Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

The review department of the Military history WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope. Requests for B-Class assessment, which any reviewer may assign, can be made here.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

• Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)
• A-Class review (a formal review of a candidate for an A-Class quality assessment)

It also provides a convenient collection of military history content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:

• Featured article candidates
• Featured article review
• Featured list candidates
• Featured list removal candidates
• Non-article featured content candidates

Finally, as part of our reciprocal peer reviewing collaboration, the department lists partner peer reviews for articles maintained by the Video games WikiProject.

Peer review

Please add new requests below this line

Sinyavin Offensive (1942)

(old peer review here)

I would like to improve this article further to nominate it for GA and later A-Class. I think I have done everything from the previous peer review almost a year ago. I guess the weak points are style, but I am not sure. D2306 (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Good work so far. Just a few presentation suggestions from me as I have no content knowledge:

• per WP:MOSHEAD the capitalisation of the "German Plans" and "Soviet Plans" headers is incorrect. It should be "German plans" and "Soviet plans";Done
• the first paragraph in the Aftermath is uncited and should at least have a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
• the citations for the order of battle are a little unclear to me. It might be clearer if a citation was placed after the "German" and "Soviet" headers in The order of battle section;Done
• in the Notes section "Glantz p. 212-213" is different from "Meretskov pp. 301–302". Presentation style here should be the same, thus I suggest adding an endash and using "pp." where multiple pages are used as the source;Done
• Citation # 23 "Haupt W. Army Group North. The Wehrmacht in Russia 1941–1945" is presented differently to all the others. It should be the same;Done
• Is there a page number that could be added for Citation # 25 "Haupt"?
• I think the three columns for the References makes it a little hard for the reader. I would suggest just one column for the References. Three columns for the Notes is okay, though;Done
• in the References section the dates for "Manstein (1955 (2004))" are a little awkward. You can show these two dates more cleanly by using the following code "|origyear=1955 |year=2004" within the cite book template. This will show up as "(2004) [1955]". DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All done except for the page number for "Haupt". I no longer have the book, so I can't get the page number. If you think it's better I could simply say the operation was due to begin on September 14 and cite Isayev for it. D2306 (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think that would be best if you want to put it up for GA. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Done

Operation Iskra

I would like some advice on improvements to this article. It seems it is weak in grammar and has problems with citations, and I think with some style improvements I could get it to GA. D2306 (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Hi, I have the following suggestions:

• the first paragraph in the Background section is completely uncited and needs at least a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
• the first paragraph in the German Preparations section is uncited and needs at least a citation at the end of the paragraph;Done
• in the Soviet Preparations section, this needs a citation: "This meant recapturing the "bottleneck" and opening a 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) corridor to Leningrad. After that, the two fronts were to rest for 10 days and resume the offensive southward in further operations.";Done
• the "German Preparations" and "Soviet Preparations" section headers are incorrectly capitalised. Per MOS:HEAD they should be "German preparations" and "Soviet preparations" as they are not proper nouns;Done
• in the Front line stablises section, this needs a citation "There was no changes in the front line after January 21. The Soviet forces were unable to advance any further and started fortifying the area the thwart any German at reestablishing the blockade. The operation officially ended on January 30.";Done
• in the Front line stablises section, this is grammatically incorrect "There was no changes in the front...". It should be "There were no changes...";Done
• in the Aftermath, this needs a citation: "However the city was still subject to at least a partial siege, as well as air and artillery bombardment, until the Leningrad-Novgorod Offensive broke through the German lines, lifting the siege completely in January 1944";Done
• Citation # 6 "p.128, Glantz" is a different format to the others which use Author then page numbers. These should be the same format;Done
• the three columns for the References is probably too many in my opinion, one would be fine given that there are only six works, but if it is required two would be okay;Done
• the Further reading section should be formatted so that it is presented in the same style as the References section;Done
• the page ranges in the citations should have endashes per WP:DASH;Done
• the citations with page ranges should probably be "pp." rather than just "p." as that is usually used to denote a single page.Done AustralianRupert (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Thanks for the advice.D2306 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC);
  • Is the article B-class now? D2306 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cold War

old peer review:here

I just wandering, what's really keeping this article from FA status?--Macarenses (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

That's a good question to ask about any detailed article. My comments are:

• The article is unduly focused on the US and USSR and tends to portray the western and Soviet blocks as single bodies, when it reality there were diverse experiences of the Cold War worldwide and important disagreements among national governments and within nations. For instance, France and the UK sought to further their own geopolitical goals wherever possible and by the 1980s there were considerable divisions within many western democracies about the seeming escalation of the Cold War (which lead to events such as large-scale anti-nuclear movement in Europe and New Zealand effectively breaking off its Alliance with the US)
• The coverage of the military balance seems rather limited. In particular, relatively little attention is given to how the prospect of nuclear war affected international relations.
• Stating that the opponent of the Soviet bloc was the 'Western world' is dubious - I fail to see how strongly anti-Communist countries such as Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and Iran (to name just four) were in any meaningful sense 'western'. Done
• Stating that China's involvement in the Cold War was to launch "its own independent campaign against the US" is so massively over-simplified as to be outright wrong Done
• "Soviet relations with the West further deteriorated when, one week prior to the start of World War II, the Soviet Union and Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" - alternatively, signing a de-facto alliance with leading western power which then went on to dominate most of Europe could be seen as greatly improving the USSR's relationship with 'the west'. I think the article means something like the 'western democracies'. Done
• The discussion of the relationship between the USSR and the US and UK from June 1941 to the end of World War II stresses points of disunity and ignores the fairly extensive cooperation during this period (which actually extended to government propaganda campaigns in the UK and US praising the Soviet Government!).  Done
• The discussion of the various conferences also presents the Western Allies as a single block, when in reality there were important areas of difference in the negotiations between Roosevelt and Churchill's views. Done
• "communists attempted to disrupt the elections of 1948 preceding large losses therein" - where were these elections held? This wording is also very formal and unclear. Done
• "That August, Stalin ordered the detonation of the first Soviet atomic device" - this implies that the Soviet atomic bomb effort was a reaction to the formation of NATO, which is wrong. It's also rather odd to emphasize that "Stalin ordered" the test - the test was essential to prove that the Soviets' bomb design worked.  Done
• Why is the British Attorney General's views of opponents to the Korean War emphasised? He was hardly an important figure in the war, and his views are presented without the reason for opposition to the war being articulated (which seems rather more important). Done
• The coverage of the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution should discuss the important impact this had on Communist and Communist-aligned political parties in the west; in many cases their membership collapsed never to recover. The shocked public response to the repression also hardened attitudes against the USSR in many countries. Done
• The coverage of France's withdrawal from NATO is rather brief and simplistic Done
• File:Cold War Map 1980.svg seems highly dubious - most of the countries identified as being 'Other allies of the USA' weren't formally 'allied' with the US. Including South Africa in this category, for instance, is clearly wrong. Overall the map is hopelessly simplistic and should be removed.  Done
• The claim that "previously, the US had relied on the qualitative superiority of its weapons, but the gap had been narrowed" is highly dubious and cited to something published by a Conservative think-tank (the Heritage Foundation) in 1983. This should probably be removed.  Done
• "Ronald Reagan began massively building up the United States military not long after taking office" - I believe that this build-up began under Carter as a response to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan accelerated the build-up. Done
• Labeling Iraq a "longtime Soviet ally" is rather dubious given the extent of US and Western European support for Iraq during the 1980s. Done
• The statement that the US "had 1.5 million troops posted abroad in 117 countries" by 1989 is rather misleading as the only US military presence in a large number (most?) of those countries were small detachments of marines responsible for the security of the US embassy. Almost all these personnel were stationed in Europe, South Korea and Japan.  Done
• "The Cold War also institutionalized a global commitment to huge, permanent peacetime military-industrial complexes" - is also questionable, given that most countries had large permanent militaries by the 19th Century at the latest.  Done
• Why are the American fatalities in the Korean and Vietnam wars the only casualty figures quoted? Good estimates of casualties in these wars for many other countries (most notably North and South Vietnam and Korea) are available for these wars, for instance, along with figures for many of the proxy wars.
• The paragraph which begins 'No separate campaign medal has been authorized for the Cold War' is focused on a minor issue in the US and should be removed  Done Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo

• 1c/2c issues: Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I used a combination of terse wikiFAC jargon and academic jargon. I reviewed source quality and citation formatting quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Using Transaction Press for internal history of Soviet Union, Transaction is a known poisoned press; Christenson, Ron (1991). Political trials in history: from antiquity to the present. Transaction Publishers. - Replaced Citation, hopes this one is good enough--Macarenses (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• <ref name="denson">{{Cite book|last=Rico|first=Ralph|title=The Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories|editor=Denson, John V.|publisher=Transaction Publishers|location=New Brunswick, N.J.|date=31 May 1997|edition=1st|page=258|chapter=Rethinking Churchill|isbn=1560003197|oclc=36011765|url=http://books.google.com/?id=WbJNNPgcrykC&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=stalin+nickname+uncle+joe|accessdate=21 September 2008}}</ref> New transaction press source being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Transaction sources should not be used, except for the opinions of their authors, where their opinions are notable due to the application of the author's opinion to their own politics / work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Using Gorbachev (primary source) for fact.

• Gorbachev is a primary source when speaking about his own career. He cannot be used for fact as a result. The fact should be sought in another work. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Probable primary source: Hanhimaki, Jussi; Westad, Odd Arne (2003). And if it isn't a primary, then it is almost certainly an inappropriate use of top-and-tail not highly scholarly sections of a source book. Usually scholar source book scholarly introductions are good; less so body context which is pedagogically focused framing, rather than scholarly opinion.

• Hanhimaki and Westad is a source book, a compilation of primary sources. It shouldn't be used to cite fact, as it is a primary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Probably tertiary aimed at non scholars: Jacobs, Dale (2002)

• Tertiary sources (dictionaries, encyclopaedia) shouldn't be used. Jacobs is a tertiary source. Replace with a reliable secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Publisher not in the business of scholarly publishing, HQRS failure: Kolb, Richard K. (2004). And it isn't cited Done
• Inappropriate use of primary: Kennan, George F.  Done
• Opinion piece used for fact: Muravchik, Joshua (1996). Done
• Trailing punctuation after some citations in body text

• Citations should look like this: "had a nice puppy.[40]" They shouldn't look like this "had a nice puppy.[40]." Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

• Inappropriate tertiary: Smith, Joseph; Davis, Simon (2005).

• Tertiary sources should be used rarely with care. Smith and Davis is not an appropriate use. Seek the fact in a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)  Done

• Known undergraduate textbook publisher: Taubman, William (2004). Tucker, Robert C. (1992). (WW Norton) My error Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Undergraduate textbooks (WW Norton is an undergraduate textbook publisher), are tertiary sources. Seek a secondary source for the fact. Fifelfoo

(talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense: Norton is top of the line and Taubman won the Pulitzer prize for his biography. Holt is likewise a famous old mainstream publisher and the Walker book is a well-reviewed overview. Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that its obviously reliable, in twelve years I have only encountered Norton as a textbook publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• How is H. Holt a scholarly press: Walker, Martin (1995). The Cold War: A History. H. Holt. Asked, answered and resolved fully. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do not believe H. Holt to be an appropriate publisher. If you can demonstrate it publishes academic works, then it is fine. Normally personally named presses "H. Holt" "F. Fifelfoo" "J. Bloggs" indicate self publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Done

Henry Holt & Co was founded in 1866 and has published thousands of important books. People might want to look at the Wikipedia article before they make bad assumptions. Rjensen (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for sorting that and indicating its a HQRS, I've not encountered this publisher previously and its name rang bells due to being a personal name with initial. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Full cite required in bibliography: Åslund, Anders (1990). (needs publisher) ; Gorbechev, Mikhail (1996). (Author misspelt) ; Hennessy, Peter. (incorrect date format) ; Halliday, Fred (2001). (subtitle) ; Shearman, Peter (1995). (publisher misspelt) ; Stone, Norman. (completely out of style, commentary in citation, no publisher) ; Done

• I hope the additional comments help with my wikiFAC jargon and academic jargon? Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895)

OK, here goes. I put this up for a wiki-wide review yesterday, then remembered that MilHist has a PR system. Sevastopol is a Russian battleship. I've nurutred this article from red link to GA, and would like to see it go further. Buggie111 (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Australian Rupert

Sorry, not much from me with this review (I made a couple of minor tweaks):

• the Advisor script reports that the ISBN for the Spector work might be incorrect. Can you please check this?
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• are there years for the Balakin and Taras works?
• I found the date on the introduction in Taras, although I don't know it's for the entire book (December 31, 1999). Nothing on Taras. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• could OCLC numbers be added for the Balakin, Taras and Wood works? Worldcat might have this information;
  • It has Wood, nothing else. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• could a location be added for the publisher of the Taras work?
  • Nope. None in the book or on the web where I looked. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the References section, Gardiner should appear before Halpern (alphabetical order);
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• in the Notes section, if you replace "<references group="Note"/>" with "{{reflist|group=Note}}" it will present the footnote in the same sized font as the Citations.
  • Done. Buggie111 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Ebelsberg

I have written many Class B articles, but this is the first time that I've nominated one of my articles for peer review. I believe that I have thoroughly covered the subject. Djmaschek (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hchc2009

The "background" section probably needs to explain a little bit more about the context to the battle. The sorts of things the opening sentences could explain would be what the wider conflict was etc. A lot of this material is in the lead, but isn't in the main article itself. It might also be worth describing the terrain/geography a bit - if the reader didn't know anything about southern Germany in spring-time, what sort of backdrop should they be imagining? Mountainous? River valleys? etc.

In the "result" section, you describe what happened next, but not the significance of it to the campaign. e.g. Did it make a big difference to the war? etc. A little bit more "so-what" analysis here would round the article off really nicely.

Hope that's useful. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the "On 10 April..." paragraph immediately after the Background header to start at the beginning of the campaign. I also added the "Napoleon was aware..." paragraph in Results for significance, and 3 sentences to Commentary which also address significance. As far as geography, there is an existing sentence in Fight for Ebelsberg, "Yet, Ebelsberg was an excellent..." which briefy describes geography to which I've added extra geographic clues ("snow-melt swollen river", "hill-top castle", "up the street to the left"). Could you or someone else have a re-look? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The background para works nicely - I reckon it's a much smoother intro to the piece. The extra clues also worked better for me. Best of luck with the transition to Good Article review (where I'm hoping it will be progressing in due course...) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Interstate TDR

Just created this article on a very intriguing (and arguably important!) topic the other day, already reached GA, but, heck, why not try for more? :) I'd like to get a guideline on what needs improving to push for A-class (or FA...) so any and all comments, critiques and suggestions are appreciated. Thanks! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a fascinating and well written article on a weapon that was well before it's time. My suggestions for improvements are:

• The article is a bit short - can anything be added?
• "only around 200 were built" seems to contradict the exact figure of 195 in the infobox (which in turn contradicts the figure of 189 in the 'operational history' section
• Why did the USN want these aircraft and what role were they intended to play? Was the USN worried about the abilities of torpedo bombers to penetrate AA defences?
• Did they Navy intend to fly them from carriers or land bases? (or both?)
• What targets were these drones used against? Was any use made of their ability to drop torpedoes? (which seems particularly ambitious given that weeks to training was needed for pilots in conventional aircraft to have any chance of hitting moving targets with torpedoes)
• It might be worth appealing for someone to provide a photo of the surviving aircraft Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66

• I'd have to agree with Nick that more operational details are needed. What did they attack and where, in detail?
• Were they really torpedo-capable or did they just have the ability to lift one.
• More details would be nice about the origins of the program. Was it backburnered before Pearl, etc?
• He's covered just about all the other points that I'd like to see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Replies

• I may actually be able to get a pic of the surviving aircraft myself in a month or two, we'll see. Otherwise, thanks, and I'll see what I can do about those comments. Thanks muchly! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Pic of the surviving aircraft found, verified as PD, and added to Commons (and the article). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As for the number built - the "around 200" was meant to be a general round-ish number for the intro, but I can change that if it would work better with the exact number. As for 195 in the infobox vs. 189 in the operational-history section: 189 TDR-1 aircraft were built; the 195 includes the two XTDR-1s, three XTD3R-1s, and the lone XTD3R-2. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sword

Creating subpage for IP user, Woody (talk) 10:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Woody! As per Aeonx's advise, I'm requesting a peer review of Sword as it has been edited heavily recently with many references, links, images, grammar corrections and structural changes made. This changes already promoted the article from start to B-class. It was then that it was suggested a peer review might provide a more thorough feedback as to what should be improved with the article.

IMO, there are still many claims and assertions in the article that require proper citation,some paragraphs and sections need restructuring, and some sections should be added- especially a "making of swords" section or something of the sort.

As a Vital Article I would be glad to see it improved, if anyone cares to help with article it will be appreciated.

I expect there are many issues which escaped my notice and I'm looking forward to your reviews, thx.--84.229.106.220 (talk) 10:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

A very interesting article. Although I don't have specific content knowledge, I have the following comments/suggestions:

• in the Bronze Age section, "middle-east" should be "Middle East" as it is a proper noun;- Done
• in the Bronze Age section, the abbreviation "UK" appears without being first formally introduced, e.g. "United Kingdom (UK)";- Done
• in the Bronze Age section, this sentence needs work: "The earliest available Bronze age swords of copper discovered from the Harappan sites in present-day Pakistan that date back to 2300 BC";- Done
• in the Bronze Age section, "1700-1400 BC" should have an endash per WP:DASH;- Done
• in the Bronze Age section, the caption for the second image should be capitalised at the start: "the swords found together with the Nebra skydisk, ca. 1600 BC";- Done
• in the Iron Age section, this sentence needs work: "Iron became increasingly common from the 13th century BC, Mainly due to the collapse of the bronze producing Civilizations" (capitalisation of "Mainly" is the issue here);- Done
• in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance section, some of the citations appear before punctuation, however per WP:PAIC they should come after. E.g. here: "A number of manuscripts covering longsword combat and techniques dating from the 13th-16th centuries exist in German[29], Italian, and English[30], providing extensive";- Done
• in the Terminology section, the dot pointed list in the Blade subsection needs more citations (particularly at the end of the paragraphs); Done
• in the Terminiology section, this sentence needs a citation: "From the 18th century onwards, swords intended for slashing, i.e., with blades ground to a sharpened edge, have been curved with the radius of curvature equal to the distance from the swordman's body at which it was to be used. This allowed the blade to have a sawing effect rather than simply delivering a heavy cut. European swords, intended for use at arm's length, had a radius of curvature of around a meter. Middle Eastern swords, intended for use with the arm bent, had a smaller radius.";-Tell me about it!, I've spent hours trying to verify this claim. Will try again soon!
• in the Typology section, this sentence needs a citation: "Swords can fall into categories of varying scope. The main distinguishing characteristics include blade shape (cross-section, taper, and length), shape and size of hilt and pommel, age, and place of origin"; Done
• the Swords in history list needs some more citations; Done
• the Swords of myth and legend section needs more citations; Done
• the Swords of modern fiction section needs more citations; Done
• in the Bibliography section, the titles should be capitalised in accordance with WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g. "Stage combat resource materials: a selected and annotated bibliography" should be "Stage Combat Resource Materials: A Selected and Annotated Bibliography";- Done
• in the Bibliography section, the title of the Withers work should be in italics and the year should appear directly after the author's name;- Done
• in the Further reading section, the title should not be presented in capital letters;- Done
• the citation style seems a little confusing to me, I'd recommend using short citations for the inline citations and include the full bibliographic details in the Bibliography per WP:CITESHORT, although it is a matter of personal preference and shouldn't really prevent promotion of the article at GA if you take it there (they need to be consistent, though);
• I recommend putting in a request to have the article copy edited by someone from the Guild of Copy editors if you haven't already done so. The request can be made here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests;- Done
• there appears to be a mixture of US and British English variations, for instance "armor" (US), "center" (US), "defense" (US), "armoured" (British), "armour" (British) - either variation is fine, but the article should be consistent;- Done
• there is a lot of whitespace on my screen because of the placement of the images on the right. If someof them were alternated (some left, some right), this whitespace might be fixed; Done
• watch out for overlinking terms, the general rule is that a term can be linked once in the lead, once in the infobox and once in the prose. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, mate! I've addressed some of the issues and will address the rest shortly.--84.229.106.220 (talk) 08:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Aeonx

I'll review the article more thoroughly later, but for now I've listed a few points for improvement that I noticed earlier when assessing.

• Try to find ISBN or OCLC numbers (or both) for each book reference used, some references are missing this information. Done
• In regards to WP:Layout and content:
  • The lead can be expanded by 1 paragraph; for a large topic/article like this a 3-paragraph lead is acceptable; although I would probably not go to 4.
  • I would perhaps include a section for 'Modern Day use' Done
  • The section for 'Punishment device' I don't think deserves to be a level 2 section; the history-aspects should be incorporated into History and the Executioner's sword is really more a type (so under Typology I guess) Done
  • The Further reading sub-section needs to contain a better list of resources.
    • For suggestions, you might be able to find online notable websites with sword details or even a list of books on swords recommended by academics or enthusiasts in the field. Done
  • The See also section includes far too many links to asian martial arts, this list should be revised to alternative topics that are of most interest Done
• The right-hand side of the article is over-balanced with images, they should be roughly alternated (or paired) across either side of the page. (generally don't alternate within the same sub-section though) Done
• Major Point: This article, and the majority of sword-related articles, could really benefit from a navigation box;
  • For an example in a related topic, see: Template:Knives; - Though I do not believe this is a particularly good example to base swords on.
  • Generally I've seen navboxes roughly based around categories, but this varies, it may be better to separate types of Swords by historical period? Not really sure. Done

Aeonx (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Very good points, about the navbox- I'm thinking either by geographical location(Europe, Americas, Asia and such..) and within each section the sword will be named in chronological order or by historical Eras and geographical subsections. I'm more inclined towards the former since I believe most readers who'll use the navbox will want to check some peculiar sword or another from a specific region- it will also fix the problem of swords that have been used and modified during the centuries- like the katana,longsword and even the kukri.--84.229.106.220 (talk) 12:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yoenit

Hey, I don't have time to do a detailed review at the moment, but I will post my observations with regards to the structure of the article:

• Get rid of the "Famous swords" lists, they do not belong in a general article. A prose section about the symbolic value of the sword (which is currently missing) could probably integrate many of the examples and just link to List of swords for the rest.
• "Punishment devices" section should be integrated with history. Either that or expand it and write similar sections for other sword applications (ceremonial swords, military swords, coathanger, etc)  Done
• I am not sure what the intention behind "typology" section is, but it seems rather incomplete and listy.
• History section seems to focus to much on Europe. It might actually be a good idea to create separate history sections for Europe & Asia as they seem to have developed independent from each other (maybe also for the middle east & india, but I know very little about that).  Done

Overall I see a definite improvement of the article since the last time I read it, but there is still a lot of work to do. Yoenit (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

First and Second Battle of Wonju

A little known but important campaign of the Korean War. I have two concerns about this article. First one is the lack French side of the story even through this is a famous action of the French Battalion in the Korean War. Second is my lack of experience on covering an anti-guerrilla campaign in a MILHIST article. I would appreciate any inputs into those two concerns and any other criticisms. Jim101 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Sorry, I can't comment much on the content, but it looks pretty good to me. I have made a few tweaks, but also have the following suggestions:

• in the lead, "the North Korean forces at the central and the eastern front were effectively decimated..." ("central and eastern fronts" - plural, I think?);

• Fixed

• in the Background section, "...After launching a surprise invasion against South Korea at June 1950..." ("in June 1950" perhaps?)

