Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review: Difference between revisions
→Current reviews: removed unsuccessful review |
Add "List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories". |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Current reviews== |
==Current reviews== |
||
:''Please add new requests below this line'' |
:''Please add new requests below this line'' |
||
{{Wikipedia:Wikiproject Military history/Assessment/List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Prinzregent Luitpold}} |
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Prinzregent Luitpold}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service}} |
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in Australian service}} |
Revision as of 18:08, 5 July 2012
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
- Instructions
- Requesting a review
To request the first A-Class review of an article:
- 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).
- 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. - Add
A-Class=current
to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after theclass=
orlist=
field). - 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.
- List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
- Add
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}}
at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below. - 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". )
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Reviewingby 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 reviewingby Username
If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:
Comments
Reviewingby 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.
A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
edit | A-Class review | A-Class reappraisal | ||
Closure takes place after minimum of five and maximum of twenty-eight days | Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections |
Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus |
Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus |
Demote • clear consensus to demote |
Review subpage | • Add {{subst:archive top}} to top of page • Next line down, summarise result, e.g. Promoted or Not promoted, and sign with ~~~~ • Add {{subst:archive bottom}} to bottom of page | |||
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass • Record class=A • Update partner project banners |
• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail • Reassess article and record new class |
{{ArticleHistory}} on article talk page | Update (or add) Article History template: • actionX = WAR • actionXdate = ~~~~~ • actionXlink = title of review page • actionXresult = one of approved or fail or kept or demoted • actionXoldid = oldid from URL of article permanent link | |||
Archive | Move review link from A-Class review to appropriate section of current archive page | |||
Announcements | Remove review link from A-Class review list at {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} | |||
Showcase | • Add article name to list of A-Class articles • Increase article count |
• Remove article name from list of A-Class articles • Decrease article count | ||
Newsletter | Add article/nominator to next month's issue of The Bugle | |||
A-Class Medal tracking | • Add nominator(s) to A-Class Medal tracking page • On third successful ACR, complete A-Class Medal nomination |
|||
For detailed advice and instructions see the full Academy course |
Current reviews
- 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.
Yet another German dreadnought (I know, but there are only two left after this); this one managed to emerge from Jutland completely undamaged. This article passed a GA review back in January 2011, and has been sitting in the queue for ACR since then. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets and exceeds Milhist's quality standards, in preparation for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments based on HRS volume 7. Feel free to add the info MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Christened by Princess Theresa of Bavaria; p. 54
- Speech by Ludwig III of Bavaria; p. 54.
- Both added in - thanks for these details. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (If no edits are showing, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Prinzregent Luitpold was assigned to the III Battle Squadron and later the IV Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of her career, including World War I." - Would something like "Prinzregent Luitpold was initially assigned to the III Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet, but later transferred to the IV Battle Squadron, where she spent the majority of her career, including World War I." work?- I like your "initially" suggestion; for the rest, your version is fine, but generally, Wikipedians seem to be happy with the way Nate puts it here ... and if it's okay, then it's tighter than your version. YMMV. - Dank (push to talk)
- Leave it up to Parsecboy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem with the suggested wording is it implies that the ship spent the majority of her career in the IV Squadron, which was not the case. See how it reads now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good.
- The only problem with the suggested wording is it implies that the ship spent the majority of her career in the IV Squadron, which was not the case. See how it reads now. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it up to Parsecboy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your "initially" suggestion; for the rest, your version is fine, but generally, Wikipedians seem to be happy with the way Nate puts it here ... and if it's okay, then it's tighter than your version. YMMV. - Dank (push to talk)
- Be careful with overlinking/duplicate linking. I'm still on the lede and I've removed three
In early September 1917, following the German conquest of the Russian port of Riga, the German navy decided to eliminate the Russian naval forces that still held the Gulf of Riga. - Any way to avoid Riga ... Riga?- I don't follow ... one's a city, one's a gulf. How do we avoid mentioning one or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, yeah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow ... one's a city, one's a gulf. How do we avoid mentioning one or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The accident caused no serious damage, however. " - Reads awkward, any way to fit it in with the preceding sentence?
- Not many prose issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images:
- File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-53, Großlinienschiff "SMS Prinzregent Luitpold".jpg should be cropped to remove the archive data.
File:SMS Prinzregent Luitpold.png - Needs author and date- File:Jutland1916.jpg - Source is dead. Have another?
- File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-074-34, Besetzung der Insel Ösel, Truppenanlandung.jpg - Fine (no action required)
- File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg - Fine (no action required)
- Once again, nothing all too bad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be fixed. That Jutland map has been a pain - this isn't the first time the link went dead. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will check tomorrow. I'd suggest webcitation.org — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know if this is an issue with the server, but I'm getting a 404 error with the new version of File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-53, Großlinienschiff "SMS Prinzregent Luitpold".jpg. File:Jutland1916.jpg should link to the web page and not directly to the file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a server issue - I re-uploaded the image, see if that works for you. Why should the direct link not be used? Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That fixed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind the second one. I seem to recall seeing that we're supposed to link to the page it's on and not the file, but I can't find that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That fixed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a server issue - I re-uploaded the image, see if that works for you. Why should the direct link not be used? Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know if this is an issue with the server, but I'm getting a 404 error with the new version of File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-53, Großlinienschiff "SMS Prinzregent Luitpold".jpg. File:Jutland1916.jpg should link to the web page and not directly to the file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will check tomorrow. I'd suggest webcitation.org — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be fixed. That Jutland map has been a pain - this isn't the first time the link went dead. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks up to A-class standards to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: looks quite good overall. These are my suggestions/comments:
- "After arriving in Kiel, Prinzregent Luitpold went into drydock for periodic" --> "After arriving in Kiel, Prinzregent Luitpold went into a drydock for periodic..."?
- the duplicate link tool reports a few examples of potential overlink: I Scouting Group, Roadstead, Pre-dreadnought;
- would it be possible to work in mention of the size of the ship's crew into the body of the article? Currently it seems to only be mentioned in the infobox. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "drydock" in this case functions as an abstract noun, instead of referring to a specific drydock at a specific shipyard, so the indefinite article isn't needed here. I've cleaned up the links and added a line on the crew to the design section. Thanks, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Thanks for making those other changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "drydock" in this case functions as an abstract noun, instead of referring to a specific drydock at a specific shipyard, so the indefinite article isn't needed here. I've cleaned up the links and added a line on the crew to the design section. Thanks, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes the acquisition and service history of the Royal Australian Air Force's main fighter aircraft since the 1980s, including the role of one of the three Hornet-equipped squadrons in the Iraq War. I started this article as a bit of an experiment to see how much could be written on the service history of a single aircraft type in a single air force, and have been surprised at just how much there was to cover. The article passed a GA nomination in April, and has since been considerably expanded. As such, I think that it now meets the A class criteria. I'm hopeful of further developing this article so it meets the FA standards, and would appreciate any suggestions on areas which need improvement. Thanks in advance, Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Heh, I well remember the hoopla surrounding the Mirage replacement as a young teen, having endless discussions with Dad about what we should get, and being a bit disappointed that the one we ended up with wasn't Mach 2 capable...! Once the first deliveries arrived, however, and I saw one doing circuits with a Mirage at Richmond or Schofields, and the Hornet was almost skidding into its turns as opposed to the relatively gentle cornering of the Mirage, my doubts vanished... ;-) Anyway, on to the review proper:
- Refs, images, structure and detail look fine. Re. the latter, I was kind of expecting a very long article, and am glad to see it's in fact quite succinct without appearing to miss major details (I might skim my copy of McPhedran's 2011 book to see if there's anything worth adding).
- Prose-wise, very good, pls check I haven't inadvertently altered any meaning with my copyedit. A few queries came to mind, none of which necessarily require alterations to the article:
- The Tornado was excluded as it was principally a strike aircraft and had limited air-to-air capability -- When looking at the reasons for pursuing the US aircraft and rejecting the UK and European ones, do any of your sources go into the US designing with air superiority in mind, vs. the air defence philosophy common to the UK and Europe?
- No, they don't really explain this in detail. The European designs appear to have been regarded as being either too specialised in their various roles, or technologically inferior to the US alternatives. The Tornado was clearly a non-starter given its air-to-air capability was limited to Sidewinder missiles carried for self-defence (the ADV variant didn't come along until later, and not even the RAF seems to have regarded it as being truly satisfactory). The Mirage 2000's avionics were its weak point, though the cockpit design was also regarded as being unsatisfactory (something several sources note was common of European aircraft). Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the US planes were always considered superior as dogfighters... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't really explain this in detail. The European designs appear to have been regarded as being either too specialised in their various roles, or technologically inferior to the US alternatives. The Tornado was clearly a non-starter given its air-to-air capability was limited to Sidewinder missiles carried for self-defence (the ADV variant didn't come along until later, and not even the RAF seems to have regarded it as being truly satisfactory). The Mirage 2000's avionics were its weak point, though the cockpit design was also regarded as being unsatisfactory (something several sources note was common of European aircraft). Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RAAF pilots tested United States Air Force (USAF) F-16Bs in 1979 and 1980, and reported that the aircraft had excellent performance but could be difficult to control at times -- I recall one of the things that made the F-16 different was a small sidestick control as opposed to the usual central joystick; was this anything to do with that?
