided between Gacko and Avtovac), and a ...";
  • "resulted in the spread of rumours that the town had fallen to the rebels" --> "resulted in rumours that the town had fallen to the rebels";
  • "the commander of Adriatic Command, General Ivan Prpić" (second comma after Prpic);
  • "across the Mostar-Nevesinje road" (endash between the two elements in the road);
  • "with 14 Home Guards being captured" --> "with 14 Home Guardsmen being captured"?
  • "uprising there on 28 June, which is the feast day of Saint Vitus" --> "uprising there on 28 June, the feast day of Saint Vitus...";
  • stopped at the start of the 27-28 June section. I'll come back later and see how this is progressing. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
  • "This advice was clearly taken seriously, as the Army Chief of Staff General Vladimir Laxa..." --> "Army Chief of Staff General Vladimir Laxa..."
  • "the company of the 6th Battalion were attacked..." --> "the company of the 6th Battalion was attacked..." (singular company or collective group?)
  • "reconnoitre around the rebel positions towards Odžak" --> "reconnoitre the rebel positions towards Odžak"?
  • "two Italian Army trucks were driving from Bileća to Avtovac when they were ambushed by rebels..." --> "two Italian Army trucks driving from Bileća to Avtovac were ambushed by rebels..."
  • "180 Home Guards that" --> "180 Home Guardsmen who"
  • "... success and the opening of the road from Berkovci north to Odžak" --> "...success and opening of the road from Berkovci north to Odžak" (remove "the" before "opening")
  • in the aftermath, "...neither the Chetniks of Draža Mihailović or the Communist Party of Yugoslavia (Serbo-Croatian: Komunistička partija Jugoslavije, KPJ) had anything to do with it". I could be wrong as I am reading this while up late/early watching the World Cup, but this seems to imply that there is a counter theory or belief (i.e that some people think they were involved) but does not seem to clearly state this or explore it fully. Can it be refactored to clear this up? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I reviewed at GA and have looked over the recent changes following AR's review and the article again and believe it meets our A class criteria. Anotherclown (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I copyedited the article per my copyediting disclaimer, down to 23–24 June 26 June. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments

  • Link battalion, mayor, prefect, and Sarajevo (and the other major towns referred to on first use)
  • Shouldn't "Prohuska" be "Prohaska"?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments - excellent article, not much to nitpick.

  • "As the response to the demand for the surrender of weapons had been very poor" - it seems like a word is missing here - perhaps "response to the demand for the surrender of weapons, which had been very poor" would work better?
  • I might link to strafing (in the 26 June section)
  • Since there's only one journal, does it make sense to split it into its own section?
  • The campaign box below the infobox and the navbox at the bottom seem to be largely redundant. Does one add anything that the other doesn't have? Parsecboy (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)