• Fixed

• in the Background section, "....with the remnants of the KPA fled northward while seeking sanctuaries along the mountainous regions at the Sino-Korean border" ("fleeing northward..." - agreement issue with the word "fled")

• Fixed

• in the Background section, "...and the shattered North Korean forces soon rebuilt its strength at the end of 1950" ("soon rebuilt their strength" or "were soon rebuilt" - there is currently a disagreement between "forces" and "its" - singular v plural);

• Fixed

• in the Background section, "...13th Army's action would later resulted in the..." (I suggest changing to "would later result in...");

• Fixed

• in the Forces and strategy section, "...nearly 45,000 casualties at the end of 1950..." (I suggest changing to "by the end of 1950");

• Fixed

• in the Forces and strategy section, "...Wonju while transferring the division under US X Corps control..." (I suggest changing to "while placing the division under US X Corps control...");

• Fixed

• in the Forces and strategy section, "...during the opening of the battle" (I suggest changing to "...during the opening phase of the battle");

• Fixed

• in the Aftermath section, I think you should include a specific figure for UN casualties rather than just saying they were "moderate". In the infobox the figure of 600 US casualties included, I think that this should be included in the Aftermath at least. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is tricky point. The US 600 causality figure is a rough estimation using Ecker's data. The exact US causality number (or the numbers of major formations involved) is unclear due to the nature of irregular warfare, but the raw unit-by-unit data provided by Ecker suggested that they won't be higher than 600. However, the majority of the UN casualties during the battle are from South Korean units, and they don't have casualty data until the fall 1951. The only thing I can find that comments on the entire UN casualties are the description "moderate" provided by Ecker. I would appreciate it if someone has a more detailed research on the subject or to provide more context on the matter.

Thanks for the comments. Jim101 (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does make things difficult. My only suggestion here is that perhaps you could include this discussion in a Footnote after the sentence about "moderate" casualties. That might help get around the issue if you decide to take the article to a higher review. Anyway, keep up the good work. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. Jim101 (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose

Unfortunately I'm no expert on either of the areas for which you've asked input. In general though, this looks very comprehensive and well-structured/referenced/illustrated. It's certainly appears worth taking to GAR, and probably ACR as well. As far as the French side of things goes, it might be worth giving Ed! a poke if you haven't already, as he's written many Korean War articles and may have come across some other sources for this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Magdhaba

This article has been substantially rewritten including references, citations and illustrations. Could a peer review please reassess its ranking? --Rskp (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

AustralianRupert

Very interesting article in my opinion, and you've clearly invested a lot of time and effort in it, which is great to see. I believe that it is up to B class standard (although as per below there is one sentence that needs a citation). I have the following comments/suggestions, many of which are just nitpicking style/presentation comments which would help to take it to a higher rating (apologies for the long list):

• The lead is one paragraph too long. According to WP:LEAD, it should be no more than four paragraphs. Is there a way that you could consolidate one?
• If you are keen, I suggest requesting someone from the Guild of Copy Editors (requests made here) take a run through the article as they will be able to tighten up the prose a little. This will help for higher reviews like GA and beyond. For instance, the first two paragraphs of the lead are both single sentences. These could possibly be broken up in to a couple of sentences and consolidated;
• Be careful with where you insert wikilinks. It should usually be upon first mention. For instance, in the lead Ottoman Army is mentioned in the second paragraph, but it is not wikilinked until the third paragraph (should be shifted in my opinion);
• Be careful with the placement of commas. I think in some sentences they break up the flow of the prose as they have been used a little too much (a good copy editor would be able to help with this though);
• If possible, please try to insert more wikilinks. The Preamble section has none at all, but you could link the American Civil War, as well as possibly some of the locations;
• When discussing bodies such as "the War Office", I think you need to clarify what country's War Office, as this will help establish a neutral point of view in the article;
• there seems to be a mixture of US and British English used in the article, for instance "theaters" (US), but also "labour" (British), this should be consistent;
• terms like "Australian Flying Corps", "First Battle of the Marne" could be wikilinked;
• some of the distances could have conversion templates added (these show miles and kilometres, or also yards and metres, etc), such as that which is used in the lead;
• quotations should be encased in double quotation marks, not single per Wikipedia:MOSQUOTE#Quotation marks, however, please see the next comment;
• I'm not sure about using observations from individual soldiers, such as that of Ingham's about Chauvel's return. In this case it probably is not necessary. If it were about a pivotal point, maybe, but in this case I'm not sure that it is so I would suggest removing it and either replacing with your own words or leaving it out altogether;
• It is probably not necessary to always be so formal with use of ranks. On first mention use of the rank is fine, but subsequently it would be fine to simply use the subject's surname. For instance "Major General Chauvel" could simply be "Chauvel" after first being introduced;
• in the Prelude section, I suggest removing the dot points about Murray's appreciation of the Ottoman Army's reactions and just converting it to prose;
• use of the word "exposures" might be a little esoteric for some readers, might be simpler just to say "photographs";
• in the Advance to El Arish section, "Lines of Communication" should this be capitalised as such? Only proper nouns should be fully capitalised. Additionally, it might be a term that could be wikilinked;
• in the Ottoman defences at Magdhaba section, this clause seems not to agree: "...with the main defending force consisted of two battalions, each of about 600 men..." ("consisted" is the issue here, probably should be "consisting");
• in the Ottoman defences at Magdhaba section, "Flying Squadrons" - should this be capitalised as such? Only proper nouns should be capitalised;
• in the Ottoman defences at Magdhaba section, the date format is slightly inconsistent with the Manual of Style, e.g. "22 December, 1916" should be "22 December 1916" (no comma required for DD Month Year format);
• in the Ottoman defences at Magdhaba section, the following sentence needs a citation: "And they were unaware of the imminent arrival of a new British commander who had the forethought and logistical organisational abilities of Lieutenant General Chetwode and his staff";
• in the Battle section, the individual aircraft squadrons could possibly be wikilinked;
• in the Battle section, it might be more expedient to state that air reports were received "at regular intervals from 0750 until 1515", rather than the providing the long list of times;
• in the Battle section, "...The attack was carried out with great skill and boldness, every man showing an intelligent appreciation of the situation and fearless confidence in himself and his comrades" - this is possibly a little too much for an encyclopedia. We need to be careful not to take sides in our presentation of the facts;
• in the Battle section, "...bad shooting by the defenders being responsible for light casualties" could probably be reworded to say "inaccurate shooting...";
• in the Other views of the engagement section, I'd suggest removing the bulleted list and converting to formal prose, most of which should probably just be included in the Battle section, or possibly in the Aftermath;
• in the Aftermath section, "22nd December" should be changed to "22 December" per the Manual of Style which objects to the use of ordinal suffixes for dates;
• in the Aftermath section, there are a number of small paragraphs that could probably be consolidated;
• in the Aftermath section, "24 December, 1916" should be "24 December 1916" (no need for the comma);
• in the Aftermath section, "He reportedly said that in the history of war, he had never known cavalry to not only located and surrounded the enemy's position, but to dismount and fight as infantry with rifle and bayonet" - there is some disagreement with the verbs here (past tense endings in "ed" are the issue here);
• in the Aftermath section, "British Navy" is not a proper noun, so it should either be "British navy" or "British Royal Navy";
• in the Aftermath section, there is inconsistency in capitalisation of terms such as "Officer" and "Other Ranks", e.g "17 Other Ranks" and "36 other ranks" - these should be consistent, and I think as they are not proper nouns, they should be lower case;
• in the Aftermath section, there is inconsitency in the capitalisation of the term "Dressing Station", sometimes you have "Dressing Station" and then "dressing station" - I think it should be lower case as it is not a proper noun;
• some of the images could be left aligned to break up the text a little (suggestion only);
• the References could be formatted using the {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} templates. This would give them a cleaner appearance and would allow you to embed the url links into the titles if you so wish (suggestion only). AustralianRupert (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have addressed most of the problems and hope the article can attract a good evaluation. But in the case of the Trooper Ingham quote, I do agree that his words don't enhance the issue at that point very much. But he does reflect the confidence and optimism the troops had to have, to be able to take the fight to a garrison so far from their own base in such arid conditions. --Rskp (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

A-Class review

Instructions

Requesting a review

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

1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
3. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after the class= or list= field).
4. 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.
5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
7. Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
8. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

Restrictions

1. An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. 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.
2. There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
3. An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.

Commenting

The 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.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Demotion

If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

Please add new requests below this line

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Sangju (1950)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 21:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this for GA yesterday and believe that it also meets the A-class criteria. I have the following comments for the sake of the review:
  • there are no dabs, ext links work and all images have alt text (no action required);
  • my only suggestion is that you might consider getting someone outside the project to go over the article for jargon and to do a copy edit as, to be honest, my copy editing skills are not that great and as an insider my ability to identify jargon is limited. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I read the whole thing and didn't see anything that I thought needed to be changed. --Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Comments - Had the whole review typed out, and then the computer erased it. Oh well...
  • File:US Retreat from Taejon.jpg, File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg and File:24th Infantry in Korea.jpg are not under acceptable licenses on Flickr (they have no commercial use licenses).
    • Both images are licensed under Creative Commons here. They're both works taken by US Army photographers and are distributed by a US Army account, so both are in public domain. I'm not sure how else to fix it, but both checked out in previous ACRs and one in This FAC. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Right, but that is a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license. NonCommercial, No Deriv licenses are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. Just because something has a creative commons license doesn't mean that it has a license that allows it to be on our "Commons". I know that most US Army photos are completely in the public domain (commercial use and derivatives are allowed) - so is the Flickr account wrong? This might be something to ask an image specialist about (Jappalang is the guy I go to when I have an image question). Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Per Jappalang's response here, the second image is fine. Since the first isn't important to the article I've just removed it. —Ed!^(talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks for following up on this. Sorry for the image name duplication above, the third one was supposed to be File:24th Inf at Pusan.jpg, but it looks like that one should be verifiably by a US gov't employee too, so should be fine. Everything looks good now, so I'm changing to support. Dana boomer (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Outbreak of war, "buy time to allow follow on forces to arrive." Follow on forces?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • North Korean attack on Sangju, "However the withdraw had been a part of the plan for reorganizing" First, this is ungrammatical. Second, it was part of the plan but they didn't communicate their intentions? How could the US not know their intentions if it was part of the plan? Or was this just a plan among the Koreans, which the US wasn't party to?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • US consolidates around Sangju, "35th Infantry came to grief north". First, "came to grief" in unencyclopedic. Second, it doesn't really sound like they came to grief. Despite being outnumbered and having their supply line cut off, they were able to inflict heavy losses and disengage. Unless something else happened that isn't described here, this isn't a lot of grief.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The 24th infantry falters, "These positions were twice the length prescribed to a US Army regiment," Was it their idea to spread out this far, or were they ordered to?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "got out of hand." Again, unencyclopedic language.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "a panic arose among the men and the majority of the battalion left its positions." Why did they panic?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "He had to reorganize the battalion himself" Is this significant? Was a colonel not supposed to reorganize a battalion?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "part of it direct fire" As opposed to indirect fire? What is special about it being direct fire?
    • Removed that clause. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • US withdrawal, "stopped every vehicle coming from the west, taking off stragglers." How did he know they were stragglers?
    • Clarified. Basically, men who had no real reason to be withdrawing were stragglers in this instance. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "He averaged about 75 stragglers a day and, on the last day, he collected 150." So he was there for two days? Then just say so.
    • Clarified. He caught 150 men on the last day alone. The rest of the days he collected 75 men a day. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • For some reason I was kept reading that as "by the last day" instead of "on the last day". Oops. Well, the rewording looks better anyways.
  • Same section, "plagued by stragglers" You keep calling them stragglers, which implies they are men moving (and falling) behind a main group. Instead, if I'm reading the article right, they were men deliberately moving away from the main group. This makes them not stragglers.
    • My sources consistently use the term. They weren't deserters since they weren't trying to escape the military, but they weren't mutineers since they weren't trying to overthrow their officers. They were simply running away without orders whenever the North Koreans shot at them. Is there a better word? —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Probably, but I can't think of one at the moment, so I guess it'll have to stay as it is.
  • Same section, "senior commanders had to personally move in to help resist the Korean advance." Did senior commanders not go to the front often? How did they help? Did the give pep talks? Or actually help in the fighting?
    • Clarified. Higher ranking officers usually don't fight on the front lines as they had to in this instance. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "placed it in blocking positions behind the 24th Infantry" Blocking what? The advance of the Koreans or the retreat of the Americans?
    • Clarified. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same section, "After regimental commanders pleaded unsuccessfully with him to return to his position, he was arrested and tried for desertion under fire, a capital offense." Since the last person you were talking was the senior noncom, this sounds like it was him that was arrested. I think, however, that you are talking about the 1st Lt.
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Aftermath, "The 24th Infantry was fully desegregated on October 1, 1951." What do you mean by fully desegregated? What is the criteria? Half whites and half blacks?
    • Basically. As of this battle the regiment was "officially" desegregated, but 95 percent of its men were black. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I still don't really like the way this is worded, but it's more of a style thing, I guess.
  • Same section, "white officers unable to assert their authority" What do you mean by unable to assert their authority? They couldn't? Wouldn't? Didn't know they had it?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• This article starts out well, but falls apart a bit at the end. Some jargon, unencyclopedic language, and lack of clarity and detail plague the end of the Battle section and the Aftermath section. Dana boomer (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (edited 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC))
  • I have responded to everything. —Ed!^(talk) 16:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the quick response. I have struck most of my comments, but am waiting to change to a support until the image issue is resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • The lead is a little repetitive in places: specifically the over use of the words "poorly", "performed", "performance" and "performed poorly" etc. Maybe reword?;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • After being written in full at first mention (i.e. Major General William B. Kean) should not include the rank on subsequent mention (i.e. General Kean should just be Kean, same to for Colonel White and Lieutenant Gilbert);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think its really necessary to describe the road as "the first and main road", maybe reword to just "on the main road"?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • 'US' doesn't need to be included in the ranks AFAIK (i.e. US Brigadier General Vennard Wilson or US Lieutenant Colonel John L. Wilkins should just be Brigadier General Vennard Wilson and Lieutenant Colonel John L. Wilkins IMO;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This sentence is a little repetative "The withdrawal had been a part of the plan for reorganizing the line to incorporate the US troops, but the US troops expected them to send a message before doing so, and did not adjust their defenses to compensate." (specifically use of "US troops" twice).;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the term "enemy" in this sentence should be avoided: "The covering fire of a platoon of tanks on the south side held off the enemy and allowed most of the survivors to eventually escape." Maybe reword to North Koreans or something similar?;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the term "enemy" in this sentence is also problematic IMO: "Soon enemy rifle fire came in on the dispersed men and E and F Companies immediately began withdrawing in a disorderly manner.";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This should possibily be reworded: "enveloped the North Korean position that had caused the attack". Specifically "caused the attack" I'm assuming you meant "that had launched the attack"?; and
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All timings need to be reformatted to separate the hours from the minutes with a colon per WP:MOSTIME (i.e. where you write 0500 this should be 05:00). Anotherclown (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I think that's everything. —Ed!^(talk) 19:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
      • IMO this is another excellent article. All my suggestions have been dealt with so I'm happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• SupportXavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. "July 20–31, 1950": comma after 1950. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Yechon, Sangju": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "de facto segregated": it's not plausible that the unit just happened to be segregated; black troops must have been assigned to the unit. Better to say "almost all black troops", "largely black troops", or whatever. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Removed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Yechon, Sangju and the surrounding areas": most readers will misinterpret this as "Yechon in Sangju" (despite the previous mention of "village of Sangju"). Better would be "Yechon county, Sangju city, and the surrounding areas". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• I've rewritten the last paragraph in the lead; there are a lot of judgment calls here, so I'll reproduce it here in case anyone wants to change it: "The US 24th Infantry Regiment of the 25th Division was ineffective in its first showing. The regiment, composed mostly of black troops, was criticized by the Army for being quick to panic and retreat. Some historians have criticized the Army's statements as biased, downplaying the regiment's successes and overstating its failures." - Dank (push to talk)
  • That works fine. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• See my previous comments, some of which also apply to this article. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "subsequent outbreak ... as a result": redundant. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "subsequently": more than one "subsequent(ly)" in quick succession is ponderous. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Sangju was a place of both confusion and activity": not clear. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Artillery and mortars fired scheduled missions on the town": maybe "Artillery and mortars fired on the town" - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "3rd Battalion, 24th Infantry": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "soon the town was on fire from the shells", "ablaze with fires started by American artillery shells": redundant. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "North Korean casualties at the fight could not be estimated at the time.": North Korean casualties could not be estimated. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "News of the capture, however, was picked up by the US media": Per Chicago 5.207, use "however" either as a heavy-handed substitute for "but" or as an adverb to modify what comes before it. So: "News of the capture was picked up however by the US media". (Commas wouldn't be wrong around "however" here, but I'd prefer to go without.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The 1st Battalion emplaced": probably "The 1st Battalion was emplaced" - Dank (push to talk)
  • Passive voice? —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Repeated use of the passive voice is sometimes called "weak"; more accurately, it's a sign that the writer may be avoiding telling us who's doing the acting. I don't see that problem here. "emplaced" is a transitive verb per WNW; you were using it intransitively. - Dank (push to talk) 02:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The 1st Battalion ... did not stay longer than 24 hours. It had been immediately sent to reinforce": nonparallel verb tenses. Better is: "The 1st Battalion ... stayed less than [possibly: not longer than] 24 hours before it was sent to reinforce" - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "2nd Battalion, 17th Regiment": comma after. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "reportedly destroyed four more tanks": "reportedly" means you, the writer, have some doubts. If so, tell the reader what makes you doubt the information. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The decimated remnants": redundant. "the remnants". - Dank (push to talk)
  • • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• "defense line": maybe "defensive line" is better. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Okay, that's everything through Battle of Sangju (1950)#UN consolidates around Sangju, a little more than half. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I've responded to everything. Thanks again. —Ed!^(talk) 23:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support for just the parts I covered. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Crimp

Nominator(s): Anotherclown (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was one of the key early engagements of the Australian involvement in the Vietnam War and I believe that it meets the criteria. Many thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 04:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks very good to me. I have the following comments:
  • there are no dab links (no action required);
  • images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
    • Added now. Thanks for your patience (I'm really lazy when it comes to alt text!). Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • there is one external link that is reported to be broken and needs to be fixed: [1];
    • I'm afraid I cannot resolve this - for some reason google has removed a number of editions of the Evening Independent from January 1966, including this one. Some are there but this one is now gone. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No dramas. I tried Web Archive and for some reason that wouldn't work, either. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for trying nonetheless. Anotherclown (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • the image caption in the infobox should be tweaked, "Sapper" shouldn't be capitalised, as in this case it is just like "soldier", i.e. an improper noun;
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I suggest wikilinking "battalion" on first mention, i.e in the Background section "nine additional US battalions...";
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation # 24 "Tunnel Rats", publisher information should probably be added;
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • is there a page number for the Mangold and Penycate 2005 citation (# 66), or is it just to the whole work?
    • Good point, I've had to order the book to resolve this so it may require a week or so. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • That wasn't necessary, but no dramas. The other half might have a drama with it, though. ;-)AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Its about $11 so its no big imposition. I don't really have the time to go to the library plus I want the book anyway! Anotherclown (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Added the page number from Mangold and Penycate now. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, "Mangold, Tom; John Penycate" is formatted differently to "MacGregor, Sandy; Thomson, Jimmy";
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References "3rd ed." for Bradley is different to "Second ed." for Dennis and for Horner;
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, the locations for the works cited might need more details, e.g. States, particularly for Maryborough, St Leonards, etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Gave this a thorough review at GA, which it passed, and since I recommended there that it advance to ACR, I can hardly say no now! Re-read to check recent changes and am satisfied that prose, structure, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials all meet A-Class standard -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have no complaints on this one either. --Kumioko (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• SupportXavierGreen (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Belated support. Notes will be on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth Walker

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...