- From memory, the source states that the aircraft were found to be overly unstable in flight. Given that this was one of the first 'fly by wire' designs, I presume that the designers were still in the process of getting the controls right. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yeah, that was the point -- make the plane deliberately unstable so it could be flung round the sky better, and use computers to keep it stable in normal flight, but perhaps they were indeed still finetuning that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From memory, the source states that the aircraft were found to be overly unstable in flight. Given that this was one of the first 'fly by wire' designs, I presume that the designers were still in the process of getting the controls right. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The RAAF's order of 75 Hornets comprised 57 single-seat "A" variant fighters and 18 two-seat "B" variant operational training aircraft -- Do the sources mention the % commonality between the A and B models, and/or the % effectiveness of the B model in combat vs. the A model? I seem to recall this being mentioned at the time...
- The sources only describe the B variants as being used as operational trainers unfortunately, and don't comment on their combat effectiveness. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Memo: must dig out my old Pacific Defence Reporters from the time and see if they mentioned it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources only describe the B variants as being used as operational trainers unfortunately, and don't comment on their combat effectiveness. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Government sought to use the Mirage III replacement program as a means to increase the capacity of Australia's manufacturing industry -- Just checking whether "capacity" is precisely what's meant, or is "capability" closer?
- The latter - I've just tweaked this.
- These aircraft remained in the United States until May 1985, however -- Was a reason given? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They were retained for trials purposes. However, that's from McLaughlin (2005) which I don't own, and I'll need to visit the library to add it to the article; hopefully I'll have time to do this over the weekend. Thanks a lot for your copy editing and comments Ian. In regards to your initial comment, when I was about ten I had a brochure from the RAAF which set out the specifications of its aircraft, and I remember being perplexed at why the new F/A-18s were slower than the old F-111s! Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, speed always seems more important when you're young... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep! I've just added some material on what the two Hornets were doing in the US (as well as a paragraph on the weapons the Hornets use). Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, speed always seems more important when you're young... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They were retained for trials purposes. However, that's from McLaughlin (2005) which I don't own, and I'll need to visit the library to add it to the article; hopefully I'll have time to do this over the weekend. Thanks a lot for your copy editing and comments Ian. In regards to your initial comment, when I was about ten I had a brochure from the RAAF which set out the specifications of its aircraft, and I remember being perplexed at why the new F/A-18s were slower than the old F-111s! Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Tornado was excluded as it was principally a strike aircraft and had limited air-to-air capability -- When looking at the reasons for pursuing the US aircraft and rejecting the UK and European ones, do any of your sources go into the US designing with air superiority in mind, vs. the air defence philosophy common to the UK and Europe?
- Support: good work with this article, Nick. I'm confident that it meets the A-class criteria and am happy to support its promotion. I have a few observations, though:
- no dab links, ext links all work;
- images appear correctly licenced;
- images lack alt text, you might consider adding it in (suggestion only);
- Good point: added
- is there a date for this: "A21-106 was the fourth aircraft to be lost when it crashed inland from Shoalwater Bay in Queensland – its pilot and a passenger from the Defence Science and Technology Organisation died"?;
- Yes, added
- inconsistent: "Davies" (in citation #84), but "Davis" in the References;
- Well spotted: it's "Davies"
- inconsistent: "Fawley" and "Frawley";
- "Frawley"
- in the References you provide the state/territory location for Weston Creek and Fyshwick, but not Maryborough. Canberra is probably fair enough to leave off ACT, but I think you should add the state to Maryborough;
- Fixed
- in the References, some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've standardised on no-hyphens. As always, thanks a lot for your careful review and comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet_in_Australian_service#Operational history. These are my edits; please check the edit summaries. (If no edits are showing, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) I'm not sure about how WP:DATED is getting interpreted these days, for instance in the last two paragraphs I covered; does anyone know? - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot Dank. While those changes are generally great, I've swapped back a few which removed details which I think are useful. The tweak to the lead resulted in an overly long sentence. Regards Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you feel about "consisted of" rather than "involved"? - Dank (push to talk) 14:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me make that a little stronger. Generally avoid the word "involved"; it has too many different meanings, and it's often taken as a sign of intentionally evasive writing, even when the writing isn't evasive. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get paid to write evasive wording (don't ask!), but 'involved' isn't too bad - 'included' implies the presence of things which aren't mentioned, while 'involved' is inclusive. 'Consisted of' is a bit awkward in this context, I think, and 'comprised' probably wouldn't be an improvement. The situation here is that this phase of the upgrade program only consisted of minor tweaks to the air frames while they were in the repair hangers for other purposes, so it's not possible to be too precise about what it involved - I presume that it was different for each aircraft depending on how banged up it was. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not following ... you say "consisted of" is awkward, but then when you're explaining it to me, you say "this phase of the upgrade program only consisted of minor tweaks ...". Why is that word awkward in this context? - Dank (push to talk) 10:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Consisted of" is basically the same as "involved", but involves an extra word - I'm a fan of the third of Orwell's six rules for good writing ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Garner's doesn't have an entry for "involved". Orwell is actually exactly the guy who might have an opinion on the word ... I saw the Orwell quote on your userpage. If you have access to any of his articles or books on language, you may want to check to see if he weighed in on this word or related phrases such as "related to", "concerned", etc. I'll think about what I've read and get back to you after Wikimania. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked it up in Don Watson's book Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, and his complaint about the word's misuse when its being used to imply that things or people might be dodgy (eg, "I don't want to suggest that he was involved in a series of bank robberies"), which isn't the usage here. That said, I'm sure not going to die in a ditch over this ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, just to do some hand-waving (before I get subjected to an entire weekend of it ... this is my little attempt at revenge, or sanity :) ... Milhist gets more professional all the time. I don't have any opinion on what that means, or how fast we expand, or what we expand into; it just seems inevitable that we will continue to get noticed for the quality of our work, and continue to expand. At the point off in the future where we're producing the definitive multi-volume encyclopedia of military history, then we'll have to deal with professional copyeditors, and then it's harder to make the rules. Good professional copyeditors do what they do very quickly; they can glance at a page, and if something needs attention, it jumps out at them. "Involved" is one of those words that their eye will always stop on, because it's so symptomatic of a media culture that tries to say less and less about more and more, and one of the obfuscatory goals is never to claim that a person actually did anything, only that they were "involved", and never to say that a project accomplished or was supposed to accomplish X, only that it was related to, or concerned, or involved X. The problem is, the word "involved" has been so popular for so long among media types that it's widely assumed to be a perfectly good synonym for "consisted of" ... and there's a chance that it is now, in some contexts ... but if so, it didn't used to be, and it still raises eyebrows with the old-school copyeditors that (I hope) we're going to be dealing with some day. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do take your point, but I think that it's pretty clear English in this context. As noted above, I do get paid to write badly though, so my judgments on the finer points of grammar and usage may be suspect ;) Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, just to do some hand-waving (before I get subjected to an entire weekend of it ... this is my little attempt at revenge, or sanity :) ... Milhist gets more professional all the time. I don't have any opinion on what that means, or how fast we expand, or what we expand into; it just seems inevitable that we will continue to get noticed for the quality of our work, and continue to expand. At the point off in the future where we're producing the definitive multi-volume encyclopedia of military history, then we'll have to deal with professional copyeditors, and then it's harder to make the rules. Good professional copyeditors do what they do very quickly; they can glance at a page, and if something needs attention, it jumps out at them. "Involved" is one of those words that their eye will always stop on, because it's so symptomatic of a media culture that tries to say less and less about more and more, and one of the obfuscatory goals is never to claim that a person actually did anything, only that they were "involved", and never to say that a project accomplished or was supposed to accomplish X, only that it was related to, or concerned, or involved X. The problem is, the word "involved" has been so popular for so long among media types that it's widely assumed to be a perfectly good synonym for "consisted of" ... and there's a chance that it is now, in some contexts ... but if so, it didn't used to be, and it still raises eyebrows with the old-school copyeditors that (I hope) we're going to be dealing with some day. - Dank (push to talk) 12:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked it up in Don Watson's book Watson's Dictionary of Weasel Words, and his complaint about the word's misuse when its being used to imply that things or people might be dodgy (eg, "I don't want to suggest that he was involved in a series of bank robberies"), which isn't the usage here. That said, I'm sure not going to die in a ditch over this ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Garner's doesn't have an entry for "involved". Orwell is actually exactly the guy who might have an opinion on the word ... I saw the Orwell quote on your userpage. If you have access to any of his articles or books on language, you may want to check to see if he weighed in on this word or related phrases such as "related to", "concerned", etc. I'll think about what I've read and get back to you after Wikimania. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Consisted of" is basically the same as "involved", but involves an extra word - I'm a fan of the third of Orwell's six rules for good writing ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not following ... you say "consisted of" is awkward, but then when you're explaining it to me, you say "this phase of the upgrade program only consisted of minor tweaks ...". Why is that word awkward in this context? - Dank (push to talk) 10:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get paid to write evasive wording (don't ask!), but 'involved' isn't too bad - 'included' implies the presence of things which aren't mentioned, while 'involved' is inclusive. 'Consisted of' is a bit awkward in this context, I think, and 'comprised' probably wouldn't be an improvement. The situation here is that this phase of the upgrade program only consisted of minor tweaks to the air frames while they were in the repair hangers for other purposes, so it's not possible to be too precise about what it involved - I presume that it was different for each aircraft depending on how banged up it was. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a couple of minor points:
- Are the classic Hornets still going to use ASRAAM given the Super Hornets are armed with AIM-9X?