Renomination. Was nominated back in April by myself and another editor as part of an effort to improve the overall quality of Medal of Honor articles. I am the major contributor though. I believe that all issues have now been addressed.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • One dab link (to P-36);
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • One external link reports as dead (A War of Their Own: Bombers over the Southwest Pacific);
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not all images have alt text (although its not a requirement - so if you wan't to add its up to you);
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The citation check tool reports no errors (no action required);
  • I've made some changes so please check you're happy with them and change if you are not; and
  • The first sentence in the Pacific campaign section seems awkward: "Walker was promoted to brigadier general on 17 June 1942 and transferred to the Southwest Pacific,[1] Walker flew to Australia in the company of Brigadier General Ennis Whitehead." Specifically repeating Walker's name;
    • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Other than that this is another excellent article in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • All my suggestions have been resolved so I'm happy to support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: Looks very good to me, I made a couple of minor tweaks, so there are just a couple of suggestions from me:
  • there is some inconsistency in date format presentation, e.g. "July 17, 1898" (in Early life section) and "15 December 1917". Either style is fine, but it should be consistent throughout the article;
    • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Between the wars section, "No did he warm to the Curtiss P-36 Hawk fighter, especially after a near-fatal accident" - I think this is a typo. Should it be "Nor did he warm..."?
    • Corrected typo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Papuan Campaign section, "...there were nowhere near enough aircraft in the Southwest Pacific to mount such a massive attack" - "nowhere near enough" sounds a little informal, perhaps just "there were not enough..."?
    • Not enough is not enough. I've reworded this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Papuan Campaign section, "Kenney's suggestion that bombers conduct attacks from low level with bombs with instantaneous fuses received a negative reception from Walker..." perhaps reword "with bombs with" to "using bombs with..."? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Question: It warms my heart to see that Kumioko used User:bahamut0013/ribbon workshop. However, why were the citations moved to the prose? I think they make more sense in the awards section. Also, a suggestion: instead of citing the same ref for each ribbon and badge, it would probably be easier and cleaner to add "Walker's awards and decorations include:" before the table and just cite the ref once there. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There were two reasons for the citations in the prose. The main one was because I felt that they made more sense in context. The other was that I was afraid that the awards section would be deleted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to a single reference at the end. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It looks good to me. After reading through it I don't see anything wrong. Excellent job. --Kumioko (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its nothing to make me withhold be support but in line with bahamut0013's comments I wonder if we need to put the reference in every single cell of the ribbon display or just once at the beginning or end of the section. Either way is ok but I think its kinda cluttered. --Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Changed to a single reference at the end. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Belated support. Notes added to the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

ARA Rivadavia

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

I originally wrote this article back in June/July 2009, using mostly Whitley. I have supplemented this with references to The New York Times and various other books and now feel it is ready for an A-class nomination. The only sticking point is page numbers for the new NYT references – irritatingly their website does not give page numbers any longer. Proquest still should, though, so I'd appreciate it if someone could look them up for me (it's only like three stories). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Page numbers from ProQuest: not sure if these help or not:
  • Accident to Rivadavia, The New York Times, 19 September 1913, p. 1;
  • I couldn't find Argentine Warship Makes 22.56 Knots, but found 22.48 Knots for Rivadavia, The New York Times, 16 September 1913, p. 12;
  • Orders to Rivadavia to Bring Gold - The New York Times, 7 October 1918, p. 12;
  • I couldn't find Rivadavia Off For Home, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking the time to do this. I have added page numbers to "Accident" and "Orders." "22.48" is from a day earlier, I think; I left it out because it didn't add much. I can understand not having "Off for Home" because it's from 1926 (and so after the free articles), but it's frustrating to know they don't have 22.56... I'll try to figure something out. Thanks again! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I've emailed the NYT about this. Let's see if I can (a) get a response and/or (b) actually change something... ! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • No worries. Hopefully that solves the issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support
  • No dab links, external links check out and the citation tool reveals no errors (no action required);
  • One of the images lacks alt text (not required though - so its up to you if you want to add it);
  • I have made quite a number of changes to the lead, so please have a look and alter as required;
  • Per WP:CITESHORT I believe you should add the abbrev 'p.' (and 'pp.' for multipage cites) to your short citations, e.g. Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45 would become Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," p. 45. and Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," 45–46 would become Livermore, "Battleship Diplomacy," pp. 45–46.;
  • You might consider using the {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} templates for your references as they don't currently follow the standard format and seem a little inconsistent;
  • Overall though this is an excellent article and I'm happy to add my support. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Anotherclown. I have used this citation style for quite some time; it follows most of the conventions of the The Chicago Manual of Style with a couple additions to assist WP readers (ISBNs, OCLCs, etc.). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries. ISBNs and OCLCs can still be used with the {{Citebook}} template but its up to you of course. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:Support
  • there is a mix of US and British English, e.g. "armor" (US) in the prose, but then "Armour" (British) in the infobox;
  • there is a mixture of terminology, e.g. "World War I" and then later "First World War": these should be consistent;
  • in the Background it begins with "Moreno's genesis..." Is this a typo? Should it be Rivadavia? I think it is best to keep the subject of the first sentence about the subject of the article, so if it isn't a typo maybe it could be reworded, e.g. "Rivadavia's sister ship, Moreno..." or something similar. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed
    • Fixed, good catch
    • That was a carryover from Moreno when I reused the section (being sister ships, they have the same background). Another good catch. Thank you! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support I made a few minor links in the article. Overall it is comprehensive enough for A-class. Well done! —Ed!^(talk) 20:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments "The United States' designated ...": no verb in the sentence. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Rockford, Maine": comma after per Chicago 10.30. - Dank (push to talk)
• "a maximum speed of 22.567 knots": I don't remember seeing the speed to 3 decimal places before, so I'm wondering if their measurement was really that accurate. - Dank (push to talk)
• "attempted to influence Argentina": in what way? - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• "the Rivadavias": I don't think it's a good idea to mention the expression just once without a link or explanation. If you like, we could put the expression in the first sentence of Rivadavia-class battleship and link "the Rivadavias" to that page. But "Rivadavia and Moreno" works for me. - Dank (push to talk)
• "After returning to Argentina in March–April 1926": Give the month in which she arrived. I wouldn't object to "leaving ... in March and returning in April", but that's probably more detail than the readers need. - Dank (push to talk)
• "undergoing sea trials and "work-up". The dreadnought": What does "work-up" mean? - Dank (push to talk)
• "Rio de Janeiro, Brazil": here too, comma after. I'm mentioning it instead of making the edit because I'm hoping others will start catching this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All actionable requests done. @knots, they have been that specific for the Minas Geraes class and Bahia class. @influence, no specifics were given by Livermore. @work-up, I removed it, I think it is akin to trials. Apologies on getting back late to this; I had exams on Thursday and Friday, then forgot about it. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Not a problem. Still no verb (like this sentence). My point about "influence" is that if you don't know what it means, then the reader won't know, either. In Wikipedia, sentences are supposed to convey information that means something. This isn't always true for press releases, cable news, political blather and academic puffery: sometimes their goal is to sound like they know what they're talking about without actually saying anything they could be pinned down on. Whenever a writer hints that they know something without actually telling us what they know, don't use that bit. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • @verb, try it now. @interests, I forgot that Livermore provided an example in a footnote, and I've included it in the article -- "group of French bankers, on behalf of the Russian government, were offering in gold twice the contract price of the ships, which were to be turned over to Greece." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 08:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Bowling Alley

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!^(talk) 03:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • No dab links, all external links check out and all images have alt text (no action required);
  • Citation check tool reveals no errors (no action required either);
  • I've made a few changes so please check and revert if required;
    • They look good, thanks. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • First sentence in the Taegu section is a little repeatative: "In the meantime, Eighth Army commander Lieutenant General Walton Walker had established Taegu as the Eighth Army's headquarters". Maybe reword as such: "In the meantime Taegu was established as the Eight Army's headquarters, under the command of Lieutenant General Walton Walker" or something similar;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Should "mid-august" be capitalised (i.e. mid-August)? (US forces assemble section);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure 'Carpet bombing campaign' needs to be capitalised (Deadlock section);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the term 'enemy' needs to be avoided (August 18 attack);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The following sentence seems a little awkward: "The tanks and self-propelled guns, firing rapidly, approached the American positions." Perhaps it could be reworded to: "The tanks and self-propelled guns approached the American positions, firing rapidly.";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Figures less than 10 should be written in full i.e. five not 5 per WP:MOSNUM (see Aftermath section); and
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • In places you refer to "Colonel Michaelis"; AFAIK once the individual has been introduced at the first instance with his full name and rank he should then only be referred to by his last name, i.e. Michaelis (not sure of the MOS reference for that though). Anotherclown (talk) 06:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I have fixed all instances of this. I have addressed all of your comments. —Ed!^(talk) 16:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Cheers. Striking all comments and adding my support now. Well done IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:Support:
  • in the lead, "What followed was a fierce series of battles..." or "What followed was a series of fierce battles..."?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead, abbreviations of ROK, UN, US etc should be formally introduced, e.g. "Republic of Korea (ROK)";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the infobox, there is no strength value for the UN forces, I suggest adding "Unknown" as a placeholder;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the abbreviation "NK" should be formally introduced before being used in a heading;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the US forces assemble section, "platoon" could be wikilinked on first mention (same for company, division, battalion, batteries etc. where appropriate);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK forces assemble section, "the poplar-lined Taegu-Sangju road ran" there should be an endash per WP:DASH;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the August 18 attack section, "...directed this artillery fire on the North Koreans with a T-34 tank within 50 yards (46 m) of his position" - reword to "in a T-34 tank" perhaps - otherwise it sounds like Millett directed fire with a tank rather than on it;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Stalemate section (and others), "120-mm. mortar shells" - not sure about the presentation here with the hyphen and full stop, I think the MOS would say it should be "120 mm" (using a non breaking space);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Stalemate "antitank" or "anti-tank" - not sure if the first is US English or not, but it doesn't quite look right to me (I might be wrong, though);
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the August 21 attack section, the first two sentences start with "That evening" or "Later that evening" - is there a way to reword so that there is some variation?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK flanking moves section, "UN planes..." might sound better as "UN aircraft...";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK flanking moves section, "main supply road" or "main supply route"? (the later has an article that could be linked);
    • Fixed. 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK flanking moves section, "13 76-mm guns emplaced..." this the numerical values here are difficult to read, the MOS would allow "thirteen 76 mm" here, which would make it easier on the eye;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the NK flanking moves section, I suggest wikilink "commissioned" to "Officer (armed forces)";
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Final moves section, "US 23rd Regiment" should this be "23rd Infantry" - as this is how they are previously referred to?
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath, "The North Korean's total casualties..." the apostrophe is in the wrong place, I think. It should be "...North Koreans' total..." because it is plural here;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath, there is a mixture of presentation style for dates, for example "18 to 25 August" as opposed to August 12–25". Either Day Month Year or Month Day, Year is fine, but consistency is required;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, if possible, location details could be added to the works;
    • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, the 2010 Millett work should have an endash for the year range. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed. I have responded to everything. —Ed!^(talk) 23:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Coverage, prose, referencing, structure and supporting materials look good -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support the intro and first section, which I just copyedited. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

After a bit of business in real life, I finally have time to get back to Wiki stuff, so here we are. The second of four König class battleships (though the third to grace a MILHIST ACR), Grosser Kurfürst was the second battleship in the German line at Jutland, and was heavily damaged in the battle. The ship had something of a record for accidents, including rammings, running aground, and torpedo and mine damage. Like her sisters, she was scuttled at Scapa Flow, but unlike her class-mates, was raised and broken up for scrap in the 1930s. I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article meets our high standards for A-class articles. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - she rammed Konig but had no damage? That's gotta be an unusual occurrence. Any more information on that?
  • Page numbers for the Campbell chapter in Conway's? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Page numbers added. And yeah, it is rather odd - all Staff says is "On 7 December she lightly rammed Konig, but was not damaged herself." In the section on Konig, he says "On 7 December, Konig grounded on Wilhelmshaven Roads, and the battleship immediately astern, Grosser Kurfurst, had insufficient room to stop and rammed Konig in the stern to starboard. There was slight flooding and after coming free the ship went to Wilhelmshaven Dockyard and was under repair..." Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Wherever you think it's appropriate, I'd prefer we have the same note we had in König, since the German sources will have this spelling: "(or ''Großer''<ref group=Note>This is the German "sharp S"; see [[ß]].</ref> ''Kurfürst'')" - Dank (push to talk)
• I'm surprised by the link to Prince-elector; the provisional name was Ersatz Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm, and I don't think Germans think of an office in the HRE when they hear the term, they're thinking of Frederick William I, Elector of Brandenburg (see the first paragraph of the article). "Großer Kurfürst" redirects to this guy in the German Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk)
  • The four Konigs were all initially named for titles held by Wilhelm II - King (of Prussia), Crown Prince, Margrave, and Prince Elector.
    • Well ... interesting. I can't find anything that contradicts that, and what you say makes sense. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• "September–October 1917": September and October 1917 - Dank (push to talk)
• "After Germany's defeat in the war and the signing of the Armistice": After Germany's defeat and the signing of the Armistice - Dank (push to talk)
• "The ships were ... reduced to skeleton crews": The ships were ... limited to skeleton crews - Dank (push to talk)
• "The first combat operation in which the ship participated": The ship's first combat operation - Dank (push to talk)
• "29 until 31 May": This may be fine, I'm not sure. AmEng guides recommend "May 29 to May 31", but we're going with military style on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
• "two week training cruise": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)
• Note 2 should follow the first time given, 10:55. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Deutschland class pre-dreadnoughts": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)
• "At 17:45 ... a minute later at 17:46" Delete any one of the 3 time elements. - Dank (push to talk)
• Compare "Grosser Kurfürst was forced to shift fire from Princess Royal to the battleship Valiant, though by 18:16 she too had moved out of range." with "On 7 December, Grosser Kurfürst accidentally rammed her sister König, though she sustained no damage." It's not obvious enough which "she" is meant, in both sentences, although a perceptive reader could make reasonable guesses. I'd go with "Valiant too had moved" and "sustained no damage when she accidentally". - Dank (push to talk)
• "Grosser Kurfürst straddled Valiant four times and incorrectly claimed a hit on the ship": Grosser Kurfürst's shells straddled Valiant four times. - Dank (push to talk)
• "between 10,000 to 18,000 yd": between 10,000 and 18,000 yd - Dank (push to talk)
• "#2": No. 2 - Dank (push to talk)
• More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• "which allowed a significant quantity of water to enter the ship. Damage control teams managed to temporarily stop the flooding, by which time approximately 800 t (790 LT; 880 ST) of water had entered the ship.": Damage control teams managed to temporarily stop the flooding, after approximately 800 t (790 LT; 880 ST) of water had entered the ship. - Dank (push to talk)
• "list" and "counter-flooding" need links. - Dank (push to talk)
  • List (watercraft) added but there's no article for counter-flooding (nor anything on Wiktionary as far as I can tell). Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, then the question is whether a significant number of readers won't know what it means without an explanation; my guess is yes. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The remaining shells burst on impact and caused relatively minor damage": More hits were sustained, but these shells burst on impact and caused relatively minor damage. - Dank (push to talk)
• "north-west": AmEng is "northwest" - Dank (push to talk)
• "Damage was minimal and the ship proceeded to unit training in the Baltic. On the return to the North Sea on 4 March, however, she accidentally rammed Kronprinz.": Just one of the things I love about the new Chicago is that they take a stand on "however" at 5.207; until now, there's been a lot of hemming and hawing and pursing of the lips. Short version: use "however" if the context demands a ponderous word, or if you're using it adverbially to modify the word before it. "Damage was minimal and the ship proceeded to unit training in the Baltic, but on the return to the North Sea on 4 March, she accidentally rammed Kronprinz." - Dank (push to talk)
• Same here: "She struck a mine while maneuvering into firing position, however, ..." "But she struck a mine while maneuvering into firing position, ..." It's a myth that it's a bad idea to start a sentence with "but"; see Chicago 5.206. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Upon being informed of the situation, the Kaiser stated": When informed of the situation, the Kaiser stated, - Dank (push to talk)
• "most of the High Seas Fleet ... were": most of the High Seas Fleet ships ... were - Dank (push to talk)
• "the Allied fleet that was to escort": the Allied fleet that escorted. "Was to" can be an alternate form of the future-in-past tense, referring to an event in the future relative to the narrative before returning to the time of the narrative, or it can mean "was supposed to" or "was intended to". So, it's out of place here. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Those comments were all from Nov. 27. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I've fixed everything you suggested, Dan, with the exception of a couple I replied to specifically. Thanks for taking your scalpel to the prose and fixing what needed it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Now support. Less painful than a scalpel I hope. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I concur in that the name should be "SMS Großer Kurfürst (1913)" and add the {{foreignchar}} template. Example {{foreignchar|SMS Grosser Kurfuerst (1913)|ß|ü}} MisterBee1966 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Per WP:UE, titles should reflect what is commonly used in English-language sources, which commonly use the umlaut but very infrequently use the eszett. If memory serves me, the only English-language sources I've seen to use the eszett are Staff's book and Groner's (which is actually just a translation, so I'd say that's a bit of a stretch). Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand the argument that English sources use the "ß" less frequently than the Umlaute "ä", "ü" and "ö", I have to take your word here, but the Germans named the ship SMS Großer Kurfürst. Note: Swiss German doesn't even have the "ß" in their alphabet. A capitalized Umlaut such as "Ä" is always spelled "Ae" in Switzerland. But it just isn't right in German German and hurts my eyes. Sorry but I can't get myself to cope with this. It is just inconsistent. You use the "ü" in Kurfürst but refrain from using the "ß" in Großer. I fail to see the logic here even if some English sources refrain from using the "ß". Again, I am looking at this from a consistency point of view and not from your sources point of view. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
      • This is new in Chicago, and surprising (to me): Chicago 11.12 says: "Foreign words, phrases or titles that occur in an English-language work must include any special characters that occur in the original language." OTOH, if we're reading the English sources rather than the German ones, my experience has been the same as Parsecboy's, and we've got WP:UE to contend with. And AP Stylebook hasn't changed their position: no diacriticals (see "accent"). - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I reviewed this for GA and believe that it is in pretty good shape. I had another look over it today and only found a small thing, which I changed myself. I therefore support, albeit pending the implementation of Dank's comments above. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've read over this twice and can find nothing to fault it. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support w/ Comments:
  • 3rd para of "Service History" uses 'enemy' which should be removed to keep the article neutral.
  • "the decidedly close call at Jutland" sounds a little encyclopedic to me. Could it be a "close battle" or a "close fight" instead?
  • The current cite system makes it unclear which "Campbell" ref you are citing each time. Is there some way to make it more clear with each individual ref? —Ed!^(talk) 20:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Almirante Latorre-class battleship

Nominator(s): Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

The class article for the interesting story that is Chile's dreadnoughts. Both were taken over by the UK, one was returned to Chile in 1920, while the other was kept by the UK and converted into an aircraft carrier. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • The section on Almirante Cochrane/Eagle states that the ship was refitted from Oct. 1941 to February 1942, then goes on to say that the ship was torpedoed and sunk in Oct. 1941. The ship article states she was sunk in August 1942. What's going on here?
  • The specifications section seems to be rather light for the class article. Any chance of beefing it up a little more (like Rivadavia)?
  • The quote about Von der Tann needs a citation.
• That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Dates - wow, I screwed up big there, not sure how it happened. Fixed now.
  • Specs - I only have the basic Conway's for a major source. Rivadavia's entry had a lot on technical info... this one, not so much.
  • Quote - citation added. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good now - and there's only so much you can do when the information isn't there. Parsecboy (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Firstly, the infobox contains bullet points, and we reached a consensus some time ago at Wikiships that this should not be done. Secondly, the "Specifications" section comes last. This section usually comes before the "Service history" section. Gatoclass (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that was my oversight (it was carried over from Almirante Latorre's original infobox). I know how class articles are normally organized, but I'm trying to keep the story's flow intact. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

How would placing the Specs section above the "Service history" section interrupt the flow? It seems to me the natural place to put it - right after the launch and construction details, where it usually goes. It looks very odd being tacked on the end. Gatoclass (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Take a read through of the article in that part. It goes directly from launching -> buying by British. I know it's a bit odd (to me too; I normally put it right after the construction/launch section), but I believe splitting it would be worse. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, but I still see no reason why the specs section can't be in the same place as it is for every other ship article on the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I don't have a problem with the placement of the Specifications section. We've been having a problem getting people to look at ship articles at FAC, and part of the problem may be that they fall asleep before they can finish the first section, which comes across as too technical and obscure to many FAC reviewers. It's true that these sections are usually near the top, and it's a reasonable request to be consistent, but it's also a reasonable request to allow for some experimentation to see if we can get a better response from reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to propose such a change at Wikiships, you are entitled to do so, but you can be sure of my opposition. When I read an article about something, obviously I want a description of what that something is before I start reading about its history, that is the obvious sequence. If I don't know what it is I'm reading about in the first place, how can I hope to understand anything else about it? I'm sure there are some people who don't like the spec sections but they probably don't like warship articles much to begin with. Gatoclass (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to oppose what SHIPS wants, I'm trying to support what this editor wants; it's not an outrageous request. If this means you're opposing A-class promotion, please say so; I only have time to copyedit the A-class articles that have no current opposition. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no explicit style guide that dictates where it has to be, and I don't see much difference between the middle and end of the article. Also, FWIW, I hate specification sections but love warships. I don't really care about the specs aside from 'which battleship is more powerful', normally measured by gun size (for right or wrong, that's how they did it). What interests me is the geo-political debates that developed as countries acquired dreadnoughts. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a thought: we get friction sometimes over the wording of the first sentence of class articles. This one begins: "The Almirante Latorre class was originally a two-ship group ...". If people object again, I think this will work: "There were originally two ships in the Almirante Latorre class ... designed as super-dreadnought battleships ... Almirante Latorre was finished as a battleship, but Almirante Cochrane was converted to an aircraft carrier." - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Interesting thought, but I don't like it as much because it doesn't immediately identify the subject of the article. Is there a way we could reword it while keeping "The Almirante Latorre class ..."? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What you've got seems fine to me, this is just a suggestion in case you need it later on. - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Looking at this again, "built" still doesn't work for me. [The two-ship group of battleships was] "built by the British Armstrong Whitworth for the Chilean Navy. Only one, Almirante Latorre, was finished as a battleship ...". Generally "a battleship was built" means you get a battleship, not something else. Also, I believe acorazados means "battleships", but it's not clear from context whether it means that or "super-dreadnought battleships". - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• "which was much more advanced than her sister": which was closer to completion than her sister - Dank (push to talk)
• "Post-war, she was put": "Postwar" is an adjective, not an adverb, per Websters NWD, and there's no hyphen. "After the war, she was put" - Dank (push to talk)
• "The battleship instigated a 1931 naval mutiny": The crew of the battleship ... - Dank (push to talk)
• "She was scrapped only in 1959.": She was not scrapped until 1959. Also, you need a paragraph break here. (The narrative jumps to a different ship at a different time.) - Dank (push to talk)
• "military operations against natives": It's not easy but it's important to keep up to date on currently approved synonyms for "indigenous"; they tend to vary by country and by decade. "Natives" is probably not the best choice; "the native population" or "the indigenous population" would be better. I don't know the best choice, if there is one. - Dank (push to talk)
• "The genesis of the Almirante Latorre class was in the conflicting": It's perfectly okay to have a topic sentence that's a bit metaphorical, as long as it gives the reader a perspective that makes the paragraph easier to digest, and as long as the meaning of the topic sentence becomes clear by the time the reader finishes the paragraph. This topic sentence wouldn't be my choice, since the reader doesn't know by the end of the paragraph how the conflicts led to the creation of the class. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile designated £3,129,500 in 1887 to add to its fleet": Chile added £3,129,500 in 1887 to its fleet budget - Dank (push to talk)
• "A battleship, Capitán Prat, two protected cruisers, and two torpedo boats": The battleship Capitán Prat, two protected cruisers, and two torpedo boats (nonparallel elements in a list) - Dank (push to talk)
• More to come. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• "even after the 1891 civil war": even after Chile's civil war in 1891 (Argentina is mentioned before and after.) - Dank (push to talk)
• "in 1890–91": in 1890 and 1891 - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile one in 1892, Argentina purchased": Chile ordered one in 1892, Argentina purchased (nonparallel elements in a list) - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The two countries alternated cruiser orders: ... Each of these marked a small increase in capabilities from the ship previous.": probably "The two countries alternated orders for increasingly expensive cruisers:". I'm hoping "increase in capabilities" translates to more expensive. - Dank (push to talk)
• "Chile was forced to respond by": Chile responded by. Countries do what they want to do, generally; they often claim that they had no choice, but the claim generally isn't credible. - Dank (push to talk)
• "the American ambassador to Argentina William Paine Lord in 1899": the American ambassador to Argentina, William Paine Lord, in 1899. Appositives are often set off by commas, names especially. - Dank (push to talk)
• "letters of intent with Ansaldo": letters of intent with Italian engineering company Ansaldo (otherwise the readers have to click to know what you're talking about) - Dank (push to talk)
• "The growing dispute concerned the British" "concerned" in the sense of "was relevant to" or "disturbed"? - Dank (push to talk)
• "an eighteen-month advance notice": probably "18 months' advance notice", although there's an argument for "eighteen" - Dank (push to talk)
• "demilitarized": Add link to demilitarization. - Dank (push to talk)
• Okay I'm trying to limit my copyediting time to roughly an hour; take a whack at this, then I'll probably support just the parts I was able to cover (the intro and first subsection). - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dank and apologies for my delay in replying. I fixed all but your alternating comment, as I'm not completely sure they were more expensive – just that each was more powerful than the last. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Now supporting the parts I covered. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support
  • should ninteenth and twentieth centuries be 19th and 20th centuries respectively per WP:CENTURY?;
  • These sentences are problematic for me: "The crew of the battleship instigated a 1931 naval mutiny, and was kept on patrol during the Second World War. She was not scrapped until 1959." Firstly you are covering nearly tens years in a single sentence which seems to imply causality (i.e. one caused the other), while you might just consider saying "She was scrapped in 1959". Currently it almost sounds like a double negative to me;
  • The phrase "a 1931 naval mutiny" doesn't work for me, may be reword to something like "instigated a naval mutiny in 1931";
  • 'arms race' could be wikilinked;
  • Similiar to my comment for ARA Rivadavia, the reference style seems a little inconsistent. One example is your use of brackets for years in some and not others. Personnally use of a citation template would eliminate such problems but as I said above its up to you. For instance:
    • (NO BRACKETS) Hore, Peter. Battleships of World War I. London: Southwater, 2007. ISBN 1844763773. OCLC 77797289. vs
    • (BRACKETS) Kaldis, William Peter. "Background for Conflict: Greece, Turkey, and the Aegean Islands, 1912–1914." The Journal of Modern History 51, no. 2 (1979), D1119–D1146. JSTOR 1881125. ISSN 0022-2801. OCLC 62219150.
  • Otherwise another excellent article with little to fault it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your review! Regarding centuries, no, see WP:ORDINAL
      • Indeed it would seem that either is acceptable. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've reworked those sentences.
      • They look good now. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed to "naval mutiny in 1931"
    • Linked.
    • The article is an academic citation style. Please see "Chicago-Style Citation Quick Guide." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not disputing that you're using an academic style, I am merely questioning the inconsistency in the use of brackets around the year in your references. Per my example above in some places you do it and in others you do not. IMO whatever style you choose to use should be consistent (unless of course that is the Chigaco style in which case I withdraw the remark). Thats all I'm getting at. Anotherclown (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, that came across sounding angered, which I am certainly not! Look at the link I gave – whatever their reasons, that is Chicago format. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • No worries then. Anotherclown (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support: looks generally fine to me, just a couple of minor quibbles:
  • Citations # 12, 16 and 18 appear to be the same and should be consolidated with a WP:NAMEDREFS (as it has been done already with some others);
  • Citations # 17 and 18 appear to be the same (as per above);
  • Citations # 55 and 57 appear to be the same (as per above). AustralianRupert (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for looking at this, AR. All are now fixed! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries at all. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Japanese battleship Hiei

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof)

Hiei was the second of the Kongo battlecruisers, and the first one constructed in Japan. She underwent what was likely the most varied reconstructions of any of the warships, being converted to a training ship to avoid being scrapped in 1929, before being reconfigured as a fast battleship. This is the last of the Kongo battlecruiser articles left to go through ACR. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 16:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical comments

• Dab links: Henderson Field.
• External links: combinedfleet.com returns a redirect warning.
• Alt text: none present.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments -- Looks pretty good. Performed a light copyedit but generally prose seems fine, as do structure, coverage and referencing. A few points:

• Formatting inconsistencies... You say "6-inch (15 cm) 50-caliber medium guns in single casemates", then "The sixteen 6"/50 caliber guns". First off, why go to ' " ' for inch when you said "inch" before? Second, if "50-caliber" is hyphenated the first time, why not the next? I would say you should use "inch" everywhere, and hyphenate gun size/caliber everywhere as well. Note there are also instances under Service, particularly re. her reconstruction, where you drop the hyphenation -- pls make it consistent.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Spelling inconsistencies... I gather you're favouring US spelling throughout but I spotted "harbour" under Combat and loss -- pls fix and check elsewhere.

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Do "Training Ship" and "Fast Battleship" need to be in capital letters in the relevant subheadings?

they're official titles of ship type, I'd think so, but I'm open to changing them as well. thoughts? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well they're not capitalised anywhere in the text so it should be consistent one way or the other... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed for consistency, also dealt with disambig and external link issues. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 22:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't HMS Hermes (95) be piped to simply "HMS Hermes"?

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Images: Not sure about the licensing for the infobox illustration -- who exactly is granting usage under GNU? All other pics seem okay.

I'm pretty sure it's the same licensing as the line-drawings I've used on other japanese battlesship articles, in that the author of the images granted it. I'll doublecheck though. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 02:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's okay, I had another look myself and now that I've deciphered the author's signature I think it's cool. Happy to support now but can you respond to the query re. caps in the subheaders above? Also the Henderson Field dab (see Technical Comments) is still there... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - can't find any major issues. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments/questions:
  • What did Hiei do for rescue work in response to the 1923 earthquake?

none of my sources give exact details; they simply say that she did participate in rescue-work. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• • After the 1927 refit, how were the embarked floatplanes launched and recovered? Cla68 (talk) 10:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. "was demilitarized and converted": I'd prefer "was converted". - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "throughout the mid-1930s": in the mid-1930s - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Kongō class battlecruisers": hyphen - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Caption: "Hiei fitting out in Yokosuka, September 1913": Hiei's fitting-out in Yokosuka, September 1913 (no period). It's clearer this way that "fitting-out" is a noun. - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "they have been called the battlecruiser version": ... versions - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "With their heavy armament and armor protection (which took up 23.3% of their approximately 30,000 ton displacement)": I can't tell from the sentence whether the armor or the armament plus the armor constituted 23.3%. - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed I believe. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "in four twin turrets (two forward, two aft)": not a big deal, but it's best to avoid parentheses if there's an easy workaround, since they're a little ponderous. "in four twin turrets, two forward and two aft". OTOH, the "(all located amidships)" in the next paragraph is perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 04:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "could fire ... at a firing rate of ...": could fire at a rate of - Dank (push to talk)

That is a stupid redundancy on my part. Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "deploying more powerful vessels before their opponents": deploying powerful vessels before their opponents (wasn't clear what the vessels were more powerful than). - Dank (push to talk)

I'm confused. What I'm trying to say is that the warships the Japanese designed were deliberately more powerful than anything else in any other navy. I've changed to "more powerful vessels than their opponents", if that works as well. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That works. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "main-guns": main guns - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "dyes were introduced for the armor-piercing shells of the four Kongo-class battleships": It would help to add something like "so that gunners could distinguish the hits from a distance". - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "5–6 rounds per minute": "5 or 6 ..." or "between 5 and 6 ..." - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the former German colonies in the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands, and Palau": the former German colonies in Palau and in the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands. (In a list, put the compound element after the simple element(s).) - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "less active than during the war": less active after the war - Dank (push to talk)

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Second Reserve": would benefit from a quick explanation or link. - Dank (push to talk)

I've hunted through every reference material I have in my collection, Carleton's collection, and the interlibrary loan collection I have access to. Nowhere does anything specify what "first reserve" and "second reserve" are in terms of the difference between them. If I could fix this problem, I would. I'll ask cla68 if he's got anything. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "This resulted in the signing of the Washington Naval Treaty in 1922. Under the terms of the treaty,": "Under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922," - Dank (push to talk)

done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the size of the Imperial Japanese Navy was significantly lessened": the Imperial Japanese Navy was significantly reduced - Dank (push to talk)

done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• "in preparation for her demilitarization and reconstruction": would "decommissioning" work for you in place of "demilitarization", or does that not get the full meaning? - Dank (push to talk)

Decomissioning implies that the scrapyards are on the way. Hiei wasn't decommissioned from the navy, simply converted. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. I've copyedited articles on British battlecruisers that went through 3 cycles of commissioning and decommissioning. How about "in preparation for her reconstruction"? - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Please link the first occurrence of "demilitarize" or "demilitarization" to demilitarization. - Dank (push to talk) 21:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Okay I'm trying to limit my copyediting to around an hour per A-class review, so I'll stop here. Take a whack at these, and then I can probably support just the parts I had time to copyedit: look at: the introduction, first section, and first subsection after that. - Dank (push to talk)
• Looks good, now supporting the parts I looked at. - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a well-written and comprehensive article, but needs a bit more work to reach A class:
  • Why is her original armament the only feature of her design discussed in the 'Design and construction' section? (and is this really needed if she didn't differ from her sister ships when built?)
  • Russian battleship Imperator Nikolai I was named Iki and had most recently been a coast defence and training ship at the time she was sunk and hadn't been a 'Russian pre-dreadnought' for 10 years

I've added a bit about this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • What did being in 'Second Reserve' involve?

See above in answer to Dan as well. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It might be best to just say she was in 'reserve' then. Using a technical term you can't provide a definition for is probably best avoided when possible (I'd guess that the different categories of reserve referred to the resources set aside to crew and reactivate the ship) Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Why was her reconstruction halted by the London Treaty if it "restricted battleship construction" - the article previously stated that she was being demilitarised so that she was no longer considered a battleship (I presume that the definition of 'battleship' was widened to avoid dodges such as this)

I'm not as familiar w/ the London Treaty as the Washington, but my guess is that you're probably correct; the definition was likely widened to stop navies like Japan's from bending the rules. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • The first paragraph of the '1942: Combat and loss' section needs to note that she was operating with the carrier force during its operations off the Netherlands East Indies in February and March 1942; the article currently implies that she was operating independently

I'm not entirely sure which passage you're referring to. Could you specify a sentence? Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"In February, she deployed alongside a force of carriers and destroyers in response to American raids on Japanese bases in the Gilbert and Marshall Islands.[5] On 1 March, following carrier operations against Darwin and Java, Hiei, Kirishima and Chikuma engaged the destroyer USS Edsall (DD-219), with Hiei firing 210 14-inch and seventy 6-inch shells. When the ships failed to score any hits, dive-bombers from three of Admiral Nagumo's carriers immobilized the destroyer, which was then sunk by gunfire from the three ships." - it should be clearly noted that she sortied again with the carriers after the raid on the Gilbert and Marshalls, which led to the actions near the NEI. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed I believe. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• • The Australian town of 'Port Darwin' only exists in some American-authored literature on World War II - the town was called by its present name of 'Darwin' at the time.

Fixed and properly linked. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • "However, shells from San Francisco disabled Hiei's steering machinery." is currently unreferenced

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Was Hiei located and photographed by Robert Ballard during his expedition to the Solomon Islands? Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe so. They located Kirishima, but from what I know of the expedition they didn't manage to locate Hiei. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 20:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • The first sentence in the lead doesn't work for me: "Hiei (比叡?) was a warship of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War I and World War II." Surely the battleship didn't just serve during the wars but in between them as well? Maybe reword?
    • She definitely did serve in between the wars, but that's where her prominence lies. I'm mostly following convention from Japanese battleship Haruna, which I've used as the template for the subsequent class articles.
      • It still seems imprecise to me and I believe it should be reworded, but if you don't want to I won't hold up the review to insist on it. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The second last sentence it the lead also seems awkward: "After inflicting heavy damage on American cruisers and destroyers, Hiei was crippled by American vessels." May something like: "After inflicting heavy damage on a number of American cruisers and destroyers, Hiei was crippled."
    • would "enemy vessels" work better? I want to make it clear who was doing the crippling. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes. It works for me in this case because the subject of the article is the ship itself, not the battle, where the term might come across as POV. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The tense in this sentence seems troublesome: "The four battlecruisers of the Kongō-class were designed to match the naval capabilities of the other major powers at the time; they have been called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin." Why not something like: "The four battlecruisers of the Kongō-class were designed to match the naval capabilities of the other major powers at the time and were called the battlecruiser versions of the British (formerly Turkish) battleship HMS Erin."
    • Except they weren't considered that equivalent until well after all four had been sunk; it's only in subsequent scholarship and analysis that they've been compared to HMS Erin. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries, it could still be reworded to be more clear IMO. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the words 'antiaircraft' and 'antiship' be hypenated (i.e anti-ship)?
    • Webster's NWD and Merriam-Webster say "antiaircraft". I assume anti-ship should be hyphenated. - Dank (push to talk) 06:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Acknowledged. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The first sentence in the 1914-1929 section is repetative: "On 4 August 1914, Hiei was formally commissioned and attached to the Sasebo Naval District, before being attached to the Third Battleship Division of the First Fleet two weeks later." (you use attached twice in the same sentence);
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Use of the terms 'First World War' and 'World War I' interchangably. Please pick one and use it consistently; and
    • Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • You seem to have used an inconsistent short citation style in the inline citations: in some instances you have just used author and page (e.g Frank, pp. 167–172) and in others you have used author, date and page (e.g. Jackson (2000), p. 72 ). AFAIK both are correct although I prefer author, date and page. Regardless please choose one and use it consistantly.
    • That was a carry-over from previous articles where I had two jackson books. I've fixed this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • This actually seems to be worse now... you seem to use three different citations now: (1) Jackson with no year (2) Jackson (2000) and (3) Jackson (2007). In the references section you only list Jackson 2000 though. Maybe I'm missing something thats really obvious to everyone else but this just seems wrong to me. Meanwhile the inline citation style remains inconsist per my original comments. Anotherclown (talk) 06:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah. that did mess it up further. I use the year for Jackson because there's two different Jackson books. It's the only way to differentiate between them (publishing year). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
          • I must not be explaining this very well because it is still incorrect. I have gone ahead and added dates to all inline citations for consistency now so this mostly solves this concern. However you have two inline citations which are not supported by a reference. Specifically # 4 Jackson (2008), p. 27 and # 11 McLaughlin, pp. 44–45. Neither of these citations correspond with an entry in the references section so I cannot fix this myself. Please add them to the references section. Anotherclown (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh! I get it now! I've added the books. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Yep thats it. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Otherwise this is an excellent article and I will gladly support when these issues are resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Support
  • the Advisor script reports that there might be an error with the ISBNs for Schom and Willmott, could you please check these?;

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't, these should probably be presented in a consistent style;

Done. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes there is "Gardiner and Gray (1980), p. 234", however, in the References the only work I can find by Gardiner and Grey has a 1984 publication date;
    • Can you please check this one, it still appears to be an issue? AustralianRupert (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It's actually 1984

• • in the Notes there is "Stille (2004)" and "Stille (2008)", but in the References only "Stille 2008";
    • Damn... this was my mistake. It is meant to be 2008 but I must have muffed it when adding the dates to the citations. I have fixed this now. My apologies. Anotherclown (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Notes there is "Willmott (2002)", but the work appears to be by Willmott and Keegan, so I think the short citation should be "Willmott and Keegan (2002)", given that you have "Gardiner and Grey";

That's because I ended up using a different version of the book. I've changed the citations to reflect this. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes there is inconsistency with the use of italics for the Parshall, Hackett et al source (e.g. Citation # 2 is in italics, but # 5 and 7 are not). These should be consistent;

Fixed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• • in the Notes most of the web citations are formatted as "Retrieved 26 February 2009", but then with Citation # 2 you have "Retrieved 2009-02-11". These should be consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 18:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Closed with consensus to promote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 08:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria for consideration for promotion to A-class status. The article is a co-nomination between me and Sturmvogel 66. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - from the top
  • Infobox and Lead
    • In the opening sentence of the lead, I'd maybe reverse the two bits, noting first that she was the first purpose-built aircraft carrier in the world.
    • Do we know where she was scrapped? It might be good to mention that in the lead.
      • The location is given in the last paragraph. I don't really think that the location is important enough for the lede.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Design and Description
    • Hōshō was the second warship after the British Hermes to be designed from the beginning as a carrier and the first to be launched.[4] - there's something awkward about this wording. I'd maybe rephrase to "Hosho was the second warship after the British Hermes to be designed from the beginning as an aircraft carrier, but was completed and launched earlier than Hermes". I'm not entirely sure what to do with this particular sentence, but it's very difficult to read.
    • Could you maybe explain what the revisions that were forced by Argus and Furious observation were?
      • Yeah, let me take this exam and I'll dig it out.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
      • First suggestion done. Cla68 (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I've clarified the design process, is it clearer now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Service
    • When it specifies that she was attached to the Main Body at the Pearl Harbor attack, could we possibly specify which battleships they were? It mentions eight but I can only think of six (the two Ise, two Fuso and two Nagato, the Kongos were w/ the strike force or w/ Kondo near Singapore).
    • Similarly, the composition of the Main Body at Midway in terms of heavy ships would be helpful.
    • What exactly is a "special guard ship"?
      • I have no idea, but perhaps Cla68 does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Done. You're right, there appears to have been only six battleships in the Main Body during Pearl Harbor. I've notified Mr. Tully that the TROM might need a check on that number. The sources don't explain what a "Special Guard Ship" is. In my opinion, it means a high-sounding name was given to a large ship that has been dedicated to local, last ditch, likely suicidal, defense of the Japanese homeland, but my opinion doesn't count since I'm not a reliable source. Cla68 (talk) 10:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Other than that, superb work! Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- performed a light copyedit but I really see no issues here, structure/prose/referencing/coverage/illustrations all appear fine -- well done! One minor thing, you should probably be consistent linking publishing locations in the bibliography -- couple are (twice in one case), most aren't, should be all or nothing (but without dups). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I've deleted all links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • no dabs, ext links work (no action required);
  • Check the mark up coding for Citation # 23 "; Watts, p. 169; Evans, p. 315; Parshall and Tully, p. 7" - seems to be an out of place punctuation mark;
  • Citation # 40: " Parshall and Tully, pp. 385-393; Tully" - should have an endash;
  • some of your citations end with full stops and some don't (e.g. Citation # 28 and 29) - should be consistent;
  • the titles in the References should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g. the Evans work should be Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887–1941";
  • some of the works in the References should have endashes added to the year ranges in the titles (e.g. Howarth, Jentschura). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Cla68 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. Periods in last two captions: see WP:MOSCAPTION. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "purpose-designed": "purpose-built" and similar are chiefly British. The most common American translation is "special-purpose", but in this case maybe: "... the first ship ever commissioned that was designed and built as an aircraft carrier." - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The ship, commissioned in 1922, was ...": Commissioned in 1922, the ship was. As a rule of thumb, minimize the number of pauses and parenthetical statements. (However, don't move a parenthetical phrase to the beginning if it's not short and the readers might be surprised when they get to the subject.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "testing ... air operations techniques": It would be better to say what techniques you're talking about. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "during its career", "after her return": either gender is fine, but be consistent. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The small size of the ship and its assigned airgroups (usually around 15 aircraft), however, limited the effectiveness of its contributions to combat operations.": not sure what to do with this; probably deleting the sentence would be best, and stick "small ship" and "usually around 15 aircraft" somewhere in this paragraph or the first paragraph. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Well, the size of the ship was significant into why she was placed in reserve status after the early stages of the Sino-Japan War. I added a transitional phrase to the next sentence to show why that factoid is included where it is. Cla68 (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• "During World War II the only battle in which Hōshō participated was the Battle of Midway in June 1942 in which ...": not sure how to reword it, but it's generally a bad idea to have "in which" twice. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• "survived the war having suffered only minor damage": survived the war with only minor damage. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The original requirement for Hōshō was for a seaplane tender based on the design of the British ...": probably "Hōshō was planned as a seaplane tender like the British ...". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• "with a flying-off deck forward and the ability to carry 32 aircraft with four ...": Less precise but shorter and probably better is "with a flying-off deck forward, 32 aircraft, and four ...". - Dank (push to talk) P.S. Or "thirty-two aircraft, and four ..." per the suggestion for parallelism in WP:ORDINAL ... I never know what will fly, haha. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• "afterwards": afterward in AmEng, afterwards in BritEng per Chicago 5.220. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "reports were received from an observer of the landing trials conducted on Furious and others who inspected HMS Argus, the world's first flush-decked aircraft carrier, that forced the revision ...": "that forced" is too far away from what it's modifying, "reports". - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done. Cla68 (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The flight deck was modified as one continuous deck by deleting the superstructure and the funnels were moved to one side, turning the ship into an aircraft carrier rather than a seaplane tender.": probably "The superstructure was removed and the funnels were moved to one side to create an unobstructed flight deck, and the ship was reclassified as an aircraft carrier." Some don't like the passive voice, and you could say who's doing the reclassifying if you like. - Dank (push to talk)
• "She was given a full-length flight deck and a small island.": This comes right after the above, so it's not clear whether you're talking about a new refit or just describing the same refit in different words, which probably isn't necessary. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I've combined and partially rewritten the two paragraphs to address the 3 points above. How does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The funnels did not protrude from the side of the hull and the flight deck had to be narrowed to accommodate them.": I can't get an image of how this works. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Deleted as extraneous detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Hōshō's designed speed was reduced to 25 knots": My understanding is that you don't get a reduction in speed by intending to reduce speed, it's a byproduct of something else, such as extra width or extra armor. - Dank (push to talk)
  • They just reduced the required speed to 25 knots as 30 knots was no longer thought desireable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "a overall length": an - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "take-off": takeoff (much more common in AmEng per Webster's NWD and Merriam-Webster Collegiate) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "conn": a little informal, at least at first occurrence - Dank (push to talk)
  • Changed to bridge.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "well forward, on the starboard side and ...": parenthetical phrases need either two commas or none. None would probably be better here. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "their light weight meant that they were vulnerable": their light weight made them vulnerable - Dank (push to talk)
  • Much better phrasing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "a collapsible crane intended to load aircraft": "Intended" always raises at least the possibility that it was never actually used for the purpose. If you don't want to suggest that, then "a collapsible crane for loading aircraft" is better. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Agreed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "The flight deck, unlike those on Royal Navy carriers, was superimposed on the ship's hull rather than constructed as a strength deck supporting the carrier's hull structure": "The flight deck was superimposed on the ship's hull and did not support the carrier's hull structure, as on Royal Navy carriers." (Was this true for all RN carriers?). - Dank (push to talk)
  • Evans may be wrong here as the only existing RN carrier that might actually use the flight deck as a strength deck is Argus. But I'll have to check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Both Argus and Hermes, the only two real RN carriers in existence both used the flight deck as a strength deck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• "nine small aircraft like fighters": up to nine small aircraft, such as fighters. (Comma before a non-restrictive phrase.) - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "16.5 by 14 meters (54 ft 2 in × 45 ft 10 in)": I'm not sure, but "by" in the first and "x" in the second seems unusual. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I'm not sure what's going on here as the code is identical in both cases.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "six large aircraft like torpedo bombers as well as ...": six large aircraft, such as torpedo bombers, as well as. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "(34.0 by 25.8 ft) in size": not a big deal, but it makes sense to me to reserve "in size" for the places where some readers might not be sure; here, you don't need it. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "14 cm/50 3rd Year Type guns": It might be helpful to write a new section for our article on the 20 cm/50 3rd Year Type naval gun, and link to that section. Up to you. - Dank (push to talk)
• (down the page) "0530": needs at least a colon. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• Okay I'm trying to keep it to an hour per article, so I'll stop after the intro and the first section. Give it a shot, then I can come back and support just the part I've covered. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• You don't need to go to the trouble of giving me links, I'll just pull up the diff of everything at once to check it. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Supporting the parts I covered, but the second sentence in the intro should be broken into two sentences, and remember not to have non-parallel items in a comma-delimited list. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• No consensus to promote at this time. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

First Crusade

Nominator(s): —MC10 (T•C•GB•L)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is currently a GA, it passes all of the five criteria listed here, and some more input for FA would be appreciated. Any suggestions and requests for improvement are welcome. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Skimming the article, I'm impressed with the language, scholarship, and breadth. But the lead section, particularly the first paragraph, is hopelessly POV, in the sense that the guys on the other side would disagree with just about all of the phrasing and ideas. There are three perspectives on the First Crusades (I prefer the "s" but won't push it), and each perspective deserves representation in the lead:
  • The perspective currently embodied in the first paragraph.
  • The perspective of the defenders: after 461 years of relative (by the standards of the time) stability, enlightenment, and tolerance for other religions and other points of view, some invaders came, committed a number of atrocities, broke all their promises concerning what would happen with the conquered lands, and then left, committing more atrocities on the way home.
    • Question: Are these "invaders" the Seljuq Turks or crusaders? —mc10 (u|t|c) 05:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Understood that the Seljuqs were also brutal; I'm talking about the Knights. - Dank (push to talk) 06:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Alright, thanks for the clarification. —mc10 (u|t|c) 03:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The perspectives of the various Western rulers: most of them had various goals and subgoals which had little to do with reclaiming Jerusalem and everything to do with expanding their reach or strengthening their hold on power. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• I won't oppose while I'm on vacation. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• I see you've been working on the article for a while now, which is great, but this subject is a massive one, and a lot of Wikipedians have worked on it for years. It would be best to notify the major contributors if you haven't already; we need to see if they currently have time to respond to any questions that come up. If not, this may not be the best time for an A-class review, but I don't want to jinx it; we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have notified the major contributors to the article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Considering the above, you may find this editorial helpful. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Noted. —mc10 (u|t|c) 02:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. No progress. - Dank (push to talk) 15:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• No consensus to promote at this time. AustralianRupert (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Doomsday

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets all of the criteria, but I'd also like to see how it would fare further up the chain. As far as I know, this article covers everything I've been able to find in english-language sources. I suspect there would be more in Norwegian, but I can't find them, let alone access them. I've also scoured my sources for anything on the liberation of Norway, and found very little I could add for context - it seems to be one of those areas very few historians are interested in. Skinny87 (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very good article, and I'm close to supporting it, but I think it needs a little more work:
  • It seems more accurate to say that the operation was conducted 'following the end of the Second World War in Europe' rather than 'during the Second World War'

Added, that was an easy one!