- Yes. From memory, the RAAF regards ASRAAM as being the superior missile, but isn't fitting them to the Super Hornet as this would require a costly program of modifications and trials and the AIM-9X is a good missile in its own right anyway. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AIM-9M still used as late as 2012 - see article on recent air-to-air LFX in current Airforce News [1] (admittedly these missiles had reached their life of type and were used to dispose of them).
- Same article talks about the withdrawal from service of the AIM 7 in 2004 not 2002 (admittedly probably when the last one was disposed of though, not when AIM-120 was initially introduced). Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll have a go at working that in. It seems that AMRAAMs and ASRAAMs are the standard air to air weapons, but the RAAF still retained its stocks of the older missiles (the F-111s carried Sidewinders until they were retired, and were never fitted to operate ASRAAMs). Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Too easy. The article is already highly developed so I couldn't find much to comment on - my points are just uninformed nitpicks anyway (I'm mostly a terrestrial organism... although I fell out of a Caribou once at 1,000ft which was kind of fun, then went for a swim with the sharks in Jervis Bay which wasn't). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes you more qualified than me! (the highest performance aircraft I've been in is probably an A380, and I sure wasn't flying the thing!). Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Too easy. The article is already highly developed so I couldn't find much to comment on - my points are just uninformed nitpicks anyway (I'm mostly a terrestrial organism... although I fell out of a Caribou once at 1,000ft which was kind of fun, then went for a swim with the sharks in Jervis Bay which wasn't). Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll have a go at working that in. It seems that AMRAAMs and ASRAAMs are the standard air to air weapons, but the RAAF still retained its stocks of the older missiles (the F-111s carried Sidewinders until they were retired, and were never fitted to operate ASRAAMs). Thanks for your review. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the classic Hornets still going to use ASRAAM given the Super Hornets are armed with AIM-9X?
- 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.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a slight change of pace, my first unit A-Class nom... CFS has had two incarnations, firstly as Australia's original military aviation unit in 1913–19, when it trained cadet pilots to "wings" standard, and secondly from 1940 to the present day, when its focus changed to training flying instructors. During World War II it was a key part of the Empire Air Training Scheme; afterwards it became, in official RAAF historian Alan Stephens' words, "the Air Force's most important peacetime unit", not just for instructor training but as the service's arbiter of pure flying standards. On the public relations front, the "Roulettes" aerobatic team is made up of CFS instructors. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work Ian. I have a few comments through
- Is "training facility" the right phrase? I'd suggest "training unit" or equivalent
- "Facility" sounds more like infrastructure? Fair enough...
- "Williams, who became the first to graduate, recalled the school as "a ragtime show"... from memory, Molkentin notes that CFS was quite well set up by the end of the war, and you should note this.
- Heh, I should charge you rent for the amount of time you spend loitering in my brain... ;-) I was considering doing just that at one stage and didn't bother in the end -- now I shall.
- Do we know what the problem with Tamworth was? It's meant to have some of the best weather for flying anywhere in Australia (which is why the ADF initial pilot training school is currently located there). I think that other RAAF units were located at Tamworth, which is presumably what the issue was. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be, but I can only go by what Units says -- haven't seen any other reason given for the move. I could try another trawl of Trove (now that's not bad alliteration!) but I think I caught about everything that was useful last time I did that... Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Searched specifically for everything referring to CFS and Tamworth and/or Parkes (which was where it relocated from Tamworth) but none even mention the move, let alone the reason... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be, but I can only go by what Units says -- haven't seen any other reason given for the move. I could try another trawl of Trove (now that's not bad alliteration!) but I think I caught about everything that was useful last time I did that... Tks for review/support! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment:excellent standard as per usual Ian. I couldn't find much to pick fault with and only made a couple of very minor tweaks. I have one concern, though:
Image discussion |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Yes, my concern has been addressed. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks mate, appreciated. I agree with your edits, they've definitely improved the expression. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent work as usual, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for looking it over, Nate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is a good look at a fairly important, yet surprisingly undercovered, figure in Indonesian military history. After a long and successful career working for the Dutch, Oerip led the Indonesian Armed Forces as interim-commander for not even a month, before being replaced by Sudirman, who hadn't been born yet when Oerip graduated from the academy. Oerip continued on as chief of staff until he grew fed up with what he perceived as the government's lack of trust in the military leadership. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Done.
- Given that Indonesia does not have freedom of panorama, pictures showing 3D works (including buildings) need to account for copyright of both photo and work
- I'm a little confused on this one, because the copyright at the time of the construction of Oerip's house would have been Dutch (Dutch East Indies, after all) and thus {{FoP-Nederland}} would apply; however, it's situated in Indonesia, which may affect the tag (not the status, though). For the museum/former military base, I think I should tag as PD-ID and note that I have been unable to find out who the architect was. Worst-case scenario, I follow the Hirtle chart and just upload it to Wikipedia (as both buildings were built well before 1990, images of them would be PD in the US). What do you think is the best course of action? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused over this. There doesn't seem to be a PD-Indonesia-unknown template or anything of the like for a work by an unknown author, and {{PD-IDOld-Art29}} can't be used without a lifespan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you upload it to Wikipedia, you'll need to account for the building copyright somehow. According to this, works by unknown authors are copyrighted by the state, which means you could use the government template. I don't know how the colony vs country issue affects copyright, though - the copyright act says state claims copyright on historical/cultural works, do you think these would count? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would expect those to be defined a bit more strictly.
So would that be {{PD-IDGov}}? I could use that with an explanatory note.— Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, I got it. It's {{PD-IDOld-Art29}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would expect those to be defined a bit more strictly.
- File:Oerip_Soemohardjo_5_November_1947_KR.JPG: what is IPPHOS? Also, the US tag says it was PD before URAA, but the Indonesian tag suggests otherwise - do you know why? That question also applies to File:Sudirman.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As outlined at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, at the time of the URAA Indonesia's copyright law was 25 years post publication for photographs; as such, these images were PD at the time. The law was changed in 2002, after the URAA, and copyright on images extended to 50 years post publication. Should I edit the template directly? IPPHOS is the Indonesia Press Photo Service, which really should have an article but doesn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think mentioning that either on the template itself or the documentation would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added information to the PD-URAA templates and have requested either a special template or addendum to PD-IDOld-Art29 here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems creating a special purpose template would be met with resistance. I think the addendum I've affixed at the end of the PD-1996 tag clarifies it enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- K, I think I've given proper explanation. Please feel free to give further feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. - Dank (push to talk)
- Most of the lead is nicely done, but I do have a few comments.
- "This is an Indonesian name; it does not have a family name. The name Soemohardjo is a patronymic, and the person should be referred by the given name, Oerip. ... General Oerip Soemohardjo ([uˈrɪp sumoˈhardʒo]; Perfected Spelling: Urip Sumoharjo, also known by the intermediate spelling Urip Sumohardjo, born Mohammad Sidik; 22 February 1893 – 17 November 1948) ...": We haven't gotten past the subject of the first sentence yet, and already some readers will have given up. How about this? "General Oerip Soemohardjo or Urip Sumoharjo (born 22 February 1893 – 17 November 1948) ...". Then the second paragraph can start "Born Mohammad Sidik on ...", or if that name didn't get significant use, you can put that off to the first section.
- I think it should be noted why Oerip is sometimes written Urip, although I agree the Soewandi Spelling (no article yet) isn't really needed. An annoying thing about Indonesian is that there are three main spelling systems, and older subjects can be known under all three
- "known as the first Chief of Staff": Some will read this to mean that he wasn't the first Chief of Staff, he was just assumed to be that. "the first Chief of Staff"
- Done.
- "In his second year, his mother died and Oerip left ...": His mother died during his second year, and Oerip left
- Done
- "newly-formed": newly formed, per WP:HYPHEN
- Done
- "Oerip remained as chief of staff. Together the two oversaw ...": Oerip remained as chief of staff, and together the two oversaw
- Done
- "disgusted by the political leadership's lack of trust in the army and ongoing political manoeuvrings ...": insert "by" before "ongoing"
- Done
- "death ... He has received ...": I see your point, but I'd go with "He received". The award-giving isn't really an ongoing process, is it? - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. He could, theoretically, get more awards, but I don't see much of a chance of that.
- Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk)
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Oerip_Soemohardjo#KNIL. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing.
- "convinced his commander to strike an ordinance forbidding non-Dutch officers from joining the football team, as well as the local railroads to allow desegregated cars; by 1917 he had received equal status with Dutch officers.": How can a commander of a military unit strike strike a civil ordinance, or tell the local railroads what to do? What does "equal status" mean?
- I've stricken the bit about the railroad as, double-checking the sources, it appears to have been more of a trolley. A note on the second point: I've added "legal" to make this clearer, but perhaps a footnote would be in order. The Dutch East Indies had three classifications for its residents: natives, foreign orientals, and Europeans (including the Japanese, after a treaty). Natives could have their legal status equalised with Europeans after working closely with the government (a fairly important piece of character development in Salah Asuhan is based on this); this was mostly de jure, as natives would still face discrimination.