• • The first paragraph probably goes into too much detail, and is unclear as a result - it should provide a high-level summary of this operation (eg, where the 1st AB division landed, that the operation was successful, etc).

That's the first para of the lede, right? Just to be clear as I'm going. Skinny87 (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Still a tad rusty at ledes, but how does that read?

I've simplified it a bit further Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • I was a bit suprised to read that the initial occupation force planned for Norway "was composed primarily of Norwegian troops, plus a British contingent (initially 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division)" given that the Free Norwegian Army was very small (only a battalion or at most a brigade, from memory) - are you sure that this is accurate?

I did make a small mistake. Otway states that the Norwegian element was 'all Norwegian troops who had been training in Scotland', which I've amended the article to show. Hart also makes the point that Force 134 also included the 12,000 Norwegian police in Sweden, and I've made this clear. Unfortunately, that's all I have on the composition of 134.

• • "4th Parachute Brigade, had been disbanded and its battalions merged with those of 1st Parachute Brigade in the aftermath of the Battle of Arnhem.[7] and was replaced by 1st Independent Polish Parachute Brigade" is a bit unclear - this should probably be two sentences

Indeed, and I've gone and done this.

• • "There were also fears that the German forces might refuse to surrender and resist the Allied occupation forces instead, as some pockets of resistance had done in the rest of Europe" is also over-complex and repeditive

Yes, I see what you mean. I've rewritten it, taking out the last part of that sentence as it isn't really needed for context, and merged in the Kriegsmarine part. What do you think?

Looks good

• • Can you expand on what the resistance from U-Boat captains was?

Baynes literally just says 'resistance', but I've posted queries to MILHIST and SHIPS to see if anyone can shed more light on this. I have to say that I'm rather intrigued myself - was it bluster, or gunfire?

Madsen, which I've now added for a quote, has some pages on Norway. But unlike the other sources, he doesn't mention any resistance from U-Boat captain's in Norway at all. Just a fairly smooth operation by very few Allied personnel. So I'm stumped for the moment. Skinny87 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just checked my copy of Clair Blair's Hitler's U-Boat War and he has nothing on the topic (his coverage of the surrender of the U-boat forces at the end of the war is surprisingly brief what what are two incredibly detailed books). Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Also, the statement that this was the only cause of problems seems to partially contradict the previous sentence that " they were greeted enthusiastically by the Norwegian population in Oslo, and encountered little resistance from German troops" which indicates that there was also some resistance in Oslo)

That might just be my poor writing, as there wasn't any resistance in Oslo as far as I know. Does it look okay now?

I have a query here. I have the following from Hart, p. 248: "Immediately after Bohme surrendered, Mil-org's highly-organized and well-armed troops, some 40,000 strong, emerged into the open throughout the country to carry out the peace-keeping role for which they had been trained. These forces not only had to prevent the Wehrmacht from sabotaging power stations and communications, but also had to oversee the movement of German troops from their quarters in Norwegian towns and villages to their alloted reservations. It required considerable tact and firmness both to get German forces into their reservations and to prevent Norwegian retaliation." That does elaborate slightly on what happened to the Germans as they surrendered, but it's so vague and doesn't really mention the paratroopers themselves that I'm wary about adding anything using it. That's the only mention of its kind in my sources - what do you think? Skinny87 (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• • "doing all they could to make their time in the country a positive one" makes it sound like the division was on holiday!

Yes, I see what you mean. I deleted that, it's rather superfluous given the rest of the sentence anyway.

• • How did the division discover the fate of the men of Operation Freshman? (and I think that the amount of detail on this operation could be reduced a bit) Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything out specifically about how the found out. I reduced the detail as well - is is still too large?

Looks good Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent comments, Nick. I'll start working on them immediately. Skinny87 (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Righto, that should be everything now. Skinny87 (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments on the lead section:
• "air-transported portion": too informal. - Dank (push to talk)
• "between 9th-11th May": "The 9th" is okay but "9th May" isn't; see WP:DATE. Also, no hyphen in number ranges of any kind. Also, "between" requires "and", not a dash (per discussions at WT:MOS, I'll hunt up a link if you want it). - Dank (push to talk)
• "occupation force": see WP:EGG. "Force 134, the occupation force." - Dank (push to talk)
• "Planning for the occupation of Norway had begun in mid-1943, with the units assigned to it known as Force 134.": Omit the "with" clause. - Dank (push to talk)
• "The British contingent for Doomsday was initially 52nd (Lowland) Infantry Division, but was later replaced by the 1st Airborne Division": There's a missing "the". - Dank (push to talk)
• "was delivered to General": not wrong, but better is "was delivered on 8 May to General". - Dank (push to talk)
• "Despite fears of continued German resistance, the division encountered few problems.": Not a big deal, but I'd prefer "The division encountered little of the expected German resistance." - Dank (push to talk)
• "During its time in Norway, the division helped welcome back ...": not wrong, but the implied "helped ... look" and "helped ... protect" are a little tenuous. One alternative is: "The division's duties in Norway included ...". - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

All done except the date change - I'm rather confused over what I have to do there, date MoS was never my strongest point. Skinny87 (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• "the command of Headquarters Scottish Command, which had been commanded ...", "British High Command hoped that Thorne taking command of Scottish Command": Each has one "command" too many. - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just been dealt with, and I think that's everything! Skinny87 (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral because of the outstanding opposes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

SupportComment - some prose work is needed:

• Lead, "looked after Allied ex-prisoners of war held captive prior to the German surrender" Obviously they had been held captive if they are ex-prisoners of war - you can probably remove after "war" as being redundant.
• Lead, "when it transferred back to Britain and was disbanded two months later". You have the division taking action "it transferred" and then action being taken to it "was disbanded". Either say "was transferred...was disbanded" or "it transferred...and disbanded". Also true at the end of the Aftermath section.
• Background, "in the aftermath of the unconditional surrender of Germany since mid-1943." This could be read as Germany had been surrendering since mid-1943...
• Do we need three redlinks to Operation Apostle in the first three paragraphs (one in lead, one in background, one in infobox)?
• Background, "In its place Thorne was later given the". Is "later" really necessary - it seems obvious that it was later
• 1st Airborne Division, "This was an important port which would be used by the Royal Navy to sweep the surrounding waters for mines." The port wasn't going to be used to sweep for mines - it was used as a base to sweep for mines (I'm assuming).
• Occupation duties, "Although somewhat nervous given the group's small size". Were they nervous or was the population nervous?
• Occupation duties, "None of the men who survived the crashes remained alive for very long, and were executed shortly after capture." The first clause is partially redundant to the second - perhaps reword to something like "The men who survived the crashes were executed shortly after being captured."
• Just as a note, dmy dates don't have commas in them, see WP:DATES. I think I got all of them, but just FYI.

The research, sources and images look good, but the prose needs a bit of polishing. (Note, I edit conflicted with Dank, so there might be some repetition here). Dana boomer (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for this. I knew that prose would be the main problem, so I'll start combing it through next. Skinny87 (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, I've hit all of the listed prose above. I'll go through the article myself to look for things, but as I said it's always been my weakness. Would you have the time to kindly go through it, if possible? If not, I'll try and find another copy-editor. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just one of my comments left, plus I agree with Dank's first comment (on the first sentence) which hasn't been dealt with yet. I've made a few more copyedit tweaks (I had gone through fairly thoroughly before posting my comments here), feel free to revert if you don't like them. Dana boomer (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There's been a whole host of copy-edits to the lede, and I think your last point has been solved now! Thanks once again for the help! Skinny87 (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks good now. Thanks for the quick responses. Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Most of the grammar is to my satisfaction to be honest (post adjustments highlighted above), so only 2 comments to make really:

• I really think that the Operation Infobox is more appropriate for an operation of this nature (that occurred after the war, didn't result in a conflict and has no meaningful statistics for one side). In fact I think you can put more information into it than the conflict one allows.

Yes, I see what you mean. Replaced the infobox and added some more details, ie casualties. Skinny87 (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is is possible to flesh out the SAS Brigade info a little? The link is a redirect to the general SAS article with only a sparse bit of history about their organisation at this time. Interestingly though it does mention French and Belgian units.

Otherwise I think its great (but I would say that as I passed its GA!). Ranger Steve ^Talk 20:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look around and see what I can find, but no promises unfortunately. Skinny87 (talk) 07:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gah, no dice thus far. I have a few SAS books, but even the latest one by Asher doesn't have more than a sentence on Norway, and even then it doesn't mention the Brigade itself. Still, I'll keep on trying. Skinny87 (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Article is POV.

I would characterize this article as significantly biased toward the British POV. There is no description of the German forces in Norway beyond a count and commander. Their distribution (geographic and military-hierarchical) is not given at all; even the major units (like, I'm guessing from 5 minutes Googling, 20th Mountain Army) are not identified. This should include at least a brief accounting of what those forces were expected or ordered to be doing before the surrender arrived (defense? suppression of dissent? preparing a new offensive of some sort? withdrawing to Germany proper?)

Lesser issues:

• Who was responsible for identifying and establishing the "collection points" for disarmament? Where were they?
• Was the collection and disarmament completed by the 1st Airborne or still ongoing when they left?
• Characterize if possible the extent of the mine-clearing problem: where, how many, etc.
• Was there any civilian leadership in Norway that needed to be dealt with (either collaborators or Germans), or was Norway under military rule at the time?
• I'm a big fan of maps; this article doesn't have one. (Show Nazi unit dispositions, at least on large scale, and the operation's key points.)
• Do we know who the diplomats/Heralds were (on both sides)?
• Did the commanders (Bohme and Thorne/Urquhart) ever meet? A description of some first contacts would be useful; as it is described now, troops land and seem to suddenly be in control, and there is no obvious transition of power. (I realize there might not be one; this needs to be made more explicit if so.)

It's a decent job, Skinny, but you've only told part of the story. I'd be somewhat surprised if there aren't sources to tell at least some of the other side's story. Magic♪piano 18:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. Yes, now I look it over of course I see the massive blind spot I've had. I guess I should archive this now - plenty of work to do, and I suspect a lot of it will be impossible to find in English sources. Well, thanks for helping finding these anyway, it's much appreciated; it would have been embarrassing if I'd tried to go to FAC with those gaps! Skinny87 (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I found some interesting things while Googling that go part of the way; I'll leave pointers on the talk page. Magic♪piano 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

I have to agree with Magicpiano; as currently structured the article needs far better coverage of the Germans' actions. If this is done then I'd suggest renaming the article to Liberation of Norway 1945 or somesuch as it would have much more comprehensive coverage of the whole surrender/liberation than just the British piece of the operation.

However, it could be reworked as the British occupation/liberation only as implied by the title. --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a seperate article (Doomsday, the 1st Airborne section) to Apostle (the entire liberation of Norway) just to let you know. It's simply that the latter hasn't been written yet due to a lack of sources, and I'd oppose altering the article from the focus on 1st ABN. Just FYI. Skinny87 (talk) 06:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Skinny87, great work on this, even if it's just 1st Airborne Division. Please do try to add a little on the German forces/actions. This is because, as you say, it's going to be a while before Apostle is written, and meanwhile yours will be the default Apostle article. Have you linked this article into the History of Norway article and its' appropriate century-or-whatever subdivision articles? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Co-ordinator comment (not part of review): This ACR will be due for closing shortly (in 2 days), given that there are two opposes it would most likely need to be closed as "no concensus to promote". Before this happens, though, I just wanted to check whether or not these opposes still stood. It appears to me (from an uninvolved perspective) that the nominator might have addressed these concerns. As such, would those who opposed mind stating explicitly whether or not they are still opposed, or are happy with the changes. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Although a fair amount of work has been done to address my bias concerns, I don't think the work is complete. Most of the items I listed under "Lesser issues" above remain unaddressed. I didn't really expect Skinny (nor did he, the way I read his response to my comments) to address all of my issues in the timeframe of this review. Thus, I still oppose. Magic♪piano 15:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • No worries, cheers for clearing that up. Anotherclown (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Unless I'm mistaken from reading the article and the reviews above it would seem to me that the POV issues have been largely resolved (although the opposes haven't been struck yet);
  • Maybe I'm being dense but I was a little confused as to how Operation Doomsday fitted in to Operation Apostle - could a sentence be added to clarify this?
  • Overall I think this article is quite good though and I will be happy to support if the other issues have been resolved. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Magersfontein

Nominator(s): Farawayman (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Socrates2008 and I have been doing a lot of work on this article and we believe it now meets A-Class criteria. Review and opinions would be most appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 08:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments See WP:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• "at Magersfontein hills": either "at Magersfontein Hills" (if that's a proper noun) or "in the hills near Magersfontein" (if it's not). - Dank (push to talk) 20:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• The prose is 50kB, so the lead probably needs a little more to adequately summarize this article, per WP:LEAD. - Dank (push to talk)

• Expanded Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I fixed the link for Black Week. - Dank (push to talk)

• Thank you

• "foreign volenteers": volunteers - Dank (push to talk)

• Fixed Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "decimated": this literally means originally meant the loss of a tenth, but many readers these days think it means "annihilated", and I see from the text that you're going for the latter sense. Best not to use the word at all, since people aren't sure what it means any more. - Dank (push to talk)

• Dictionary definition seems to fit, but have changed one of the instances. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, and I should have been clear that this one was a personal judgment call, because I can't find a recent style guide that dislikes the word. The "deci-" in the word and the original meaning tend, IMO, to confuse the issue enough so that people aren't positive what it means. Even without that problem, the meaning varies in practice from "more than half" to "all but a tenth" to "almost all". In this case, if I understand correctly, all but seven were casualties. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Nevertheless, his army drove the Boers out of their defensive positions at Belmont, Graspan and the Modder River, and advanced to within 16 miles (26 km) of Kimberley. The Battle of Modder River temporarily exhausted both sides, with the British having lost a thousand men, killed and wounded in these three battles.": don't jump around. That is, you mention 3 engagements, then the result of the advance, then you mention the last engagement, then the consequences of all 3 engagements. It's easier to digest if you keep it linear, something like: "Nevertheless, his army drove the Boers out of their defensive positions at Belmont, Graspan and the Modder River, at the cost of a thousand casualties. Both sides were exhausted, and the British stopped their advance within 16 miles (26 km) of Kimberley." - Dank (push to talk)

• Done Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Methuen was forced to delay at the river crossing for several days while supplies and reinforcements were brought forward and the railway bridge (which the Boers had previously blown up) was repaired. In addition, the need for troops to protect his extended supply line from Boer sabotage was essential.": I think this is what you mean, but I'm not sure: "Methuen was forced to delay at the river crossing for several days while supplies and reinforcements were brought forward, a railway bridge destroyed by the Boers was repaired, and fresh troops were brought in to protect his extended supply line from Boer sabotage." - Dank (push to talk)

• Rewritten Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "The Boers in turn, were badly shaken ...": I can't be sure since this is British English; "in turn" usually has a sense of sequential actions in AmEng. "The Boers were also badly shaken ..." - Dank (push to talk)

• Done Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Also at Ladysmith": At Ladysmith. - Dank (push to talk)

• DoneSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Their total force numbered 8,500 fighters, with camp-followers ...": not sure if you're including the camp followers in the total. (No hyphen in "camp followers" in AmEng, not sure about BritEng.) - Dank (push to talk)

• DoneSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "crescent shaped": crescent-shaped

• SortedSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "straddling both the road and the railway line, to which Methuen's advance was bound": "both" is a tough word to get right. Roughly speaking, if the reader expects that the advance would be able to come either way and wants to know that both are blocked, "both" is good. If the reader doesn't have that mental picture, then "both" is probably redundant here. "Bound" doesn't sound like a good choice to me, but it might be the BritEng language barrier again. And I wouldn't say my destination was a road if I was walking along the road. - Dank (push to talk)

• DoneSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "was 2-mile (3.2 km) long": was 2 miles (3.2 km) long - Dank (push to talk)

• DoneSocrates2008 (Talk) 12:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• "North-Easterly": north-easterly (I think). - Dank (push to talk) P.S. Looking at the map of the battlefield, I'd describe the direction of the fence as north-northeast. - Dank (push to talk) 22:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Done - moved the fence to run north-northeast! Farawayman (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• This was almost all in the first section and first subsection, so there's more to do here than I have time for. You can ask for copyeditors (and you may need to offer to swap favors) at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests or WT:MILHIST or on this page.

Done - requested a further independent ce from the Guild. Farawayman (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll check back later. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be starting copy edits tonight and will try to be done some time tomorrow. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Diannaa - thanks for the Copy Edit! Farawayman (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. I did another pass today, and also tidied up the references. Don't be surprised though if Dank finds some more stuff to do; he is wise. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Truth. Here's an actual photo. - Dank (push to talk) 17:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought you looked more like this. I must have a bad internet connection. -Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• What's the thinking on "Scholtz Nek (28°54′42″S 24°42′27″E) and Spytfontein (28°52′56″S 24°41′00″E)"? In general, if people want technical details on anything, such as the coordinates of a location, aren't they going to follow the link to the location? I was watching Charlie Rose's recent interview of Jimmy Wales tonight; the one thing Charlie complained about was too much extraneous stuff (if I understood him rightly). Do these locations fail notability requirements for a stub? - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

People seem to have different opinions on this - personally I don't mind it, but others seem to dislike it. There are many FA articles that use this format, but if it troubles you, a note might make this more acceptable (e.g. Siege of Kimberley) Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please move it to a note. See MOS:ICON: "Do not use icons in general article prose." Chicago doesn't approve either, although I can't find a good quote at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates moved from text to notes section as recommended. Concur with the logic and the need for the move. Farawayman (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've done another copyedit of the introduction, the first section and the subsection after that; new problems were introduced in recent editing. I can now:
• support just those sections. I haven't looked at the rest, except for the collapse-box that's still there and shouldn't be per WP:SCROLL. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed the "Orders" section which used to be in a collapsible text box. The gist of the orders are already contained in the text in the "British Plan" section. Farawayman (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks quite good to me. I have the following comments, which are mainly just style and presentation nitpicks:
  • is there are way to split the lead into maybe three paragraphs? Currently the first paragraph is quite long;
    • Fixed by Socrates. Farawayman (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Reinforcements arrive section, this sentence needs a citation: "The gap created by the hurried withdrawal of the Highland Brigade was filled by the Gordons and the Scots Guards";
    • Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Strategic consequences section, "politicians in England" - should this be "politicians in Britain?";
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Footnotes subsection, some of the notes end with full stops and some don't - should be consistent (I suggest that they should all have them);
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Footnotes subsection, I suggest replacing <references group="Note"/> with {{Reflist|group=Note}} as this will mean the Footnotes appear the same size as the Citations;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Citations sometimes you have "Conan-Doyle" and then other times "Conan Doyle" (hyphen or no hyphen) - should be consistent;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Citations some have years while others don't, is there a reason for this (some editors only use years to differentiate mulitple works by the same author);
    • All citations standardised to include year of publication. Farawayman (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation # 26 "Gale & Polden, p. 61" - the full bibliographic details don't appear in the References section;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Citations you have "Gale & Polden" and then "Gale and Polden" - should be consistent
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation #27 "Pakenham, p. 203" has no date, but Citation # 11 "Pakenham (1979), p. 199" has a date - should be consistent if the same work;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Citation # 50 "De Villiers", but in the References "de Villiers" - needs consistent capitalisation;
    • This is a quirk in Afrikaans/Dutch where the "De" is capitalised when then first name is not mentioned, but is lowercase when preceeded by a first name. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References, I suggest differentiating the two Maurice works (both of which have the same year of publication) by using "(1998a)" and "(1998b)" in both the short citations and the full bibliographic details;
    • Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References Tufnell appears out of alphabetical order;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the Kruger work's title should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles, e.g. "Good-bye Dolly Grey: The story of the Boer War" should be "Good-bye Dolly Grey: The Story of the Boer War"
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the Knight et al work should have an endash in the title for the year range, i.e "1876–1902";
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the References section, the two websites (Pipetunes and BritishBattles) shouldn't be listed, they should simply be linked through the Citations where they are reffed with inline citations;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • at the end of the References section there is a large amount of whitespace on my screen, this is because of the commented out list of works not specifically cited. I sugest just simply removing these works, or adding them so they appear in the Further reading section;
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the Further reading section, Cowan appears out of alphabetical order. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC
    • Sorted Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: all my concerns have been addressed. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Commments:

Enjoyed the article! A few minor comments:

Advance to attack:

• "A drizzle started..." "In preparation for the attack, the soldiers bivouacked in heavy rain..." It would be clearly possible to have both drizzle in one place and heavy rain 3 miles away, but it read slightly oddly, particularly as later in the section "the rain increased to a downpour".
  • Anomaly corrected. Farawayman (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• "the lyddite explosions" - this is the only mention of lyddite in the article; worth either explaining what lyddite was, or linking the term.
  • Valid point - linked. Farawayman (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Warning, a really petty quibble coming(!): "The thunderstorm and the high iron ore content of the surrounding hills played havoc with compasses of the officers appointed to navigate" - I think it played havoc with all of the compasses, not just those belonging to the navigators! :)
  • Changed to say played havoc with compasses and navigation. Farawayman (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• " the British had no time to reform from their compact quarter columns into fighting formation" > "a fighting formation"?
  • Corrected. Farawayman (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Battle:

• "but this action was soon blocked by re-deploying Boers" - does this mean it was blocked by Boers, who happened to be redeploying, or by the Boer general deciding to re-deploy Boers?
  • Clarified, "...blocked by the re-deployment of Boer elements." Farawayman (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• " The only movement at that time was Lt. Lindsay, who managed to bring the Seaforth's Maxim forward to provide a degree of support fire." I'm reading this as Lt Lindsay doing this personally, on his own; am I understanding this right?
  • Ambiguity clarified - "....team lead by Lt Lindsay....." Farawayman (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Methuen ordered all available artillery to provide support fire" > "supporting fire"?
  • Not sure if this is correct, "provide support fire" is an accepted military term? Second opinion would be appreciated please. Farawayman (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Changed to fire support. Socrates2008 (Talk) 07:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
• "However, as with the preliminary barrage..." Worth moving the "however" to the middle of the sentence.
  • Concur - modification made. Farawayman (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Scandinavian volunteers:

• I found the first paragraph, whilst useful background, jarred with the flow of the battle narrative. It might fit better earlier in the article?
  • Concur - re-stated this initial section on the formation of the Corps as a note, where it originally was. Farawayman (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• "Approximately half of the corps (refer Order of battle)..." > "refer to the Order of battle"?
  • Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Losses:

• "the Highland Brigade amassed a killed, wounded, and missing loss of 747 men." This read oddly to me. Could you say "suffered total casualties of 747 men"?
  • Re-stated to make it read more clearly, but retained reference to killed, wounded and missing - because "total casualty" figures do not necessarily always include all three of these categories. Farawayman (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• The poem probably needs a comment in the main text. e.g. "Criticism was published in the national papers, for example..."
  • Added an introductory sentence. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• I particularly liked the picture of the observation balloon, by the way - fascinating photo!

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Hchc2009: Thanks for these pertinent comments! Farawayman (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Support, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments by NJR_ZA (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks good and a very nice read.
  • Scandinavian volunteers (refer to the Order of battle) was ordered hold a forward position > ordered to hold

    Fixed. Farawayman (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Had another read through and it looks good. You have addressed all the issues raised here. Good balance of information between the parties involved. Prose is easy to read and well referenced. All the major events and people relevant to the battle is covered. ---NJR_ZA (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Featured article candidates

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [2].

---

Black Friday (1945)

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This article about an unsuccessful Allied air raid on Norway in 1945 recently passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review, and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. The raid's claims to fame are that it was both the largest air battle ever fought over Norway and the worst day of the war for the Royal Air Force's Coastal Command. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• It could do with a Template:About at the top, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments:

• Are you sure about goNorway.com as a source? It's basically a tourism advert, and it seems at odds with the quality of the other sources.
  • I think it's OK as all the article says is that the museum exists and the tourism website supports this (there are lots of others with similar information). I've added a link to the local government's page on the museum as well though as this provides a non-commercial confirmation that the museum exists and is a going concern.
• Koop, Gerhard et al: This is out of alphabetical sequence.
  • Fixed

Otherwise, sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Technical comments

• All external links appear fine.
• Black Friday is a dab link but in this context I'm not sure that one can avoid that.
• All images have alt text apart from the World War II portal link, and that's not your problem. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support -- reviewed, performed a light copyedit, and supported this in its MilHist A-Class Review. Structure, prose, coverage, referencing and supporting materials all appear satisfactory for FA -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

• the google book links are effectively just (unintentional) spam since they do not lead to any preview text, and should be removed.
  • I think that their functionality depends on where you live. They show the text which I've quoted here in Australia, so they seem useful on WP:V grounds.
• How do we know that the action images were taken by Australian airmen? Is it just assumed because they are in the Oz archive, or is it documented, in which case it should be added to the image descriptions.
  • The AWM database doesn't explicitly state that they were taken by Australian airmen, but states that they're PD. Almost all the photos in its collection were taken by Australians.
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Why is Milson publisher in parentheses?
  • It's a journal article, and 'Wartime' is the name of the journal - the cite journal template adds the italics. The Australian War Memorial is the publisher
• Link for "flak" or "flak gun"?
  • Done
• In lead, In exchange sounds a bit cosy for a bloody battle, is there something more appropriate.
  • Removed

• I would have supported this on first read if it were not for the Google books link issue. Links to Google versions of copyright publications are unstable, or have differential access depending on country, and are best avoided Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems better to me to include links which work and add considerable value for many readers (and help verify that the text is in line with the source) than to exclude them outright because they don't work for everyone (particularly as when they don't work they still provide some useful information in the form of the book's publishing details). Is there a standard practice for this? - I've linked to Google books text in my previous FAs without any concerns being raised. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Fair enough, and in fact one of the links does indirectly link to useful text. Some of my FAs also contain Google Book links, although never added by me! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: generally looks fine to me, I just have one comment:
  • in the Background section the squadrons are presented as "144 Squadron", "404 Squadron", "455 Squadron" etc., but later in the Preliminaries section as "No. 455 Squadron". For consistency I think they should be presented the same. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed (by adding 'No.' at the front). Thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 16:26, 15 December 2010 [3].

---

766th Independent Infantry Regiment (North Korea)

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. It is both a Good Article and an A-Class Article at WP:MILHIST. —Ed!^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1abcde, 2abc, 4 I really like Ed's series on Korea. I remember this unit from Norm Korger's Operational Art of War. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  Regarding plagiarism: Ed! cites at the sentence level, yet there is a coherent and cohesive authorial voice flowing through the text. As such, from textual analysis of style I can't see plagiarism here. Additionally, there are idiosyncratic editorial, style, and formatting errors remaining in the text indicating that it was written freshly. Given the coherent voice, I can't see how close paraphrasing could have occurred here.

  Yes, the article was written freshly from the sources presented. Each one of them had such a small and varied account of its actions it was difficult to piece together on my own. Given FAC's recent plagarism concerns I don't think you'll have a problem with this one. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Awkward, "inducement of rebellions"

  Reworded. —Ed!^(talk)

  Distant verb "The North Korean plan was for the 766th "..."to conduct amphibious landings ", change ... "was to conduct"

  Reworded. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Outbreak, consider neutrality, 766 is "coercing South Korean villagers" whereas "ROK troops mustered a civilian militia"

  The texts seem to imply the North Koreans forced the civilians to work for them, while the South Koreans were inundated with volunteers wanting to help. Still I have worded it so both sides "mustered" civilians. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Possessive missing "At the same time the North Korean units" > "units'"

  Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Conflict in characterisation, city or village, "the village of P'ohang, creating a state of alarm in the city" "The town"

  Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  Double period: "around the town.[40]."

  Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 02:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. No ELs at all, actually. --PresN 19:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Not convinced "Destruction" is an appropriate heading for the final section -- the unit was reduced to half strength and then merged with another but I don't that counts as "destruction". Perhaps simply "Disbandment" is better, or even "Dismemberment" if you want something more dramatic.
  • Agreed. I like "disbandment" better. Changed. —Ed!^(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Cool. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Same section, you say By this time, the 766th had been reduced to 1,500 men, half its original strength. and then a couple of sentences later The division was reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. -- duplication of info?
  • Actually, not in this instance. The first reference is that the 766th Unit was down to 1,500 men. The second reference refers to the NK 12th Division, which had also been reduced to 1,500 men after P'ohang-dong. —Ed!^(talk) 07:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
    • So it does -- temporary blindness on my part... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Apart from that it looks very good -- structure, prose, coverage, referencing, and supporting materials appear to satisfy FA criteria.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note, it's a week old, so too late to do anything about this, but someone should have noticed that the nominator had another FAC archived right before this nomination, so should have waited two weeks, per the WP:FAC instructions-- just a reminder for next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• comment the unit strengths gets confusing; the para prior establishes the unit has a strength of 1500 then its followed by this para

Exhausted and out of supplies, the 766th Regiment moved to Pihak-san, a mountain 6 miles (9.7 km) north of Kigye, to join the shattered NK 12th Division. The division was reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. In order to rebuild it, 2,000 army replacements and South Korean conscripts were brought in, and the 766th Regiment was ordered to merge its remaining troops into the depleted regiments of the division. Upon completing the merge with the division on August 19, the 766th Regiment ceased to exist. It had trained for close to 14 months prior to the war but fought for less than two.[6][47] 1500 men in the unit on the 17th joined the 12th division and theres still 1500 men. I thinks it would make more sense if it was changed to something like ...to join the shattered NK 12th Division which had been reduced to 1,500 men in the fighting. In order to rebuild the division..... It in the context of the article is the 766th not the 12th division but in this para I think the use of it crosses between both. Gnangarra 11:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 22:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• WP:FA Criteria 3 met, Images are all free, subnational flags properly labeled, maps have appropriate keys and captions. Job well done! Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good job improving this Ed! Buckshot06 (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:02, 11 December 2010 [4].

---

Borodino class battlecruiser

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

These battlecruisers were laid down before the start of World War I, but the war and the subsequent internal unrest disrupted their construction and they were never completed. The Soviets contemplated several different uses for the incomplete hulls, but eventually scrapped all of them before World War II. This article passed a MilHist ACR at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Borodino class battlecruiser and meets the criteria for FA, IMO.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've requested a copyedit from the GOCE.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Which has been completed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments 2c is good. I want to go over to Template talk:Citation/Core and log yet another bug, this time with their handling of the volume parameter for books and works in collection... Fifelfoo (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I think that this comprehensive, well written and well sourced article meets the FA criteria. The only thing I'd note for improvement is the very minor point that the state Annapolis is located in is missing from the publishing details of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1906–1922. but included for the other two Naval Institute Press books. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Good catch, Nick; fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments in the Design and development section it is mentioned that the armament increased to nine 14-inch however there's no mention of how the original design was intended to be armed.
  • Added.
• It is also said that there was a a (false) rumor that the Germans were increasing the caliber of their guns, does that refer to German battleships or battlecruisers?
  • Not specified.
• In this same paragraph it might be useful to mention the location of the Admiralty Works when they are first mentioned.
  • Done.
• Two paragraphs later the article mentions trials of the Gangut-class battleships' armor scheme and subsequent changes to the Borodino class armor scheme, does that imply that both armor schemes were identical? If so, that should be mentioned.
  • They were different, but shared some characteristics which had to be modified.
    • Then that fact should be mentioned. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you're asking for, but that's already specified in the paragraph.
• In the Propulsion section the Franco Russian Works are mentioned, where were those located?
  • Done.
• The Fire control section is quite short, maybe it should be merged with the Armament section.
  • I disagree.
• In the Construction section, is there a particular reason for the difference between the laid down date and the beginning of actual work?
  • Laying down the keel was a ceremonious occasion in the Russian Navy, not necessarily connected with the beginning of construction.
    • What I meant is why was construction postponed? Lack of resources? --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • "No actual work" did not necessarily mean "nothing at all". Before building the hull, they had to have steel rolled, cut and delivered. Before ordering steel, they had to have at least some working drawings - Design and development explains that it wasn't a textbook smooth process. Anyway, delay of only four months (Dec 1912 - Mar 1913) was lightning fast by Russian standards. East of Borschov 05:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• The sentence The condition of the ships was assessed on 28 April 1917, but in some respects the situation was worse than shown is not clear, what was shown?
  • It's shown in the table.
    • The table in the next section, three paragraphs below? The reader should be pointed in that direction. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Done.
• There's no mention of the Russian Revolution in this section so terms like "provisional government", "Congress of Shipyard Workers" and "Soviet Supreme Naval College" lack the necessary context to understand them. Some rewriting it needed here. --Victor12 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A mention of the February Revolution suffices, I think. Thanks for your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I still think the text is not clear enough in this section. Three different organizations are mentioned in this paragraph as deciding the future of the ships. There should be some explanation as to why were they involved in this process. --Victor12 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I have no further information on the exact duties of any of these organizations, other than the government, which is self-evident.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Russian Provisional Government - link added;
        • Congress of Shipyard Workers - was just a trade union conference that pressed the govt to "give us jobs, give us food". It shouldn't be capitalized (not an organization's name), or should it?
        • The Soviet Supreme Naval College (Верховная морская коллегия) was a temporary commission of the newborn Soviet military. It's full name initially was Supreme Naval Commission on reforming the former Ministry of the Navy. The Communists took over the former Ministry, but could not actually control its bureaucracy, so they brought Pavel Dybenko and his cutthroats to make it work (well, it didn't but it's a whole different story). The Commission was created Oct. 26, 1917; on Feb. 22, 1918 it became the College of the Comissariat of the Navy. East of Borschov 08:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:39, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Heavy reliance on McLaughlin, but the article looks fantastically complete for a Soviet and never-finished class, so no quibbles from me.
  • "General characteristics" could be its own section.
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • 32,500 ton BC -> 22,000 CV is a big drop. Where would the savings have come from, aside from the lack of turrets (and possibly barbettes)? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks like mostly armor - forex, the belt would have gone from over 9 inches down to 3. That alone is a considerable savings in weight. Parsecboy (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Whoops, that's what I get for just skimming the article. A further thought: watch your conversions. You have "long tons (mt conversion)" followed by "metric tons (lt conversion)" towards the end. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
        • The whole issue is confusing. The Tsarist Navy was beginning to convert to metric measurements when WWI began, hence the long tons and mm of armor and the Soviets went completely to metric. I've just used the measurements as they're provided in my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Image review concerns for use of non-free File:IzmailLaunching.png and File:IzmailConstruction.jpg: Why do we need two non-free photographs of an unfinished hull (that does not help much to visualise the intended design)? Would a schematic of the ship, such as this one from [5] (have to find out which Russian book), not serve instead? Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• I hadn't really looked outside Wiki for images, but I'd be happy to swap out both of the existing ones for that one once you find out what book it was in. I'll delete one of them now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • www.steelnavy.com/N&H12.htm is a copy-violation site (scans without context, hence not directly linking here): the scans are of a French publication Navires & Histoire. Of particular note is www.steelnavy.com/images/N&H12/NEP5224Izmail.JPG by Frederic Stahl in his "The Navy of the NEP". Would this be a better image? Jappalang (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I replaced the image with the one from steelnavy.com with appropriate NFUR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • No issue with the above as the sole image in the article; it serves its purpose and fulfills the WP:NFCC. Jappalang (talk) 13:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Any change additional images could be used to illustrate the Class-design? I noticed there are 7 images on Commons[6]
    • All of those images on Commons are not sourced and of dubious copyright status. That said, I'm looking to replace the one I have with another one that shows the overall layout.
  • I'm not an experienced editor, but I'm not convinced regarding: Wikipedia:Compare_Criteria_Good_v._Featured.
    • • Are these your issues below?
    • OCLC numbers for the book sources?
      • Unneeded, IMO, when ISBNs are provided.
    • Are there available citations available online? Either as web citations or url links to book or other source references ? Google Books for example?
      • Most of my recent sources have only snippets available and it's not been worth my time to search out the ones that aren't.
    • Some page citations could be added repeated at the end of sentences to be more clear, rather than at the end of several sentences.
      • • My policy to is to consolidate most citations to the same source at the end of a paragraph to avoid the sight of little blue numbers spattered throughout the text. In your example below, the cite given only covers two pages, not too difficult to find.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
      • for example, "No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but she was almost converted into an aircraft carrier."

-- Aeonx (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I still can't support this yet. I'm primarily concerned with the lack of images and the lack of Online/PD references & verifiability without McLaughlin.
  • It's fine to refer to McLaughlin throughout the whole article, but there are some online references available; and I'd like to see them used, or at least listed as Further reading.
  • For example, see: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_14-52_mk6.htm for details on the 14" gun; I don't see any harm in using more references; and in this case; it's at least one that someone can click on and find out more information. Aeonx (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I had to pull all references to Navweaps.com as it has not been deemed "highly reliable" yet. It would have been quite useful for the details that I ordinarily include on the ships' armament. One of these days I'll write an article on the Model 1913 gun so that I can use Navweaps.com to my heart's content. Until then, however... And what "highly reliable" online sources are there on these ships? I haven't been able to find any as the qualifications for highly reliable are so strict as to eliminate most all online sources for warships. As for photos, every one that I've been able to find has been non-free use and I can't use more than one of them except under extraordinary circumstances.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Looking good, however:

• • In the hatnote, the Borodino class...
    • Good catch.
  • I don't know if this is standard or not, but in the infobox: "Preceeded by: N/A; first battlecruiser authorized. or similar, instead of a concise but curt None. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I really don't see a need for this.
  • I won't oppose on these grounds, but four books seems slightly on the low side.
    • They were never finished and not much has been written on them in English.
  • The first sentence "(also referred to as Izamil class)" → "(also referred to as the Izamil class)" WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Good catch.
  • Are there any articles on the ships themselves? If so, add links to the ship table. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Nope, no individual ship articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Enjoyed it, particularly the links in with the wider political context. A couple of bits that stand out to me as a distinctly non-naval person (!) though. Would Support with those answered:

• "vitals" : not linked, and not obvious what they are (I'm guessing engine rooms and the magazine and so on?).
  • Never really thought that it needed a link. Vitals=important stuff, including everything you mentioned.

• Treat as a personal comment rather than a condition for my support, but if you expanded the wording slightly and said "the vital parts of the ship" or something like that, it might read easier for a non-expert. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Good compromise, done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• " The trials employed the old pre-dreadnought battleship Chesma, modified with armor protection identical to that used by the Gangut-class battleships then under construction." My assumption when I first read this was that the trials had involved sailing and nautical handling; later on I began to suspect that they had been firing at the Chesma and testing the armour that way? It might be worth clarifying what these trials were.
  • See how it reads now.

• Like it. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• "and were designed to be forced to a total" : is there a non-technical way of saying this? ("in a crisis could be called upon to produce"? "could be made to produce"?)
  • I've changed forced to pushed. Does that work for you?

• Works for me. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• "a progresss review " sp. - 3 sss's
  • Good catch
• "including modifying the turrets to load at a fixed angle of 4° " - it sounds relevant, but I don't know why: could the sentence explain why its significant? (similar to the bit on the funnels, which explains the changes)
  • Fixed loading reduces the time required to load, but adds time needed to re-lay the guns on the target. I'm not sure that I can work it into the sentence.

• I agree, it would strain the sentence. Could it go in a footnote? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a bit more complicated that I thought and the main advantage seems to be reduced weight and complexity of the loading gear, which I've added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• "although it would have taken at least two years to build all of Izmail's turrets, if enough guns had been available." "even if" might read better?
  • Agreed.
• "a double turret of which actually weighed slightly less than a triple 14-inch turret. " the "actually" implies that this was unusual - wasn't obvious to me why (admittedly because I know nothing about turrets!)
  • Not that unusual, deleted the actually.
• "Four proposals were made with various changes to the armor scheme," to the armour scheme of the turrets, rather than the ship itself?
  • Yes, fixed.
• "too large and unwieldy" - I'm not doubting the source, but why would a cargo ship or an oil barge need to be "wieldy" (or nimble etc.)? Is unwieldy really the right word here? (or is it that they'd be too big for harbours etc.?)
  • Paraphrasing from my source. I don't know why they thought that, but most oil tankers of the period were far smaller, often between 5-10,000 tons in size. Thanks for looking over the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Hchc2009 (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• No prob's, enjoyed doing so. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Now Support. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Query: has an independent (non-ship) person spotchecked for jargon, WP:V, and WP:COPYVIO? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Non-ships people have supported it and I'd expect that they would have pointed out any jargon issues. Any one can check for WP:V and copyvio, but I don't know if anyone has.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm a "ship person," but I don't see why that would discredit me from checking for the latter two issues. We're not a cabal, and I resent any implication that we give preference to each other at the expense of an article's quality. WP:V looks to be satisfied, though I wonder if there is any relevant material in Rohwer, and random checking of sentences against snippet view on Google Books produced nothing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

      There are a couple of mentions of the plan to convert Izmail to a carrier in '25, but nothing of real significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

      • It would be appreciated if you do that check, but I believe the past concern was wholesale use of PD sources in ship articles, which ship people seem to support, while others don't, which is why I requested other eyes. Alternately, the nominator could disclose if there is any of that here, since I haven't glanced at the article yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If you would have checked, there are four books cited, none of which are in the public domain. The PD controversy came from the copying of DANFS, which only covers American ships. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

          Ed, I don't typically go read every article when I'm first scanning FACs to see where they stand; I do that once everything is in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

          I realize that, but if you're going to make a comment on public domain text, it literally takes ten seconds to look at the sources and determine it for yourself. Also, saying "WP:V" is really general – more specific directions would be appreciated in the future. I don't mean this in a negative way, just as general thoughts on what you are doing, because I do realize FAC takes a lot of time to go through on any given day. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

          • I'd echo Sturmvogel's point about non-ships people above; as a non-ships person I've had a look over it for jargon (see above comments for a list of points raised and dealt with). Hchc2009 (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the jargon check, appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• "The four Borodino class battlecruisers (also referred to as the Izmail class) of the Imperial Russian Navy were all laid down in December 1912[Note 1] at Saint Petersburg for service with the Baltic Fleet." - this is an odd way to start an article; one should first explain what they were, then explain when they were laid down etc. For example, "The Borodino class were a group of four battlecruisers commissioned by the Imperial Russian Navy before World War I but never completed. Also referred to as Izmail class, they were laid down in December 1912[Note 1] at Saint Petersburg for service with the Baltic Fleet."
  • I like most of your formulation, but the last phrase in the first sentence is redundant as the rest of the lede talks about that they were never completed.
• "Initially the Naval General Staff wanted a ship with high speed (28 knots, 52 km/h; 32 mph), 12-inch (305 mm) guns, and limited protection (a waterline belt of 190 mm or 7.5 in); the Tsar approved construction of four such ships on 5 May 1911, but the Duma session ended before they could be voted on." - I like semicolons, but this sentence is pretty long, and could probably be split in two at the semi-colon.
  • I think splitting it would be a bad idea. I could swap the semi-colon for an "and" if you think that it would help.
    • replacing the semi-colon with "and" would be even worse. Why do you think splitting this long sentence at the semi-colon is a bad idea? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • The "initially" at the beginning of the sentence implies that there's a "but" later on. Splitting the sentence loses that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I still think splitting in two would be easier on the reader, who will understand what the "but" is referring to, but it's not a big issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The Naval Ministry solicited bids from 23 shipbuilders, " - this should be the start of a new paragraph.
  • Agreed
• "the deadline was extended by an extra month." - I think you mean "the deadline was extended by a month" - otherwise, you're implying it was extended by two months.
  • Fixed
• "triple turrets" "three turrets" - I assume these are the same; perhaps a little explanation as to what this means, as there's no handy wikilink.
  • Linked gun turret.
    • Thanks, but what is a "triple turret"? This seems like a bit of naval jargon. Is it three turrets side-by-side? In some other arrangement? Something else? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Triple gun turret was the original wording; I've hyphenated it to show that it means three guns per turret.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • It's still a bit obscure, that will have to do, I guess. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• "45.5 million rubles for each ship" - it would be nice to know what these and other figures were worth in today's currencies (dollars or euros).
  • It would, but the inflation calculator doesn't deal with anything but dollars or pounds.
    • Well, it would be nice if you could find a source that estimates the cost today, but... Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• "The first pair was to be ready... and the other two... " - the phrases should be parallel - "first pair"-"second pair" or "first two"-"second two".
  • Done.
• "plus the delays imposed by the large number of ship orders already in hand" - not sure what this means. Can you explain?
  • Umm, ran out of capacity?
    • Is that how the source explains it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Essentially, yes. There's a comment that the Russian shipyards simply had too much on their plate with orders for smaller ships that could be finished mroe quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • O.K., a footnote explaining exactly would be extremely helpful - I think that's all that's left for me. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "A pair of casemates were situated on each side" - this implies two casemates on each side; is that what you mean?
  • On each side of the three rear turrets, yes, plus the six casemates on each side near the forward turret.