- "First Lieutenant": lowercase
- Done
- "he also worked to prevent conflicts between different Dayak tribes, as well as convince the tribes to abandon headhunting.": he also worked to prevent conflicts and headhunting among Dayak tribes
- Done
- "After two years, in which time his father pressured him to marry quickly,": I don't think this adds a lot.
- Nixed that, added "Initially known to avoid women and under pressure to marry quickly to the next sentence.
- "While training local recruits in stead of the Dutch commander – who had yet to arrive – Oerip was promoted to captain.": While training local recruits in place of the Dutch commander who had yet to arrive, Oerip was promoted to captain. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "promoted to Major": lowercase
- "he was stationed in Purworejo,": period/full stop
- "In mid 1938, after a disagreement with the local regent": comma after. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all, thanks for looking at this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "To protect their land, they surrounded both their property and their home with a high bamboo fence; however, Oerip occasionally received former KNIL leaders such as Abdul Haris Nasution and Sunarmo, who brought news of happenings outside the village.": The "however" doesn't work because these two elements aren't in opposition (unless he rarely received visitors other than the ones listed, in which case, say that).
- Done.
- "The couple continued work, under heavy Japanese surveillance and with interference from a pro-Japanese civil employee": I don't understand what "interference" means here.
- From the source: he convinced most of their employees to quit and took an interest in Nasution and Sunarmo coming to the villa (kept his eye on them, essentially). I didn't think it was worth an in-line mention. Worth a footnote?
- "a mainly police organisation": mainly a police organisation
- Done.
- "The political leadership, consisting of President Sukarno and Vice-President Mohammad Hatta, agreed to a compromise, where the BKR was formally a police-style organisation, but most of its members had been in the Defenders of the Homeland (Pembela Tanah Air, or PETA) and the Heihō – both military units.": What's the compromise?
- It had military members (appease one group) but a police mission statement (the other group). How's this?
- "Oerip was declared its Chief of Staff and interim leader; Oerip left immediately for Jakarta.": Oerip was declared its Chief of Staff and interim leader, and left immediately for Jakarta. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great; check my edits please. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They look fine, except for a small tense issue which I've fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much, my edit was a typo. - Dank (push to talk) 11:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They look fine, except for a small tense issue which I've fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great; check my edits please. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is an Indonesian name; it does not have a family name. The name Soemohardjo is a patronymic, and the person should be referred by the given name, Oerip.": Would it be possible to move this to a note, and replace this at the top with something shorter, just enough to keep editors from making the mistake of calling him "Soemohardjo"? Something like: "This man is referred to by his Indonesian given name, Oerip.[a]"
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is in very good shape, and I have only some limited comments:
- "to do military training" - 'to undertake military training' would probably work better
- Agree
- "Upon the recommendation of a passing doctor" - who did the doctor recommend this to? (eg, was it Oerip or the Army?)
- Changed to "went". Source says the doctor went with him as far as Terakan, so it may have been a recommendation made to Oerip.
- What does 'Maréchaussée te Voet' translate to in English?
- Added
- Do we know why Oerip traveled to Europe in the 1920s and 30s? (was this for sightseeing, or professional education?)
- Sightseeing (she goes on about it for several pages...)
- Did the early Indonesian Army really include "paratrooper divisions"? 'paratrooper units' seems more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both; the paratrooper thing was a brain fart on my part. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments have now been addressed - I learned a lot about this man, as well as the Colonial Dutch and revolutionary Indonesian Armies from it. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Be sure to check out his boss too (A-class sooner or later too) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: looks quite good. I only have a few minor points:
- the duplicate link checker tool suggests that the word "Sumatra" is overlinked;
- Removed.
- "While stationed there Oerip was promoted to first lieutenant but still faced discrimination as a native..." (not sure about the word "still" here. This implies that it has been mentioned before. I might have missed it, but I didn't see that in the text). If you were to add something to the sentence where you mention that he was the only native, then the "still" later on would work;
- Nixed "still". There were other natives, but not many were officers.
- "After the Japanese occupied the Indies in early 1942, Oerip was put in a mixed prisoner of war camp in Cimahi" --> was he involved in any fighting against the Japanese before being sent to the camp?
- Not in sources. Based on what I've read, resistance in Java was pretty poor.
- this could possibly be a little tighter: "Division commanders from Sumatra, who had voted unanimously for Sudirman, swayed the vote in Sudirman's favour..." --> "Division commanders from Sumatra, who had voted unanimously, swayed the vote in Sudirman's favour..."
- Fair enough
- inconsistent capitalisation: "...in charge of the entire Army" v. "uniting the army";
- Fixed several occasions.
- "Oerip received numerous awards from the national government posthumously, including the Bintang Sakti (1959), Bintang Mahaputra (1960),[2] Bintang Republik Indonesia Adipurna (1967),[81] and Bintang Kartika Eka Pakci Utama (1968)". Are these very important awards? If possible, I suggest adding a link to an appropriate article to provide the reader with some context. If there is none available, I wonder if a Note could be added briefly explaining whether these awards are high awards or not;
- Currently linked to Orders, decorations, and medals of Indonesia, which is a terrible article. I'll see what I can dig up for a footnote.
- Added. Think it should be split? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think so, but either way would be fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in Note e: "The regent was refused entry to an gala celebrating the..." (I don't think "an" works here. Probably best to change it to "a gala". My understanding is that an is used when it comes before a vowel sound). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops.
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, happy to help in any small way. As always your work is of good quality and interesting to read. Thanks for your contribution to the project. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
I've tweaked this article in light of the successful FACs of the two class articles and believe that it now meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images: the licensing for File:HMS Furious-15.jpg is odd; I would say the file is merely in the public domain due to it being a US federal work. Other than that, all fine. (I assume, Sturm, that "HMS Furious/Aircraft Carrier 1917–1948: Part II: 1925–1948" identifies File:Furious1941.jpg as a work of the British government?) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at HMS Furious (47)#Norwegian Campaign.
We made edits to or around "untenable" and "charthouse" in a recent FAC, but I don't remember what the fixes were; please fix that before this one goes to FAC.- Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I just ran across those edits; now fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Continuing.
- "816 Squadron, following 40 minutes behind, was": Per WP:ORDINAL, don't begin a sentence with a numeral. There are a couple of easy fixes here.
- "north east": north-east (in BrEng, on Wikipedia)
- "a single Heinkel He 111 of II./KG 26": Many readers won't recognize that as a unit; give the readers who don't click at least a clue.
- "limited to only 20 knots": limited to 20 knots. The "only" would work if the number were really surprising or dramatic; it isn't, here.
- "all crewmen being killed": killing all crewmen
- "She returned to Scapa Flow once all the Gladiators had been flown off. The ship only carried ...": The ship returned to Scapa Flow once all the Gladiators had been flown off, carrying only ...
- "almost 50 aircraft, spare parts and munitions": almost 50 aircraft with spare parts and munitions.
- "for sugar for rationed Britain": for sugar for Britain. (or, you can say a bit about food-rationing)
- "No noteworthy results were obtained and several aircraft were lost.": Quotes should be attributed in the text. This might be better as a paraphrase rather than a quote. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "near-missed by two others by a German air raid": Generally, you can only get away with one "by" since that preposition indicates who's performing the action. "near-missed by two others during a German air raid" would work.
- "The ship loaded another batch of 40 Hurricane IIs, plus nine Fulmars from 'X' Flight of 800 Squadron in Liverpool and arrived back in Gibraltar on 18 May.": See the comma problem?
- " Furious returned to the Clyde for her biggest load of aircraft yet, 64 Hurricanes which meant that she only had room ...": Same comma problem. Also, "meant" can almost always be reworded for clarity; "leaving" would be better here.
- "42 Hurricanes had been left": See WP:NUMERAL. "Of the 42 Hurricanes left ..."
- "Nine of Furious's aircraft had taken off when the tenth aircraft crashed into Furious's island while taking off.": When you see repetition (taken off, taking off, Furious's, Furious's), that's a clue that there may be a way to tighten it up without loss of meaning, and there is, here; you could do that with about half as many words. Give it a shot.
- "Furious exchanged 816 Squadron for 818 from Ark Royal before she departed for home." Which one is "she"?
- "Kirkenes, Norway and Petsamo, Finland in", "Seidisfjord, Iceland under": commas
- "re-fuelled": refuelled (in BritEng)
- "One small ship, MV Trotter, was sunk, several oil storage tanks set afire and several wooden jetties were torpedoed.": Spot the nonparallelism.
- "working up": Let's link that at first occurrence.
- "She loaded 32 Spitfires and launched them on 29 August before returning to Gibraltar upon which the ship was assigned to Force H.": "upon which" doesn't work for me.
- "Furious embarked twelve Supermarine Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron, another twelve Seafire IICs of 807 Squadron and nine Albacores ...": You use "12" instead of "twelve" above. I see that you might be following WP:NUMERAL's advice to write them out because "nine" is written out; the problem is that we don't get to "nine" until late in the sentence, so it looks wrong, for a while. Go with "12", and then either "9" or "nine".