In general, well-written, but sentences tend to be long, and could benefit from a few commas. Also, I'm a bit concerned that it relies so heavily on one source, McLaughlin. Were there no others available? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• McLaughlin is the only substantial source in English on these ships and I don't read Russian where there's a little more material. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The topic of Russian ships is does not receive a lot of scholarly attention. The formation of the Soviet Union and the Cold War limited most works to basic facts and conjectures (G&D in Axis and Neutral Battleships of World War II, published 1985, said something like "information on Russian ships is quite limited" due to that), and only now are some of the records being opened for study. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I guess that will have to do, then. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, not too happy with the writing on this one so far. Could have used a peer review, perhaps. I see the GA review was done by a ships person with no substantive feedback on the writing; this can make it a challenge to weed out jargon and so on. Not checked for copyvio, as none of the sources are accessible to me. Examples of writing problems:
  • • Obviously you failed to note that it gotten a thorough review at ACR and needed very little work on jargon, as non-specialist reviewers such as Hchc2009 noted very few issues with such here.
  • "The start of World War I slowed their construction still further" What is still doing?
    • Fixed, by clarifying that the delays began when they had to revised the armor scheme after the ships had begun construction.
  • Many perplexing article and preposition choices, even in the lead (ex. why "useful for the war effort" and not useful to? The "for" construction normally precedes a gerund, such as "useful for drinking")
  • The first sentence of Design and Development is a bear... many ideas expressed there, not all clearly related. As written, it's unclear if you are building a causal relationship between Admiral Tōgō's action and the ship request, or just stating it incidentally.
    • Seems pretty clear to me that there was a causal relation between the design and what Togo did to the Russian fleet at Tsushima.
  • "Preliminary bids for these ships were solicited from private builders" The narrative grows confusing here. How were the bids solicited when there was never a vote to approve them?
    • Probably because the bids bound neither side to anything.
  • "The Russian Navy believed that widely separating the main gun magazines improved survivability and that the open sighting hoods on their turrets prevented superfiring turrets from firing their guns over the lower turret." Here I am completely lost as a general reader. I could discover what "magazines" are in this context, but you've said nothing thus far about their being widely separated. What does that mean? Far apart from each other? This sentence should follow a sentence where you describe that meaning, how far apart they were, etc. "Survivability" is jargon—I have no clues as to what that could mean here. The rest, I'm afraid is impossible to follow.
    • You may have something here about the distribution of the turrets not being properly set up. Lemme think about it. Nobody else thought survivability is jargon. It's a form of survivable, something most every reader can understand.
      • I understand the definition of the word. What I'm saying is that I don't understand how it is applied here. Survivability of what? The magazines, the guns, or the whole ship? --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I hadn't noticed your responses in the barrage of other responses over the last week. OK, now I understand what you had an issue with. Clarified by referring to the survivability of the ship.
  • Next, you're writing about the bids again, after the lone sentence about it in the preceding paragraph. They were rejected for not meeting which criteria? The original or revised?
    • Whole new set of bids to the new specification. I've clarified it; see how it works for you.
  • You mention a four-turret design, but previously you wrote the specs called for nine turrets.
    • Not at all, read it again. I said three triple gun turrets.
      • I quote: "armament increased to nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns in non-superfiring triple-gun turrets". It's clearly confusing, since I read it as "nine" when you really meant to say "three groups of three". What you said just above (three triple gun turrets) is actually much better. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • OK, clarified it with three non-superfiring triple-gun turrets.
  • In the third para, you mention that the changed specs resulted in higher costs—I thought they were trying to lower costs per the first para.
    • Read the second paragraph again, it quite clearly says that the specifications were revised by adding a fourth turret in the middle of the bid process and that the Duma approved the ships before the fourth turret was added to the design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't see how that addresses the issue of cost, I'm sorry. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • The Duma approved the design in May before the design was finalized in September with an extra turret added. All that extra steel costs more and the Russians had to scrounge money from other projects to pay for the Borodinos. All of which is spelled out in the third para.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I stopped reading here, but suffice it to say that I found it very confusing. I am very sorry to say so, because you have put a lot of work into it. I think it desperately needs a thorough copy-edit from a non-specialist. Not just a light dusting, either—someone needs to dig in a look at sentence structure, organization, and so on. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Weak Support I really like this article, but I seriously think it isn't really ready yet. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no idea whose oppose this is: will the nominator please attach a sig up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Curious, since you made no such comments earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, but now, every time I read the article I get some more objections/comments. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Have I addressed your concerns to your satisfaction below?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Some, and more have come.
            • That's much better. Another FA addition to OMT is coming. Tom would be proud. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Does "(false) rumour that the Germans..." really need to be parenthesized?
    • No.
  • First World War → World War I, is standard.
    • I've been informed that it's a Britishism.
      • I use "First World War" in my articles as well, doesn't seem like this is a big deal. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I concur with the more experienced, objection withdrawn.
  • List the reason why Germany wouldn't make the bearings first, not a sentence later for the turbines.
    • The first mention is the Soviets searching for new sources, not about them being seized like the turbines were.
      • Why wouldn't the Germans make them?
        • Huh? The Germans made the bearings before the war and wouldn't make them after the war began. Seems fairly logical.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Use "draught", the infobox doesn't use "draft"
    • Good catch
  • "The double bottom was 1.275 meters (4 ft 2.2 in) deep..." Wait, what does that mean? Does that mean the bottoms were 4ft apart?
    • Yes.
      • Say it. It's like some jargon to the unexperienced.
        • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "The ships were fitted with three Frahm anti-rolling tanks on each side to reduce their rolling motion." I'm seeing some unnecessary repetition.
    • Agreed.
  • Is there an article for the Model 1913 guns?
    • No.
  • "Four 38-calibre 64-millimeter (2.5 in) anti-aircraft guns were intended to be fitted somewhere on the upper deck with 220 rounds per gun." Somewhere? Do you have any specific info?
    • No.
      • Sources aren't always explicit and like to say that they would be "on the upper deck" etc. without specifying. For the same reason Sturm, you should be able to get away without using "somewhere." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Aft of the funnel, abaft, anything except "somewhere." It doesn't sound right.
          • OK, "somewhere" deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you link to a article for "truncated cones?"
    • No.
      • Oh really. That's why I'm opposing. You can't even find this?

I never checked, to be honest. I don't think that it needs a link and it isn't worth my time to see if such a link exists. If your opposition is predicated on such picayune details as a link for a term that I don't think needs linking then we're done here. You've made some helpful comments, but this sort of shit is a waste of my time. At least AndyWalsh, for all that I disagree with his comments, has more substantial issues to base his oppose upon than trivial stuff like links. All of which you could have dealt with yourself if you thought that they were so important. WP:Be Bold ring a bell?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes it does. If you would like, I could have given you some even better comments, concerning breadth of sources. My GA has more references than this. Can't you find anything else, another book maybe? If there is all this little trivial stuff still in here, too, you obviously didn't spend a lot of time on it. I'm sorry if I'm getting into a disagreement, but if you didn't even spend enough time to clean those out, how can we know you took care of the other things? Small grammatical details are also part of the citeria for FA, FYI and good links should be too, IMHO.
  • Again, an oppose based on this is not actionable. The subject of the article, a ship in the waning days of the Russia flowing into the Soviet Union, does not lend itself to scholarly sources (ie not conjecture and hypotheses) because sources were kept secret until recently. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • And I've got stubs with more sources. So what? You're a ships guy, if you can find further detailed references in English, dated after the end of the Cold War, please do so and I'll happily evaluate what they've got to say. And you can beat me over the head with something that I missed. My maritime library is linked on my userpage so you don't waste time looking for books I've already got.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If you seriously do, your elves must be getting lazy, not even submitting those for B-class. And I'll be beating the brush of my library system and Google Books. And if I find one, I will beat you over the head if you want me to.
        • The Cup pretty well burnt me out and my output has dropped tremendously. I've built a number of stubs that have an infobox, one line of text and a full list of refs so I can expand them somepoint in the future.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but she was almost converted into an aircraft carrier." → "No further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, but proposals were made to convert her into an aircraft carrier."
    • I dislike the repetition of "proposals" in your formulation.
      • I dunno, I just don't like the "almost." It sounds a little informal.
      • →"Although no further proposals were made to complete Izmail as a battlecruiser, some were made to convert her into an aircraft carrier."
        • Doesn't thrill me either. I could change almost to nearly if that helps any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Deal.
            • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "The turbines were powered by 25 triangular Yarrow water-tube boilers with a working pressure of 17 kg/cm2 (1,667 kPa; 242 psi)." What is a triangular boiler? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Beats me, some variety of water-tube boiler.
      • Can you look it up, it might be confusing. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
        • That's best dealt with in the water-tube boiler article, which is outside my competency.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Agreed, that's not in the purview of this article. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
            • It is, but link to the Yarrow section of the article instead of the article proper.
              • The curious are perfectly capable on hitting the link on the TOC for the section on Yarrow. They don't need to be spoonfed everything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
                • That isn't sufficient. Some are still WikiBabes, unknown to the capabilities of the TOC Force . Neither do you need to be lazy and not spoonfeed them when neccessary.
                  • Pretty much everybody on the net can recognize a link when they see it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • Whatever, I already did it.
  • Infobox image is dark, can you fix. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Still a tad dark, and there is now a yellow strip down the right side (glare?). WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I've hit the limit on my image manipulation skills.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Get somebody else to do it for you. It shouldn't be hard with a good-sized parcel of determination.
            • Sorry, determination for inappropriate requests is lacking.
              • Um, but what does inappropriate mean in this context? I definitely can't because I have a ban on installing programs onto my computer, that includes photo-editing software. Maybe Mono? He created the OMT banner, as I recall.
                • It's undoubtedly fixable, but I don't believe that it's my responsibility to do so in a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • I can easily fix it, but... are we allowed to do this with a non-free image? If we are, I'm happy to clean it up. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
                    • If you could that would be great. You can do anything you like to the image, free or non-free, but you have to give credit to the original artist/source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
                      • See if you prefer the version I've just uploaded. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
                        • Looks fine to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
                          • No prob's. Happy to help| Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
                            • Thanks. Looking good.
  • "At full load, 80 rounds per gun were carried." In the turret proper, barbette or magazine?
    • Likely all in the magazine, as far as I know no dreadnought of any nation carried shells or powder anywhere other than in the magazine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Sometimes a portion was carried combat-ready in the turret or handling rooms in the barbette. Check, will ya?
        • In combat is different; other than that storage was likely in the magazines. I've got nothing that says different, remember that the ships were never finished.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Section Protection needs inline citations after the sentences that state that Krupp armor was used and the thicknesses of the armor, not at the end of the paragraph.
    • Why? They're not extraordinary claims and the same cite applies to the whole para.
      • Make that clear. It doesn't look like it.
  • "...Army being strongly opposed to spending additional money on naval projects." You and I probably know why, but the average reader doesn't. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't understand your point. The reason seems perfectly clear to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Read carefully what I said. It might appear perfectly clear to you and me, but probably not to the average electrican or layman. Explain why, maybe, or add a link to an article that explains. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Again, it's pretty plain that the Army didn't want money spent on the Navy lest said money come out of the Army's pocket.
  • "In the meantime, however, full-scale armor trials had revealed serious weaknesses in the protection scheme." What weaknesses? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that the weakness are described by the list of what changes had to be made, but you may have a valid point if I can think of a good way to rephrase that bit.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
      • The only thing I can figure out is that they figured a shell could punch through the armor they've already got and blast the ship to pieces. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
        • No, it wasn't nearly that simple. The armor wasn't strongly enough supported and plates were displaced during the Chesma trials by hits. So they reinforced the supporting structure and locked the plates together to better distribute the shock of impact.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Can you state that? Some experts might want to know what happened.
            • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing from your non-free image use rationale for the infobox image that you don't have any other images, do you? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 03:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Nope, nothing free use.
  • Grammatical picayunes fixed, please revert if unwanted. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
    • No need, they're fine.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This says (all) the ships were laid down in 1913, not 1912.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Not a naval reference, probably picked up the date from Breyer or somesuch.
      • Agreed, plus general encyclopedias (especially ones edited by Tucker) are not suitable as references for specific information like this, see WP:TERTIARY. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Armored belt, 13 inches, 21 5.1 inch guns. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 00:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Interesting, but the wrong armor thickness and number of 130-mm guns.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Why? Is it because it differs with McLaughlin? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Partially, but 13 inches of belt armor puts it in firmly in the battleship category for that period and that's not what the Russians were interested in. Contemporary accounts, especially one covering developments in a foreign country must always be regarded warily when it comes to stats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
          • But the number of 130-mm guns? 21 is quite a few, even the Iowas had more secondaries. That's the most I ever heard from anybody for any capital ship. But still, could you check it out? Also, is it possible that the ship was longer or had more machinery than usual to attain their 26.5 kn top speed? The North Carolina/South Dakotas had even more belt armor, but were able to go faster. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
            • Look at the diagram, they had a dozen 130-mm guns on each side. The ships were enormous and would have been the among the largest in the world at full load if they'd been finished. They were longer than HMS Tiger (1913) for example. They were designed from the beginning to reach that speed so they were larger, longer and had more horsepower than any other Russian ships built thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
              • I know, but is it possible that the diagram is incorrect? maybe the disparity is an extra four side guns and one gun on the stem or stern ommitted? Can you explain the disparity? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 04:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
                • I don't need to explain it, all of my modern sources say 24 guns. See my comment above about period sources on foreign ships. Don't forget to sign after your oppose above, as SandyGeorgia, one of the FAC delegates, requested.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
                  • That's a 1915 source written in the middle of a war (see fog of war). In most cases, more modern scholarship overrides older works, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, at least for now, on the basis of 1a. I agree with Andy Walsh's comments above; someone needs to go through and copyedit the whole article. A few examples:
  • "The Borodino class were ..... Since when was "class" a plural noun?
    • Fixed
  • "... the Tsar approved construction of four such ships on 5 May 1911, but the Duma session ended before they could be voted on." The Duma wasn't going to vote on the ships (they) but on the construction of the ships (it).
    • Fixed.
  • "A new specification was issued on 1 July 1911 for a design with a speed of only 26.5 knots (49.1 km/h; 30.5 mph) while the armor was increased to 254 mm (10 in) and the armament increased to nine 14-inch (356 mm) guns in three non-superfiring triple-gun turrets,[2] based on a false rumor that the Germans were increasing the caliber of their guns." That's rather a rambling sentence with a number of problems. It's too long for one thing, and designs don't have speed. "While" isn't right here either, as that implies sopme degree of simultaneity.
    • Why doesn't "while" work? Both changes were made at the same time. Split the sentence.
      • No, what's being linked here is the issue of a new specification (with a reduced design speed) and an increase in the armor. Clearly both could not have happened at the same time. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • There's not necessarily a link between the reduced speed and increased armor. It worked out this way because the Navy wasn't willing to pay for both, but it could certainly have done so if the money had been available.
  • "... and that the open sighting hoods on their turrets prevented superfiring turrets from firing their guns over the lower turret". I have no idea what any of that means. "Open sighting hoods"? "Superfiring turrets"?
    • Superfiring is linked. Clarified the rest. How does it read now?
  • "The gun turrets had the most parts ordered abroad and had the greatest problems". Rather awkwardly written.
    • Deleted as not really necessary.
  • "These were divided among four compartments on the platform deck, two each forward and aft of the machinery. These powered the complex electrical system ...".
    • Clarified.
  • "Eighteen torpedoes were carried for them." Carried for the torpedoe tubes? Seems like very strange phrasing.
    • Substituted provided for carried.
  • "50 mm plates protected the gun ports and 25 mm bulkheads separated each gun." A sentence ought not to start with a number.
    • Not any rule I'm familiar with, but I've rephrased it.
      • The MoS very clearly says "Render as words numbers that begin sentences. However, it is often better to recast the sentence so that it does not start with a number." [7] Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "... a double turret of which weighed slightly less than a triple 14-inch turret." Why "of which"?
    • Rephrased.

Malleus Fatuorum 16:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• OK, what else?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What's next is that you or someone else ought to look through the article for similar problems, as I only gave a few examples. Malleus Fatuorum 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It had a thorough copyedit at ACR, but you and AndyWalsh parse things much differently. So I'm not at all sure that asking somebody else to re-copyedit it will catch the things that you two find objectionable.
      • It needs to be done though, at least in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • For instance, isn't there a "the" missing in "Also referred to as Izmail class"?
    • Yes.
  • "The incomplete hulls were later sold for scrap by the Soviet Union". They could hardly have been sold sooner.
    • Later was meant to reference the Soviet plans to finish the ships, which didn't happen, and they were sold after those plans fell through.
  • "The outbreak of the Russian Revolution in 1917 put a stop to their construction". It wasn't the outbreak of the revolution that halted their construction, it was the revolution.
    • True.
  • "... but this plan was later cancelled as a result of political maneuvering by the Red Army". Couldn't have have been cancelled sooner.
    • Related to the first usage.
  • "... the bids proved to be very high, enough so that the requirements were reconsidered". "Enough so that" is very awkward.
    • Any suggested rephrasing? Because all I'm coming up with is "which forced reconsideration of the requirements as too ambitious", which I'm not that fond of.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is "Borodino" not italicised in the infobox image caption?
    • Fixed.
• you are using British-style dates; do you want to use British-style spelling (armour)? --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should already be in BritEnglish unless I've missed a few words, which is always possible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The only one that jumps out at me is armor/armour; I will see if I can spot any others. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I have finished my copy edits. User:Tagishsimon helped --Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you both very much.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Update: Maintaining my opposition. While I appreciate the superficial copyedit, it needs more thorough work on structure and narrative as I mentioned previously. For example, the Construction section was barely touched, and it needs a lot of work:
  • The writing (partly through a propensity for passive voice) obscures or eliminates needed information. For example, read the first two paragraphs of the section. Any number of individuals or organizations are alluded to, but none are actually mentioned. Who completed the progress review? It was clear to whom that Russian industry couldn't complete the ships? Who reclassified? "A number of plans were made for the post-war completion of the ships" By whom? And so on.
  • The narrative remains confusing to me. Ex. "Three of the four ships were launched in 1915" Well, launched means put in water to go, yes? Later, you say that in 1917 the most complete ship had 65% of a hull. It sounds impossible to me. I understand that there is probably a logical explanation underlying it that a ship person would take for granted, but it's not accessible to the general reader.

--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The problems that you mention go beyond the scope of copy editing as the information you are looking for is not present in the article as it now stands. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I diasgree with you and agree with Andy. It's important to have a clear narrative, not just to make sure that the grammar and spelling are correct. That's what copyediting is about as far as I'm concerned, which is why I have such little regard for the Guild of Copyeditors. My oppose stands as well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I will ask Dank if he has time to look at the article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Featured article review

Featured list candidates

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:43, 5 December 2010 [8].

---

Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the second order of battle I've nominated for Feature List consideration. The first was the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton (review), passed in July; it is the only featured order of battle for a land battle. The format I used is pretty much the same, although there are minor differences due to what sort of figures are available to report. I hope it meets with your approval; it has been through a MILHIST A-Class review. Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment

• I presume that the battalions of light infantry and grenadiers were assembled from those companies of the individual regiments? Otherwise looks nice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would presume so, yes. I've added some words explaining how those units are formed (sources don't identify which units contribute to which brigades, alas). Magic♪piano 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment. The British forces, under the overall command of Lieutenant General William Howe, successfully flanked Continental Army positions on western Long Island ... This sentence repeats the following sentence from the second paragraph: The British forces, ... made a successful flanking maneuver around the American left while occupying the American right with diversionary battle. Ruslik_Zero 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is generally not written in chronological order and its first and second paragraphs partially duplicate/contradict each other. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you thought was contradictory, but I've rewritten the lead. Magic♪piano 13:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is much better now. I have another problem, however. In the last table I read Glover's regiment, stationed on Manhattan during the battle, was sent over to Brooklyn on September 28, and was instrumental in evacuating the army on the night of September 29–30.. What is this sentence about? As I understand Brooklyn was abandoned on 29 August when the army was evacuated from Long Island? Was there the second evacuation at the end of September? Ruslik_Zero 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for catching that; it was supposed to be August, of course. Magic♪piano 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comments - "Maj." and "Brig." do not fall under WP:ABBR#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia so should be written in full. Some of the rows are empty this is acceptable for the notes row but not the others. I am a bit confused over your use of the column spans example "British units" wouldn't this be best used as a section header? you've explained in the prose (though official titles should be added) who the Commander-in-cheif and Second in command were do you need a column span for this? I think it would also be more beneficial for the reader to convert the casualties row into a more suitable format such as seen here. I would suggest the removal of any small html tags in the tables to comply with MOS:TEXT. Afro (Talk) 05:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. I'm leery about dis-abbreviating only "Maj." and "Brig.", because you end up with ugliness like "Brigadier Gen.". I see a few options: Dis-abbreviate all titles. This adds text, and will probably wrap most of the text in the commander fields (I abbreviate the titles to minimize occurrence of this). Identify the abbreviations when they appear in the text ("Brigadier" does not currently appear in the text), or in an explanatory paragraph in the key. Leave it as is. Preferences? Magic♪piano 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I think if you still want to keep the abbreviations 2 would be the best option. I see you've taken into account my comments on some of the column spans, however you haven't addressed the other comments about the column span for example on "commander-in-chief". Afro (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I'm getting to the other items, just wanted to clarify the above. Currently the text does not explicitly identify the second in command; I need to figure how to work that in. Magic♪piano 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I've redone the British table to detail the casualty numbers in separate columns. Because of the way this affected column spacing, I expanded the ranks to full spelling there, putting the commanders and some units onto two lines. I've also reformatted the notes for brigades that didn't have more specific notes for the subunits so that they occupy the space beside the subunits as well, which helps reduce the size of the tables some. I've also added text explaining the rank abbrevations to the key, and removed the column-spanning banners at the top of each table. Magic♪piano 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) In the list "1 missing" looks out of place wouldn't it be better to formulate this type of information in a note? Why is ther e an excessive use of bold in the Unit column? also I don;'t understand the use of valign=top in the table head. I'm also a bit confused over the rowspan for the notes, is there not a better way to formulate this information in the table it just seems excessive. Also the occasional center alignment seems out of place surely theres a better way to convey this information. Afro (Talk) 08:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The unit column needs to differentiate three levels of hierarchy (division/brigade/regiment) in a fairly restricted space. If you don't like the bolding and centering as a means of differentiation (as explained in the key), feel free to propose an alternative. The notes spanning rows is intended that the note applies to the hierarchy of units covered by that span; why is this confusing? As to the "valign=top" in the table head, the next reviewer will probably complain that "Unit", "Commander", and "Notes" don't line up with "Casualties" if I remove it. I've shortened "missing" and "captured" to "M" and "C", with explanation in the key. Magic♪piano 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC) First off on the "valign=top" issue, the alignment of the table head hasn't been issue on the discographies, why it is here I do not know. On the center alignment of the off rows, it may be better to formulate this into a colspan. Also you may have unabbreviated the British units section but Hessein's units and the American units. Not sure if I've mentioned or not but the Command staff in the American units looks terribly un-organised not to mention there's a column missing on the right. Afro (Talk) 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, there's a column missing? Please explain. Ditto on the "terribly un-organised" American command staff; this is the order in which they are presented in sources. Magic♪piano 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Do you not see the missing column directly under the American Units column span? Afro (Talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I'd call that a missing cell; it's not like an entire column was missing, something I've seen before. (And no, I didn't see it because it had no visible effect when rendered in my browser.) Magic♪piano 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I've made further changes to address your issues. I've changed the division headings on the British units; please tell me what you think. If this is acceptable, I'll propagate the style to the other tables. Magic♪piano 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, it looks fine without the centering. Also on "Royal Artillery" in the british table you use valign=top again but don't seem to use it anywhere else. Also 3rd and 5th Pennsylvania Battalion have the same note for consistency I don't see why you haven't used the rowspan. Also I don't understand the use of the break you use for many of the commanders ie "Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich von Minnigerode", "Doctor John Morgan", I don't see what advantage the user gets by these breaks. Afro (Talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC) The Royal Artillery was aligned to top because it is the only place where the casualty figures are only available as an aggregate; however, I've removed the alignment. As far the line breaks in the commanders, I would prefer, if the table is sized in a narrower-width window, that the line break between the title and the name, rather than between the first and last names. I should probably try experimenting with non-breaking spaces in the names to control this behavior rather than forcing breaks. Magic♪piano 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I removed to forced breaks and replaced them with non-breaking spaces, so table resizing works smoothly. Magic♪piano 17:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I am very iffy regarding format for the American Units command staff I would think this could be formatted a different way right now it looks out of place on the table. Also I don't understand the column span for as example "Major General Israel Putnam", is Israel Putnam the Unit as well? Afro (Talk) 10:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I've removed the command staff, and denoted the division commanders with "Commander" in the Unit column. Does that work for you? Magic♪piano 17:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Should the Hessein and American units have the same Casualties format in their tables, just for consistency. Also the American units column span isn't needed. Afro (Talk) 11:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I've removed the American units header; you're right it's no longer needed. As for the casualties, do you really think adding four columns that are blank to the Hessian and American tables will improve them (on the altar of consistency)? The sort of numbers that are available is already documented, and really makes such columns unnecessary. Magic♪piano 14:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no outstanding concerns. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Have Afro, Sturmvogel and Ruslik0 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- I dont think there is much more detail out there unless one starts researching through primary sources.XavierGreen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "buy time" seems a little colloquial for me in the image caption. Rephrased. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) In the lead, what is "Continental Army"? Linked; good catch. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "the early morning hours " reads a little odd to me, just "early hours" is normally acceptable, but it could just be personal preference I suppose. Changed. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "are identified only by bold text" I'm not sure this meets WP:MOSBOLD to be honest. I've learned recently that "table headers" are all col headings and all row headings, so this seems to fall between the gaps and be anomalous. If you can think of a better way to distinguish brigade-level entries from smaller unit entries (that satisfies WP:ACCESS and any other MOS that applies), I'm all ears. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Not sure you need to keep repeating "General" when you refer to "General Howe" but it could be a MILHIST thing so I won't get to worked up about it, it's just a little repetitive. Agreed; I have reduced. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) " the officer's rank is sometimes abbreviated" I'm wondering why, after this point, you don't just abbreviate all ranks for consistency. Well, after the back-and-forth with Afro above, I ended up changing all of the ranks to be fully spelled out; I've removed the comment about abbreviation. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Hessian units table, you have a rowspan for the first four and the second four units, but the same comment. Why? Because I wanted to limit row-spanning to the brigade level. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "The basis for this order of battle is a return prepared" tense? why not "was a return prepared"? Because I'm talking about the order of battle in this article? Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 14 needs a space between pp. and the page range. Fixed. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – Just a few tiny formatting issues. Even a pedant like me is scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The last note in the key has no period, while the others do. Is this intentional? American forces: No need for two John Sullivan links in this section. Just the first one will do. At the bottom of the American table, the citation note has a period at the end. This is not true of the British tables. I don't really care which way it is done, but it should be consistent throughout. Reference 62 has a space between the page number, unlike the other multiple-page refs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for looking in; I've fixed these. Magic♪piano 18:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [9].