- "Furious's Seafires strafed the Vichy French airfield at Tafraoui and destroyed three aircraft on the ground and shot down one Dewoitine D.520 fighter": Okay, this is a little tougher. "X and Y and Z" with no commas doesn't work, more often than not, and adding a comma isn't usually the best way to fix it. If you're counting the fighter that was shot down as a result of the strafing, then I'd go with: Furious's Seafires strafed the Vichy French airfield at Tafraoui, destroying three aircraft on the ground and shooting down one Dewoitine D.520 fighter
- "despite three Albacores shot down and a further pair damaged by the French fighters and another shot down by anti-aircraft fire.": "despite ... another shot down" is too informal. Go with: despite the loss of an Albacore from anti-aircraft fire and the loss of three and damage to two more against the French fighters
- "The carrier had aboard the Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron": The carrier had the Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron aboard
- "make another attempt": made another attempt
- "on 17 July (Operation Mascot)": on 17 July, in Operation Mascot
- "one armour-piercing bomb penetrated Tirpitz's armoured deck, but failed to detonate and another 500-pound (230 kg) bomb did only superficial damage.": Most style guides recommend a comma between independent clauses, but I haven't been inserting them because it's common to leave them out between short independent clauses, even at FAC, and tedious to insert them all. But that comma isn't optional when there's another comma in the vicinity, so let's move the comma: one armour-piercing bomb penetrated Tirpitz's armoured deck but failed to detonate, and another 500-pound (230 kg) bomb did only superficial damage.
- "eleven": Go with either eleven and twelve or 11 and 12. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) I finished up, and also de-italicized "pom-pom" per Parsec's question below. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I merged the Courageous class aircraft carrier range stats into the article. Kirk (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- In the First World War section, you and I know what "all three ships" refers to, but most won't - this needs clarification.
- Later in that same paragraph - "The other two ships" - I'm assuming this is still referring to Glorious and Courageous? Use their names to avoid confusion.
- In the conversion section, the line "was converted to an aircraft carrier" might strike some readers as odd (e.g., wasn't she carrying aircraft during the war?). I'd suggest you make clear the distinction between her wartime configuration and a proper aircraft carrier with a full flight deck.
- How does it read now?
- Works for me.
- How does it read now?
- Here's a question: did the 3-foot increase in draft submerge the belt armor?
- No. There was so little of it that it was 23 ft high above the waterline at normal load.
- Why is "pom pom" italicized in the armament section?
- Slang
- Shouldn't the wartime air groups be included in that section?
- There was a moderate amount of stability in her peacetime air groups, so it was easier to summarize. The wartime air groups changed frequently and it was easier to integrate them into the text. Should I rename that section to peacetime air group or some such? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if it might make more sense to just merge that section into the pre-war section then. If not, perhaps you could add a note explaining that since the wartime groups changed frequently, they were integrated into service section.
- I've moved it into the Pre-war service section and broken it up, although I'm not sure how well the text flows. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fine - Dan might want to talk a look, but it should probably be ok. Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved it into the Pre-war service section and broken it up, although I'm not sure how well the text flows. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if it might make more sense to just merge that section into the pre-war section then. If not, perhaps you could add a note explaining that since the wartime groups changed frequently, they were integrated into service section.
- There was a moderate amount of stability in her peacetime air groups, so it was easier to summarize. The wartime air groups changed frequently and it was easier to integrate them into the text. Should I rename that section to peacetime air group or some such? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all for now - the article looks to be in pretty good shape, and I look forward to supporting once these issues have been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: looks quite good overall, I just have a couple of minor points:
- the duplicate link checker reveals a number of potentially-overlinked terms: Admiral, Light cruiser, sister ship, North Sea, Sea trial, Nautical mile, Anti-aircraft warfare, Floatplane, Scapa Flow, 816 Naval Air Squadron, 818 Naval Air Squadron, Blackburn Skua, HMS Argus (I49), Liverpool, Iceland, HMS Victorious (R38);
- Wow, just about all of these were legitimate over links; this might be my personal record for them.
- unless I've missed it, a number of the details that are presented in the infobox are not discussed in the article. For instance laid up, launched and commissioning dates and the size of the ship's complement. Shouldn't these be discussed/mentioned briefly in the text of the article?
- Verily; I don't know how I missed adding them.
- in the infobox, in the "Badge" field it appears that there is an out of place full stop: "On a Black Field an eagle’s head White, langued Red. armed Gold". AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor comments:
- "on his third attempt, in Pup N6452, the rotary engine choked " - this leaves unclear the significance of the rotary engine; were there other engines on the plane that weren't rotary? Or can only rotary engines choke? If neither, I'd be inclined to remove the rotary word.
- Deleted it, although I have a vague memory that choking was a real problem with rotary engines of the period.
- " possibly indicating some sort of raid" - you could probably safely condense "some sort of raid" to "a raid"
- Agreed.
- ""cwt" is the abbreviation for hundredweight, 20 cwt referring to the weight of the gun." - it looked odd having the sentence start with a lower case c. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, although you're the first person to catch that even though a number of my FA-class ship articles have used that exact construction without anyone noticing. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's right, this day has finally come. It's been a few years in the making, and involved at least a half-dozen editors, but the battlecruiser project is nearing completion. The format of the list differs somewhat from the national battlecruiser lists, in that it does not have textual sections with each class, as I feel it would cause too much duplication of content. In any case, I look forward in working with reviewers to ensure this article meets MILHIST standards. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Do list class articles get reviewed for A class? (Not really a regular at this project). I'd expect this to go to FL eventually, not FA, and for lists I have generally only considered two classes: L and FL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lists are assessed for A-class - see the diagram here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, interesting. Expect a review from me sometime today. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, lists are assessed for A-class - see the diagram here. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- The lede should mention the only post-war BC class, the Stalingrads.
- Good call, I knew I was forgetting something.
- More pics would be nice, perhaps between each national section?
- I'm not sure what you mean on placement. Like a gallery at the end of each section?
- I was thinking that one picture at the beginning of each national section should suffice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean on placement. Like a gallery at the end of each section?
- Many conversions are redundant and should probably be removed. Generally, I prefer conversions to 3 significant digits, so 406 mm for 16-inch guns, not 410. This is really only an issue for those countries that use metric like the Germans and the French, but still...
- Make sure that the links for terms like steam turbine and knots are in the first entry.
- You might add a section on roles to the lede if you don't think that it's redundant with the type article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lead is rather long as it is, I'd prefer to keep it where it's at. The conversions should all be fixed, let me know if there's anything I missed. Thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Conversions for the Soviet and American ships are redundant. Don't forget to link steam turbine and knot in the first entry. There are links later down, so just move them around.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, should be all taken care of now. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Conversions for the Soviet and American ships are redundant. Don't forget to link steam turbine and knot in the first entry. There are links later down, so just move them around.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lead is rather long as it is, I'd prefer to keep it where it's at. The conversions should all be fixed, let me know if there's anything I missed. Thanks for the review. Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsfrom Crisco 1492 -
- The #Great Britain table is jutting out about 90 pixels for me (on 1024x600). The others are fine
- Hmm, it looks fine to me, but I did find one bit of code that was missing from the end of the template - see if that did it.
- That's all... I added some non-breaking spaces, but I couldn't find anything that jumps out at me prose-wise. Images look fine too, although I wonder: Do File:Haruna 1934.jpg and File:HMS Hood March 17 1924.jpg need US PD tags, or do both the PD-Japan and PD-Australia tags apply universally? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing they're ok, since both images made it through FACs for their respective articles without comment. Thanks for the nbsp-es, I'm surprised we didn't trip each other up! Parsecboy (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look when I get home; my work computer is a lot bigger. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the markup of the tables and just removed a lot of nbsp from the GB table, and now it plays better on narrow displays. Some should prolly go back, but this sort of table is rather designed for large displays, which is an accessibility issue. There are a lot of netbook and mobile devices out there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had checked the refs from the German list when you identified the problem there, and confirmed that everything was correct on the 55/57 issue (I probably didn't tell you at the time), so the refs should be fine here as well. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the German list, it seemed reasonable to tweak it as I did; thanks for the check. On this page, I just fixed the obvious one, but the others here don't seem obvious. The five p55 should be reviewed and possibly a few nudged to p57. I'll have another looksee when I'm less tired. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently two definitions of a named ref:
- <ref name="G55">Gröner, p. 55</ref>
- <ref name="G55">Gröner, p. 57</ref>
Fixing the second is pretty obvious. What's not so, are the five uses of
- <ref name="G55" />
They are scattered above and below the definitions in the Germany section. As things are, they are all showing as p. 55 and p. 57 is not showing at all. This problem seems to have originated in List of battlecruisers of Germany, which I've worked on, fixing it here. These pages should both be checked against the source. Once tweaked, I'll do the {sfn}-thing on this page, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that got the table to work here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Supported above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- Not promoted. Closed because progress appears unlikely to be made within the timeframe of the ACR, but without prejudice to a new review when the primary author has time to devote to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments at this stage:
- An interesting unit.
- "Conceived as a counter force for North Korean (NK) commandos..." Would it still be accurate if you said "Intended to combat the North Korean (NK)..."? I'm trying to think of a way to avoid having to say "counter force" early in the lead.
- Reworded
- "as only 10 Rangers walked away from the battle unharmed." We'd all know what this means, but some pedant is bound to say that this means that some Rangers could have driven away etc.!
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Organization" section. Because this started with "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit..." I found it a bit odd - the next section then revisits the origins. I wondered if this section might live better somewhere after "origins"?
- Moved things around so that "Origins" comes before "Organization" now. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "a unique initial organization of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men" - unique to who? (e.g. US Army, US ranger units, any military in the world?)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The unit was designated the 8213th Army Unit from a program developed by U.S. Army scientists in World War II..." I'm not sure the bit that goes "from a program" is right. "by a program"? "using a program"?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "All U.S. Army Ranger units had been disbanded..." Due to the ordering, this is repeating what was said a couple of paras back.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "felt recreating Ranger units was essential to begin a counteroffensive" - as in the recreation was the counteroffensive, or do you mean "essential to beginning a counteroffensive"?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "North Korean operatives were known to be hiding in the area, which the Army treated as an opposing force in the Ranger training." does this mean that they used fictional NK operatives as an opposing force, or that they used the real NK operatives as an actual opposing force?
- The second one. They used real enemies in "practice" training. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "An estimated platoon of Chinese made the first attack." I knew what this meant, but "an estimated platoon" felt really odd; "an estimated platoon-sized force"?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- " several pre-sighted artillery concentrations" - worth wikilinking or footnoting what this means.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "who was killed instantly by a mortar" - "mortar shell"? (again, someone will point out that mortars rarely kill anyone...)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Analysis" How substantial was Chae's thesis? In the UK, an MA wouldn't be a serious contribution to academic debate. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's the same here, but the thesis was very thorough and easily found in the Army's online archives. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is normally true, as an MA thesis does not normally contain a significant amount of original research. However, there have been some important exceptions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's the same here, but the thesis was very thorough and easily found in the Army's online archives. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one - "Veritas Part 1 2010, p. 37" - shouldn't we be citing the author of the article rather than just the publication? (Piasecki wrote the article concerned I think). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I used information from all over the magazine, I thought it best to be treated as one publication, though every article has a different author. —Ed!(talk) 16:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- One dab link [5]:
- External links all check out [6] (no action required).
- Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [7] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
- Images are all PD and seem appropriate for article.
- Prose is awkward here: "It was best known for its defense of Hill 205 during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River from overwhelming Chinese attack, an action which shattered the company as all but 10 of the 51 Rangers on the hill became casualties." Consider instead → "It was best known for its defense of Hill 205 from overwhelming Chinese attack during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, an action which shattered the company as all but 10 of the 51 Rangers on the hill became casualties."
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repetitive language here: "Subsequent analysis by military historians has analyzed the economy of force...", consider instead → "Subsequent analysis by military historians has focused on the economy of force..."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the capitalisation correct here: "G-3 Operations miscellaneous division"? It seems like a proper noun to me which should probably be capitalised like this: "G-3 Operations Miscellaneous Division".
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "3 officers and 73 enlisted men" → "three officers and 73 enlisted men..." per WP:MOSNUM.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Organisation" section seems repeatitively worded and verbose, and you use a number of sentences and paragraphs which could probably merged. For instance you write:
- "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit, the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare. The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created with an initial organization unique to U.S. Army units of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men. The unit was organized based on the Table of Organization and Equipment documents of Ranger units in World War II. The Eighth Army Ranger Company was organized as a company of two platoons."
- Consider instead: "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit, the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare. It was created with an initial organization unique to U.S. Army units of three officers and 73 enlisted men and was organized as a company of two platoons based on the Table of Organization and Equipment documents of Ranger units in World War II."
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is awkward to me: "The Rangers' first assignment was to probe north with the division's reconnaissance elements to Poun in search of pockets of guerrillas which had been isolated during the UN breakout from Pusan." Consider instead → "The Rangers' first assignment was to probe north to Poun with the division's reconnaissance elements in search of pockets of guerrillas which had been isolated during the UN breakout from Pusan."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be improved: "The troops rapidly moved 175 miles (282 km) to Kaesong and eliminated the last resistance of the North Koreans south of the 38th Parallel...", consider: "The troops rapidly moved 175 miles (282 km) to Kaesong where they eliminated the last North Korean resistance south of the 38th Parallel..."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I question the terminology here: "ahead of the main division force...", might this be more correct as "ahead of the divisional main body"? An advance is usually conducted with a series of screens, guards, the main body and flank and rear elements (suggestion only).
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems redundant: "During the day on 23 November...", perhaps consider "On 23 November..." (suggestion only).
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I question the terminology used here: "...the company moved out on time in the center flank...", be definition a flank is not a central position (it is a position on a side, either left or right, or can be described using a cardinal point). Could you pls clarify what you mean here?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ranger" should be capitalised here I think: "The mortars killed one ranger..."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is awkward to me: "At that time, the tanks of the 89th mistakenly opened fire on the Rangers, causing several friendly fire casualties before Puckett was able to signal them to stop. Two Rangers were killed by this friendly fire." Consider instead → "At that time the tanks of the 89th mistakenly opened fire on the Rangers, causing a number of casualties including two killed, before Puckett was able to signal them to stop." (suggestion only)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "On both flanks, Task Force Dolvin troops encountered sporadic resistance throughout the morning, but were able to capture objectives..." → "On both flanks, Task Force Dolvin troops encountered sporadic resistance throughout the morning, but were able to capture their objectives."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating the date here is redundant also: "The Rangers established a perimeter on the position and spent the day of 25 November fortifying the position." Consider instead → "The Rangers established a perimeter on the position and spent the remainder of the day fortifying the position."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is awkward and somewhat informal to me: "That evening, all along the Korean front, UN troops were unexpectedly slammed by the Chinese Second Phase Offensive; 300,000 Chinese troops swarmed into Korea against the unprepared UN forces.[14][26] Several kilometers away on the Rangers' left flank, the U.S. 27th Infantry Regiment's E Company was hit with heavy Chinese attack at 21:00, alerting the Rangers to a pending attack." Consider "The Chinese Second Phase Offensive was unexpectedly launched that evening with 300,000 Chinese troops streaming into Korea along the entire front, catching UN forces unprepared. Several kilometers away on the Rangers' left flank, the U.S. 27th Infantry Regiment's E Company was hit with a heavy Chinese attack at 21:00, alerting the Rangers to a pending attack." (suggestion only)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rangers" should be captialised here too: "Chinese attack were unable to assist the rangers..."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a sentence: "advancing to within hand grenade range."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "They were ordered to fix bayonets in preparation for the next attack." Who was? The Chinese or the Rangers?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The heavy casualties on Hill 205 rendered the company combat ineffective,[30] and it was capable of conducting only routine patrols or as a security force for division headquarters elements for the next several weeks." Consider instead → "The heavy casualties on Hill 205 rendered the company ineffective, and it was only capable of conducting routine patrols or for use as a security force for divisional headquarters elements for several weeks."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The company's next and final mission came on 27 March..." → "The company's final mission came on 27 March..." (suggestion only)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word here: "Rangers began their advance at 22:00 and arrived at the village at 01:00..."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overuse of the word "contended" or "contend" in the "Analysis" section.
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the terminology correct here: "Two of the Rangers who rescued Puckett, Private First Class Billy G. Walls and Sergeant David L. Pollock, were awarded the Silver Star Medal for their actions..."? Specifically I think its a "Silver Star" not a "Silver Star Medal".
- As far as I know, Silver Star and Silver Star Medal are interchangeable for the sake of clarity, as are Bronze Star and Bronze Star Medal. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's everything. Thanks for such a thorough review. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After a second look at the article I feel there are actually a few more points that probably need attention:
- "The next day, 25 November, Task Force Dolvin resumed its advance..." - the previous paragraph started on 23 Nov, what happened on the 24th? Pls check the dates here. I know I have copy-edited this section so I hope I haven't introduced an error.
- Clarified. —Ed!(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ross ordered a platoon to conduct a stealth attack into the village" – which platoon (a history of a company should probably be detailed enough to identify which platoon was involved in this action IMO)? Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The next day, 25 November, Task Force Dolvin resumed its advance..." - the previous paragraph started on 23 Nov, what happened on the 24th? Pls check the dates here. I know I have copy-edited this section so I hope I haven't introduced an error.
- After a second look at the article I feel there are actually a few more points that probably need attention:
- Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since my original comments some inconsistency in abbreviations has been introduced to the article - in places you use "U.S." but in others "NK" and "UN". Pls use a common format (I suggest "US", "UN" and "NK"). Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not per the standard prose I've been told at FAC. They specify "U.S." and "UN" and have made me change my prose to that format in the past. —Ed!(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. See my previous reviews of your articles for how to handle these problems. - Dank (push to talk)
- "The company saw a number of other infiltration and combat missions through late 1950":
- "The United States (U.S.)" [I got the first one]
- "newly-commissioned"
- "quick selection process, Puckett selected"
- "was formally organized 25 August 1950"
- "to Pusan, South Korea aboard the ferry"
- "the Ranger training. The Rangers trained"
- "The Rangers trained 60 hours per week and ran 5 miles (8.0 km) each day and frequently held 20 miles (32 km) speed marches" (two problems) - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "United States Army": In many places, there's no other army it could be, so anything more than army is redundant. Also, while it's fine to say United States rather than US or U.S. at the first occurrence when United States is part of the formal name of an organization, most organizations have a shortened form that's preferred after the first occurrence. The shortened forms usually don't include "United States"; they use US or U.S. or, usually, neither. Chicago 10.33 recommends US (but Garner's recommends U.S.) rather than United States in front of a noun, unless of course you're quoting someone or following established usage for a proper noun. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In Organization, the entire first paragraph is duplicated by what follows.
- "the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units": I don't know what that means.
- "Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare."