---

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently also under FLC review), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why 58 and 164 seem to be sorting by name by "von" while all other "von"s sort by the bit after the von? Oops, fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) "from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a "low ranking" soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry" this looks a little like a quotation from the award? not really! See the Enactment regarding the renewing of the Iron Cross for the original wording please MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Not sure you need to link paradigm. What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Nor Army, Navy or Air force. What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Prefer "Image" over "Picture" as a column heading. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Think the title should have 1942 in parentheses rather than after a spaced colon, so "...with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)" good idea! done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Isn't "commander in chief" normally hyphenated? I linked it to commander-in-chief, does this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) For "Unit", you have, for instance, "pilot in the .." this isn't unit, it's role/unit really isn't it? doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC) What does the 4./ mean in " the 4./Jagdgeschwader 77" ? I tried addressing this with the article Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, which is a note to the "Role and unit" column.MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Note 1 - "(Only leadership and organisational achievements, no personal bravery)" was this part of the note? If so, why not in quotes? Note 3- you suddenly use JG as an abbreviation. fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Note 6 - you explain JG. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Note 9 - you say II. but just III without the full stop. To full stop or not to full stop, that's the question. done full stop is correct! It denotes the German naming convention for 2nd or 3rd group of a fighter or bomber wing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Surprised the template at the bottom doesn't include the year lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC) "What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links." - this is precisely the reason not to have multiple nominations about the same subject matter simultaneously at FLC. Do what I ask here, and read across to the other lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Point taken! Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - You only use RSD to in pointing out the abbreviation, is there any point in having it in the article? Same with JG 3. WASt doesn't need re-abbreviating in Note 11. AKCR is also abbreviated in the lead, I hardly think it needs re-abbreviating in the notes. Afro (Talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport

The list starts at number 58 a note could be added to the indicate that 1–57 were issued between 1940–1941 or whenever.

I was thinking of adding the followin text: "Listed here are the 111 recipients of 1942, ranging from sequential number 58 to 168. The 8 recipients of 1940 ranging from 1 to 7 are listed here, the 50 recipients, range 8 to 57, are listed here. The range 169 to 360, denoting the 192 recipients of 1943 can be found here. In 1944 328 men, listed as recipients 361 to 688, can be found here and the final 194 recipients of 1945 ranging from 689 to 882 are listed here." Would this address the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In note 2 handled the case in 1981 and decided: Swords yes, can this be reworded handled the case in 1981 and decided to award him the Swords ?

In note 4 According to Scherzer as Staffelkapitän of the 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 - should that not be III./Jagdgeschwader 77 ?

Nope, 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 is correct, it denotes the 3rd squadron, I double checked MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In note 6 and others there is no need to link the ranks they are already linked in the table

I was once advised to err on over-linking since the list can be sorted and one does not know what sort option the reader may have chosen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In note 7 while Prien states who is Prien.

Prien is the author of Jagdgeschwader 53 A History of the "Pik As" Geschwader May 1942 – January 1944. Listed in the Bibliography section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Translate some of the more obscure German Aufklärungs-Abteilung for example.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a note reagding the nomenclature of German military terms. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure having two separate lists for 40-41 and for 42 is ideal. I would prefer a single 40-42 one since it would be shorter than the '43 one. Nergaal (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this general consensus? If not I would like to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm against it. I would rather split up 40-41 article on a half in order to simplify things and have tidy article for every year. Current format could make people wonder if there is some another quality reasoning behind such a breakdown besides saving some KB's or one list simply being shorter. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The merge of 1940 and 1941 was requested at the WikiProject Military A-class review. I also had preferred to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I can't find anything to add or complain about. Great article. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [10].

---

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire

Nominator(s): White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list has just recently passed a ACR under Wikiproject Military History and follows the established pattern for battleship related lists. (see List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, another FL of mine for a comparison.) Questions and comments are welcome. Thanks :) White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• List looks good but I have some comments:

• The lead says that the German gift significantly contributed to the Ottoman decision to join Germany, but later in the article this is not expanded upno. Meanwhile, the text says that the two ships seized by the Brits had a major role in the decision. Which one is it? And if the former, then please expand in the text.

• They were both major factors to the Ottomans joining the Central Powers. I'll add that later today :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I believe this issue has been fixed now. Please check back to make sure that you like it :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• These ship articles always lead me wonder why were their name chosen that way, but rarely say it. Here it is obvious that is the origin for Sultan Osman I but I would still like a note here on when did this person rule, or what sort of role he had. As for the likes of Reshadieh I have absolutely no idea for the origin of the name. Since it is the name of a class, some indication should be given.

• I'll try to add some notes about the names if I can find them.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• For example Barbaros Hayreddin came surely from Hayreddin Barbarossa. If you can't find a reference for it, try to add a footnote at least with the Pasha. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• These things are generally addressed in the individual articles. I could still add them in but one or two names may not be known...--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Try to improve the caption for the lead image. It is really dry right now. Also, the date in the image page is listed as 1911. Nergaal (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Added the date. Is there anything else that you want added?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried to expand the lead caption a bit. I don't know if it is really better, so feel free to change/revert it. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support all of my major concerns have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Per MOS, lead images shouldn't be more than 300px in general. "in total failure" is "total" strictly necessary? siezure - typo. "By the dawn of the 20th century" - very emotive, not very encyclopedic. What's a keel block? Where's Thrace? "4, Parsons" why comma? "She was scrapped on the slipway in 1914 along with Reshad-I-Hammiss" - you already said the Reshad-I-Hammiss was scrapped in 1912... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC) All you're comments have been addressed/fixed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support no problems after a brief re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment.

Same table issues that were at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1. To save a repeat conversation, a discussion can be found in my resolved comments there with detailed info on what the problem is (see also the list's talk page) and how to fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Switching the abbr to mos does not work for the displacement and armament....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Displacement should now work following my request here. Main guns seems flawed as is "6 × 28 centimetres" is a bit ambiguous and could be a main gun 28cm long and 6 cm wide. Note the other list resorted to a manual "6 × 28-centimetre" style as it was deemed better (not by me). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the displacement.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the main guns? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Still does not work....It comes up as a red link thing...--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I think the inclusion criteria for the list should be mentioned on the page since it excluded the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye. While I understand your reasoning for excluding her, several notable naval publications such as Brassey's Naval Annual list her as a battleship. It would be extremely helpful to the reader to mention why she is not included on the page (because she was a coversion), despite the fact that several sources list her as a battleship. For example Lawrence Sondhaus's Naval warfare, 1815-1914 specifically states that she was converted into a pre-dreadnaught from a casemate type ship.XavierGreen (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have Rambo's Revenge and XavierGreen been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, Exactly what i was looking for has been added, article is now complete in its scope.XavierGreen (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – Reshadieh class: "However, Reshadieh was seized by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of the World War I...". Don't see the need for "the" right before World War I. Sultan Osman I: "the British government seized the vessel for fear of it being used against her in the conflict." Should we really be used "her" in reference to a government? I understand using it for the ships, but this might be a bit much. Yavuz Sultan Selim: "The German transfer of Goeben to the Ottoman Empire fulled public support...". Should "fulled" be something else? There doesn't appear to be anything citing the two footnotes. Since reference 3 has a page range, it should be formatted with pp., not p. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) All issues have been addressed save for one footnote.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC) What has become of this uncited footnote? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC) The article on the ship is unsourced. I have no way of providing a citation. Should I remove the footnote?--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I would suggest commenting it out; if you do find a source, you can restore it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC) It states the info in Sondhaus on page 218, a work you already have used as a source in the article. I added it to the note and made it visable again. If you need another source you can also consult the 1911 issue of Brasseys.XavierGreen (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Clarify exactly ships are meant here. The three Reshadieh-class ships were ordered, not purchased. In order to update the fleet, the Ottoman Navy Foundation purchased larger battleships such as Sultan Osman I, three of the planned Reshadieh-class battleships, and one that had already been built. What ship is meant by this last bit?
• Clarify these two sentences so that the reader knows these were the only two ships nearly complete when war broke out: The United Kingdom confiscated the ships at the outbreak of World War I. Sultan Osman I was renamed HMS Agincourt while Reshadieh was renamed HMS Erin
• Fix this: Out of all the battleships legally owned by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the war, half were either scrapped or ondhausewere seized by the British in the early days of the conflict.
• You're mixing Brit and American English with centimetres.
• One too many ands in this sentence: This act outraged the Ottoman people and was a major factor in turning public opinion against Britain and helped to drive the Ottoman Empire into an alliance with the Central Powers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed all of these issues except for the centimetres one... What do you want me to do about it? make the article solely British or American English?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Pick one or the other; just be consistent throughout the article. If you want American measurements add |sp=us to the conversion templates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on this issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Still in the middle of working on it. This is the last issue.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I added them into the article but I'm not sure if I did it right....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Overall, the list is in good shape. I think you could have easily gotten away with a short table, but this list provides good list-like information as well as historical. I think the key is very helpful. Below are the issues that stood out to me.

• I think a year in the lead would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the time frame of the First Balkan War.

Done.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly, wikilinking Royal Navy would help those unfamiliar with military history.

Done.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason why the table widths are 98% instead of 100%?

I think I changed it to that so the table will not look messed up....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• What makes Warship International from the Naval Records Club a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
  • It's a published magazine; it's as reliable as any other published, non-controversial source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Just checking. I inferred something less professional from the word "Club". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
      • Understandable, they later changed their name to the International Naval Research Organization, probably for that very reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Support: 98% table width seems odd to me, but I don't think that warrants opposition or withholding support. Everything else looks good. I hope you consider 100% width because I believe most other lists use that formatting. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

• Support C'mon, close it. It's time to go and get the star.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:36, 28 November 2010 [11].

---

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bahamut0013wordsdeeds

*Comments: Alt text is good. The table sorting is good, though it might be a good idea to allow sorting by date of award (I know this is the default sort, but sorting back to it would be nice). I like that you used {{Sortname}}, you should use {{Dts}} for the dates and {{Sort}} for the names (they currently sort alphabetically, instead of by precedence of rank). Sorting by date: done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC) There are a lot of redirecting wikilinks. I know that green links are not inherently wrong, but the sheer number begs for a clean up, especially on the German-language links that aren't likely to be renamed to that title. There is no problem at all with redirecting links, and I don't see why this needs to be brought up. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Prose/Lead: I would move the paragraph about the number of recipients from the lead to the lead of the "Recipients" section. Otherwise, it is well-written and seems complete. Either way is okay for me. The paragraph about the number of recipients pertains to all 882 recipients from 1940 to 1945. Moving it to the Recipients section could give the impression that it pertains to the years 1940 and 1941 only. I will wait a bit until others comment on this issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC) That is a concern easily remedied with a bit of context. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Comprehensiveness is good; clear scope, no obvious omissions, not redundant. Does the number column indicate a number associated with the award, or just a running tally? If it is the latter, it would be better just to mention the totals in the prose and delete that column. The intro of the recipients section states "Within each of these lists a unique sequential number was assigned to each recipient. The same numbering paradigm was applied to the higher grades of the Knight's Cross, one list per grade". This official sequential number is presented in the Number column. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Likewise, the "Notes" column seems to suggest that some of these men are multiple awardees? It might help to clarify this (possibly with a link to the other lists if necessary). Hmm, I tried to explain in the background section that the Knight's Cross came in 5 different grades. Your comment suggests that I failed to make this clear. The Notes column therefore indicates two bits of information, first it would indicate whether a higher grade was awarded, second it states the date of death if the award was awarded posthumously. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see, the number is for the sequence number assigned to that award of the higher grade. That's what was getting me confused, because I was unclear with the previous point as well about individual numbering. I think that a link would more than help with that clarification (for example of Eduard Dietl, link "Awarded 72nd Swords 1 July 1944" to List_of_Knight's_Cross_recipients#Knight.27s_Cross_with_Oak_Leaves_and_Swords). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I added the respective link in the background section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Referencing: Seems you lean very heavily on Scherzer. I'd like to see some more variety in sources if possible, especially since the foreign language source is a bit harder to verify. I also prefer to see use of the citation templates, but plain text is by no means a requirement or even a suggestion. To my knowledge research has produced two comprehensive works on the recipients of the Knight’s Cross (and its higher grades). The first is by Fellgiebel, the second is from Scherzer. Fellgiebel, as a recipient of the Knight’s Cross himself and former president of the Association of Knight’s Cross recipients, was a bit more lenient when it came to accepting evidence of the KC. Scherzer presented a book that is based on the information of the German National Archives. A number of authors have presented subsets of these works. Example: Obermaier has focussed on the recipients in the Luftwaffe, Kretschmar on the Waffen-SS, Runge on the Kriegsmarine. Personally I don’t believe that these subsets add more value since they more less are all based on either Fellgiebel and/or Scherzer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I was afraid you might say that. That is one of the problems with foreign topics: they tend to get less significant coverage. The German language article seems to use him a lot as well, but perhaps you can glean a few refs from there, if you haven't looked already. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Style seems good. No obvious image issues jump out at me, but I haven't inspected every single one. Likewise, Stability seems good from the article history. Please respond at your convenience, and I will decide on support based on your counter-arguments or fixes. A thought I just had, not really related to the FLC, is that the two navboxes (Template:Footer Knight's Cross recipients and Template:Knight's Cross recipients) seem like they would make more sense merged. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Is the title correct? Should it be "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941"? Good point! This change in name would then apply to all of the lists? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I would say so. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I think low ranking should be hyphenated. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "excluding the 8 foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves." -> just "excluding the 8 foreign recipients" or "excluding the 8 foreign recipients of the award" or whatever, but don't repeat the whole title again. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) You abbreviate AKCR but never use it, so no need really. I would like to keep it because it is used in the 1942 to 1945 articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Same for RSD I suppose. likewise MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Our own article hyphenates court-martial. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) It's personal, but I'd much, much prefer to see the image of the chap next to his name. I am so used to the layout by now, I have been working on these articles for three years now. Unless you make this a show stopper I really want to keep it as is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) No show-stopper, just a preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Number should be made clear that it's the overall running total, not for the year. I know you say "Within each of these lists a unique sequential number was assigned to each recipient" but is it you assigning this number or the AKCR? The section starts with "The Oberkommando der Wehrmacht kept separate Knight's Cross lists ...". Is it not clear that it was the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht that assigned this number? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I suppose so. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I reworded slightly. Please check if this is clear now MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Refs 4 to 7, just confirm you're using format=pdf in the ref please. I use format=PDF MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I think you need it in lower case (pdf). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Check {{Cite web}} it uses the upper case MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Lower case pdf gives you the neat little Adobe graphic, so perhaps the advice on the template page is incorrect! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Done but I see no graphic MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Okay, perhaps it's by virtue of the hyperlink ending in .pdf, not the parameter itself. A list I've been working on (PDSA Gold Medal) has several of these icons... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I reverted it again to be template compliant since it made no difference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, that's fine. It is because the links don't actually point directly to a .pdf. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks pretty good to me, although I have a couple of suggestions:
  • There is some repetition in the prose. For instance the first two sentences in the lead (and the third is only slightly different) both begin with "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross". Is there some way to reword this?
    • Would rephrasing the second sentence to "This military decoration was awarded ..." fix the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes that would fix the issue, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • done Thanks for the support and all the suggestions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the first sentence of the lead the word "were" seems to disagree with the word "award" - "were" is plural, while "award" is singlular. If singluar it should be "was", if plural it should be "awards";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "won" or received? (received probably sounds better, I think);
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that some linking clauses might make the prose flow a little more smoothly. For instance, inclusion of "however" in the second sentence of the second paragraph indicates the juxtaposition of the two sentences more clearly;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "left the nominations unfinished in various stages of the approval process" or "...left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process"? (I think the second would be more clear);
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the Notes section for Eduard Dietl probably needs a full stop after 1 July 1944 as "At the same time..." begins with a capital letter;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the capitalisation in the notes field for Heinrich Liebe probably needs to be tweaked (I think it should start with a capital for consistency, e.g. "Awarded # Swords" starts with a capital). There are similar inconsistencies in the Unit field, where some begin with caps and others don't. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Based upon the feedback of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 review, which I think was a good idea, the list was renamed to "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)". MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks fine to me. DocYako (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• General comment The intro is adequately written, introduces suitably to the topic and the list is efficiently referenced. I have checked the majority of the links myself and it would seem that no ambiguous links exist. Also, no fair use photos are used. I hence can say that I support the nomination, but first, some minor comments:
  • My main concern - which may be possibly unjustified - is about the use of X./Y (X Battalion of Y Regiment, and similarirly about the other Army Branches, i.e. the Luftwaffe). I don't know whether the average reader is familiarized with this symbol. Replacing this abbreviation is undoubtedly highly impractical and maybe not suitable. Perhaps add a note about what this symbol denotes?
    • I introduced a note to the column "Role and unit" referring to Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS which tries to explaning the German naming convention. Please let me know if this addressed the issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I noticed that Hermann Hoth lacked a picture. This one is available, but I hesitated to use it as I'm afraid it doesn't adheres to the de facto style of other photographs used, which tend more to be of "portrait"-style. Unless I'm wrong about that, we sould wait until a more suitable (maybe one from Heinrich Hoffmann) can be found.
  • The same as above for Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach.

As I said I think the overall condition of the article is more than satisfactory. This is all I have to point out for now, but if anything further comes to my attention, I shall make a comeback. --Jake V (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Only issue I found is "However author", where I believe a comma should go in-between. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Featured list removal candidates

Non-article featured content candidates

Reenactors in British uniform of 1795

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2010 at 04:46:32 (UTC)

Original - Reenactors dressed in British uniform of 1795

Reason

Nice image showing what soilders back then would look like. High EV in Royal Newfoundland Regiment as it shows the uniform used during the year they where founded and what they would look like. Also i dont think we have a FP of reenactors(just saying)

Articles in which this image appears

Signal Hill, St. John's, Royal Newfoundland Regiment, Modern reenactment

FP category for this image

Wikipedia:Featured pictures/People/Military

Creator

Nilfanion

• Support as nominator --Spongie555 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the picture is fine, but the usage of safety goggles makes this image ridiculous. Unless this happens in every case of enactments, it is not representative. Putting nerds in goggles on the main page is too much. Nergaal (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they used the safety goggles to protect there eyes from the smoke of the guns when fired. Spongie555 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is obvious, but a reenactment should at look like the original (i.e. at least choose more subtle goggles) Nergaal (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not all of them are wearing them either... I counted at least 4 on first inspection... gazhiley.co.uk 11:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Nergaal... They could have them off while posing for pictures, then put the goggles back on when firing... gazhiley.co.uk 11:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Having been a reenactor for several years, I have to say that I have never seen any wearing safety glasses (and any who wore ear protection, wore much more subtle plugs). It may have something to do with the apparent age of the members of this particular group which seems quite young. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, really not feeling the goggles. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose nice picture, but I don't like the goggles... they sort of subtract from the picture.Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC).
• Comment Of course this is real! The English in the 1770's fought with goggles just like this!
  • But in all seriousness, Oppose as per Pteronura brasiliensis, J Milburn, gazhiley, & Nergaal. Nothing personal! AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
• Withdraw Now looking closly it is weird for the goggles. Spongie555 (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Not Promoted --Maedin\^talk 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• Withdrawn Maedin\^talk 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Partner peer review

WikiProject Video games

Main page

talk

Archives

Archive index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175

Project watchlist

• view
• talk
• edit
• changes

WikiProject peer reviews
This inactive or historical peer review page has had its instructions updated for posterity's sake. That's because there is now a Wikipedia Peer Review that peer reviews can be listed at, and the old instructions were out of date and may cause problems (or disappointment as not many people may see your review). If this page ever becomes active again, see here for a way to keep reviews up to date.

To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.

Requests

• Empty

Old requests

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Star Control 3
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Sleeping Dogs (video game)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Zojoi
• WikiProject Video games Peer review archive

Archives

Peer review

• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010

A-Class review

• 2006 (promoted / failed)
• 2007 (promoted / failed)
• 2008 (promoted / failed / demoted)
• 2009 (promoted / failed / demoted)
• 2010 (promoted / failed / kept / demoted)

|}