- "60mm" (I don't have a problem with this myself, but usually they want 60 mm at FAC.)
- "designed randomized designations"
- "in order to fool enemy intelligence and prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit": How does a number do that?
- "the unit. The unit ... unit ... unit"
- "This was a unique decision for the Eighth Army Ranger Company, as": This bit is redundant to what follows.
- Oppose. Needs a lot of work. I got down to Eighth Army Ranger Company#History. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank - in light of your comments I have revisted this article and agree that it needs more work. In this my support above was probably premature. I have now done a copy edit of my own. Hopefully this has improved the situation somewhat, although I didn't directly address some of your comments as this is best left to the nominator I think. Ed - pls review my edits and change any you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much AC. I've always been proud of how easy-going our A-class process is and how hard we all work to push these articles through. But in this case, given the density of problems, and given that it's all stuff I've tried to be clear about for over two years, I think I'm going to have to admit defeat; it's not fair to the other writers for me to keep sinking this much time into these Korea articles, I'm going to have to start opposing instead. Ed!, if you could work with a regular co-nom who will handle at least the basics, the stuff that I mention in all your articles, before these get to A-class, that would be a big help, and don't beat yourself up (or me!) over this, different writers have different strengths. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries - hopefully we can still get this one over the line with a bit more work. Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much AC. I've always been proud of how easy-going our A-class process is and how hard we all work to push these articles through. But in this case, given the density of problems, and given that it's all stuff I've tried to be clear about for over two years, I think I'm going to have to admit defeat; it's not fair to the other writers for me to keep sinking this much time into these Korea articles, I'm going to have to start opposing instead. Ed!, if you could work with a regular co-nom who will handle at least the basics, the stuff that I mention in all your articles, before these get to A-class, that would be a big help, and don't beat yourself up (or me!) over this, different writers have different strengths. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank - in light of your comments I have revisted this article and agree that it needs more work. In this my support above was probably premature. I have now done a copy edit of my own. Hopefully this has improved the situation somewhat, although I didn't directly address some of your comments as this is best left to the nominator I think. Ed - pls review my edits and change any you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I made an attempt at fixing some of the issues listed above, and some other things I found. Ed, can you please check that I haven't overstated anything? Dan, does this alleviate your concerns, or do you think it needs a bit more work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much Rupert, you did get a bunch of them. Ed!, here are explanations for a few of the things I pointed out above:
- "seen great success", "see combat" and "saw frequent combat" are fine, because those are (in context) abstract nouns. "saw a steady stream of defeats" and "saw 164 days of continuous combat" (twice) are not uncommon uses of "saw", but it's not good writing, because "saw" distances the actor from the action, as in "The 1950s saw significant increases in average wages"; my understanding is that these battles were raw, up-close and personal. They didn't "see defeats", they were defeated, or pushed back.
- "The United States (U.S.)": I've never met a reader who didn't know what "U.S." means, and don't link United States, at least at A-class or FAC. There's a bit more explanation above, and there are still too many instances of "United States" in the article.
- "Following an informal and quick selection process, Puckett picked the men to fill out the company ...": Better than it was, but I'm still wondering why they needed to be picked after they had already been selected.
- "to join the Eighth Army Ranger Training Center, also newly formed, for seven weeks of specialized training. This took place at "Ranger Hill" near Kijang, where the unit trained", "in the Ranger training. Adopting training techniques that had been established during World War II, they trained", "12 either dropped out of training": You can get rid of roughly 5 instances of "train" there with no fear that the reader won't follow what you're saying.
- "the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units": I still don't know what that means. Maybe this? "This was an experimental re-creation of an Army Ranger unit, the first since the disbanding of the Ranger units at the end of World War II"
- "Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare." Still a sentence fragment; fix it by changing the semicolon to a colon.
- "in order to fool enemy intelligence and prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit": I still don't know how a 4-digit number is capable of concealing all information about a unit from the enemy.
- "The unit was designated the 8213th Army Unit ... randomized designations to military units in order to ... prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit. The unit was considered an ad hoc provisional unit, ... a temporary unit, akin to a task force. ... subsequent companies assumed the lineage of Ranger units from World War II, ... it prevented the company from accruing its own ... unit decorations." You can do without at least half of those instances of "unit".
- "This was a unique decision for the Eighth Army Ranger Company, as": This bit is redundant to what follows.
- Still opposing. I'd like to see a solution here that doesn't involve more and more of Rupert's and Anotherclown's time; I can't say of course what the best use of their time is, but I know they feel the same obligation I do to the A-class process as a whole, and for all of us to spend a disproportionate amount of time here doesn't strike me as a solution. Ed!, if you want to sink some time in and polish these up before they get to A-class, that would work, or if co-noms will do that, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, due to having a day off work, I had some time to do some more. I made a few more tweaks, but I will stop now. Some of what I did might be a bit too drastic, so I will leave it up to Ed now to finish/revert/polish as he sees fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work as always Rupert, particularly on the "train", "picked", and "4-digit number" points. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, due to having a day off work, I had some time to do some more. I made a few more tweaks, but I will stop now. Some of what I did might be a bit too drastic, so I will leave it up to Ed now to finish/revert/polish as he sees fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed! Not sure if you noticed them but I still have a couple of points outstanding above. Are you able to have a look at these pls? Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the delay, I've been very busy in RL. I fixed your latest points. I'll try to get to Dank's as quickly as I can. —Ed!(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Ed, those changes look good. Anotherclown (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the delay, I've been very busy in RL. I fixed your latest points. I'll try to get to Dank's as quickly as I can. —Ed!(talk) 11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: where do we stand with this article now? Given that the last edit was made to the article on 3 August, it is probably best to move to have this nomination closed as unsuccesful. I've tried my best to address the issues above to help out, but I haven't been completely successful. As Ed! doesn't appear to be active at the moment, it is probably best just to close this review and allow him to renominate when he becomes free again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First nomination
Second nomination
This article failed two ACRs in 2009 and 2010 due primarily to issues with sourcing, when I was a much younger editor. Since then, I have completely reformatted the sources, eliminated almost all of the online refs, rewritten most of the prose, diversified references and basically redone the whole thing with my greater WP experience. It's ready for round three. —Ed!(talk) 21:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The initial 'Origins' paragraph does not cover the 45th Division at all, and needs to be removed; maybe broken up between the State ARNGs, but certainly doesn't belong here. Also same thing for the first four-line paragraph on the Korean War: it doesn't talk about this division. If I may be honest, this is is a bit of a weak consistent thread in your writing: you don't stick to the unit/formation you're actually writing about. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I heartily disagree. It had been your comments in the past two ACRs that the article lacked context and needed more from unit histories. All of the unit resources I consulted, including what was suggested to me, point strongly to the division's origins as state militias with a lot of detail. Lineage-wise, the division draws at least some of its ancestry from the militia units which saw activations in so many 19th Century conflicts. As to the second part, it goes to explain the unpreparedness of the U.S. Army in general for the Korean conflict and why a National Guard unit was drawn in to begin with. As with many of my articles, I think this adds clarity without forcing the reader to find contect by clicking elsewhere. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, I've parsed down this paragraph and merged it into the following one. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to say, but this misses the point. This is an article on the Division; not the constituent regiments, or the State ARNGs. The history of the division begins only on 19 October 1920, after the first section. The material in the first 'origins' section simply does not belong here; it belongs in other articles. What we need here is a sketch about division level formations and maybe the expansion of the U.S. Army and the reasons why more division level formations were created. As it is this article simply replicates material that should be in the State ARNG or regimental pages. More space should be freed up to discuss the unique historical circumstances dealing with *this* level of the chain of command, at the division level, not the lower level regiments and other units. Whether you agree or disagree, is this objection clear? Have I made myself clear in what I am saying? Kind regards and congrats on all the other progress you've made with this article; I don't want to tangle my objections to the way this is at the moment with my personal regard for all the work you've done here. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, I've parsed down this paragraph and merged it into the following one. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I heartily disagree. It had been your comments in the past two ACRs that the article lacked context and needed more from unit histories. All of the unit resources I consulted, including what was suggested to me, point strongly to the division's origins as state militias with a lot of detail. Lineage-wise, the division draws at least some of its ancestry from the militia units which saw activations in so many 19th Century conflicts. As to the second part, it goes to explain the unpreparedness of the U.S. Army in general for the Korean conflict and why a National Guard unit was drawn in to begin with. As with many of my articles, I think this adds clarity without forcing the reader to find contect by clicking elsewhere. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also want to see an expansion of the 1953-68 section; apart from the bare facts of the ROAD reorganisation, you've actually said very little. Historical regimental continuity? Mobilisation assignments? Training exercises? OK ARNG/other state ARNG political fights? None of this is reflected here. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking around for a few days and haven't found any Cold War-era resources about the division, or the Oklahoma National Guard. I could add in some things about the National Guard challenges overall in that era, but this would go back to your first point. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems trips to the archives will be required. Have you at least contacted the OK ARNG history office to check whether there are additional easily available resources? Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Took another look around and contacted them. There is nothing in terms of reliable sources on that era that I could find to add. —Ed!(talk) 11:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems trips to the archives will be required. Have you at least contacted the OK ARNG history office to check whether there are additional easily available resources? Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking around for a few days and haven't found any Cold War-era resources about the division, or the Oklahoma National Guard. I could add in some things about the National Guard challenges overall in that era, but this would go back to your first point. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments:I've done some copyediting on this this evening. These are my comments:- "federally recognized" --> I wonder if this needs explaining, perhaps in a footnote?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- is this right? "In August 1940, the 45th Infantry Division took part in the Louisiana Maneuvers, the largest peacetime exercises in U.S. military history". The Wiki article for the Louisiana Maneuvers states that it was in 1941.
- Yeah, that was a typo on my part. Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 82nd paratroopers, conducting the first combat jump of the war". Do you mean "their first combat jump"?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this might need to be reworded: "German forces pushed back, the division advanced, its main objective was to capture airfields at..."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this seems a little awkward: "forts Kaiser Wilhelm II designed" (was it one or more forts, and was it/were they named "Kaiser Wilhelm II"?)
- Reworded. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent capitalisation: Active duty v. active duty
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "antiaircraft" --> should this be "anti-aircraft"?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- not sure about this: "Some of the victims apparently had only died hours before the 45th Division entered the camp and lay where they had died in states of decomposition that overwhelmed the soldiers' senses". (My issue is with the word "decomposition". If the victims died only hours before the unit arrived, I don't think decomposition would have started).
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent: "U.S. " and "US";
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but in places the prose seemed to lack flow and seemed more like just a collection of facts. For instance the last part of the second paragraph of the Sicily section. I've had a go at trying to fix this, but I don't think that I was wholely successful. Would you mind making a run through and seeing what you can do? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've been having problems trying to get the level of detail right in some areas, while keeping the statistics still a prominent part of the narrative since they're the best documented details. Is there anywhere else in the article that stands out to you? —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "federally recognized" --> I wonder if this needs explaining, perhaps in a footnote?
- Your changes look good. Cheers. I've taken another run through and made a few more tweaks. Please check that you are happy with my changes. I have the following additional comments:
- repetition: "On 19 October 1920, the Oklahoma State militia was organized as the 45th Infantry Division of the Oklahoma Army National Guard, and organized with troops from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.[11] The division was organized" (a number of "organized") - perhaps one can be reworded?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "After this, division was allocated to drive towards Messina, being ordered by Patton to cover the distance as quickly as possible..." and then "On 1 August, the division was withdrawn..." (Did they make it to Messina before being withdrawn?)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 40th Infantry Division of the California Army National Guard would soon be deployed to Korea as well." This seemed just tacked on, so I had a go at working it into the paragraph. I'm not sure if I was completely successful, though. Would you mind taking a look ? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "as part of Secretary Robert McNamara's downsizing of the Guard"... this appears in the lead, but not in the body (specifically the mention of McNamara);
- Reworded to cover what was cited. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "the 45th Infantry Brigade which inherited the division's lineage and honors, the 45th Field Artillery Group (today's 45th Fires Brigade) and the 90th Troop Command, were activated..." this appears in the lead, but not in the body of the article (specifically the arty, troop command, etc). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed until it is sourced. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been added back in with citations, which is fine, however, I think a couple of tweaks are needed now. Firstly, the information should be added to the body of the article (currently it is just in the lead), and secondly the sentence needs to be reworked as in its current form it is very awkward. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 11:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been added back in with citations, which is fine, however, I think a couple of tweaks are needed now. Firstly, the information should be added to the body of the article (currently it is just in the lead), and secondly the sentence needs to be reworked as in its current form it is very awkward. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed until it is sourced. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- repetition: "On 19 October 1920, the Oklahoma State militia was organized as the 45th Infantry Division of the Oklahoma Army National Guard, and organized with troops from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.[11] The division was organized" (a number of "organized") - perhaps one can be reworded?
Oppose- I see the following problems (all of which can be corrected):
I concur with Buckshot06 - the initial paragraph does not deal with the division.
- Reduced the paragraph and merged it into the next one. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of Origins needs clarification. Both the 157th and 158th regiments were never part of the 36th ID, but the wording of the paragraph leads one to believe that they were.
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than those two problems, the rest of the article is great. Much better than before. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Personally, I found the first para useful context, but I tend to prefer longer context intros than some, so might well be in the minority.
- Me too, apparently. —Ed!(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "many of its members were adept with weapons and outdoor skills" - can you be adept with an outdoor skill? (the verb doesn't seem right to me)
- As in, they were used to a more rugged outdoor lifestyle that made transitioning into a combat unit easier for them. —Ed!(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "many of its members were outdoors-men and adept with weapons"? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As in, they were used to a more rugged outdoor lifestyle that made transitioning into a combat unit easier for them. —Ed!(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "designed by Carnegie, Oklahoma native, Woody Big Bow" - is Carnegie a place? (I thought it was a name the first time I read this, so might be worth playing with the text a little)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworked. —Ed!(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "was federalized into the active force" - "federalized" won't be a familiar verb to many readers. Does it mean called up/mobilised into full time service?
- Done. —Ed!(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Though the 45th remained de facto segregated in 1950" - I'm assuming it was segregated as a white unit? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Origin
Stating that discussion of the early militia in the original four states is not discussion of the division, is to me like stating that discussion of hydrogen and oxygen is not discussion of water. National Guard units are usually not the product of a start from scratch, but rather are usually the product of the combination, recombination, or elimination of existing elements. In this case, the territorial volunteer militia units are the direct antecedents of the regiments that would be combined to form the division--litterally the division's origin. I cannot conceive of an origin description that leaves them out. As is, only the militia of Oklahoma is directly mentioned, which in a discussion of today's brigade might be appropriate, as a discussion of the division this is an unwarranted lack of ballance.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree on this, though the editors above will need convincing. —Ed!(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, what about a compromise, much more focused on the division itself; 'the initial regiments of the 45th Div were the Xth, Yth, Zth, and Ath Field Artillery. The Xth traces its origin to.., the Yth,traces its origin to.. the Zth... the Ath traces its origin to... etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accompanied by proper links to the antecedent unit pages that would work. RTO Trainer (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course; that's implied by my statement. If I have read your contributions history correctly, you personally have done a fantastic job on expanding the various OK ARNG regimental pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I love my Thunderbirds. I'm about to offer a big expansion of the Korean War section, an actual history for the 279th, and I just came into posession of a source for Cold War to 1982, reorgs, SAD, and politics. RTO Trainer (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course; that's implied by my statement. If I have read your contributions history correctly, you personally have done a fantastic job on expanding the various OK ARNG regimental pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accompanied by proper links to the antecedent unit pages that would work. RTO Trainer (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, what about a compromise, much more focused on the division itself; 'the initial regiments of the 45th Div were the Xth, Yth, Zth, and Ath Field Artillery. The Xth traces its origin to.., the Yth,traces its origin to.. the Zth... the Ath traces its origin to... etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1950 Reorganization
Currently, the article states: "During this time the division was also reorganized and as a part of this process the 157th Infantry was removed from the division's order of battle and replaced with the 279th Infantry Regiment.[89]" The cite is Varhola's Fire and Ice, history of the Korean War. Either Varhola has this wrong, or the reference has been misunderstood (I don't have a copy of this book to check). The reorganization that replaced the 157th with the 279th occurred in 1946. This is supported by the Lineage and Honors of each regiment, reproduced on the respective regiments' pages: 157th & 279th. In addition there is no reorganization listed in the 45th Brigade's lineage and honors in 1950.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look for a source and fix this. —Ed!(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a reference and fixed. —Ed!(talk) 11:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Federalized
Perhaps the answer to this is a new article, or a new section on the National Guard of the United States page that can be referred to--would be useful to others. The Guard is unique in it's many duty statuses. RTO Trainer (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also agree an article on federalizing national guard units into federal service would be helpful. I'm personally not knowledgeable in the sources that would make a good article for this. —Ed!(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See if this seems useful to you: National Guard Active Duty Character. Suggestions for a better title would be welcome.RTO Trainer (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created Federalization of the National Guard to that section. It should be used every time federalized National Guard units are mentioned. —Ed!(talk) 11:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See if this seems useful to you: National Guard Active Duty Character. Suggestions for a better title would be welcome.RTO Trainer (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Italy Curent statement: "One of the first National Guard units activated for the war, the 45th fought in the 1943 Italian Campaign, seeing intense fighting during the invasion of Sicily and subsequent attack on Salerno." Fighting in Italy covered 4 official campaigns. Perhaps the plural should be used in the article.RTO Trainer (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, Italian Campaign (World War II) says: "The Italian Campaign of World War II was the name of Allied operations in and around Italy, from 1943 to the end of the war in Europe." - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that needs a citation. To the best of my knowledge, that's not true. And I can produce citations for the official list of named campaigns.RTO Trainer (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the way it's worded now should fix the problem. —Ed!(talk) 15:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the US Army divides the fighting in Italy into six campaigns: Sicily, Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rome-Arno, Northern Apennines, and Po Valley. The 45th only fought in the first four. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the way it's worded now should fix the problem. —Ed!(talk) 15:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that needs a citation. To the best of my knowledge, that's not true. And I can produce citations for the official list of named campaigns.RTO Trainer (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I spent a while working on just the first two paragraphs, see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Much improved, thank you for your help. —Ed!(talk) 21:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing.
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at 45th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#Allegations of war crimes. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing.
- "advanced training": advance training? - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No dab links [8] (no action required).
- External links all check out [9] (no action required).
- Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [10] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
- Most of the images are PD or licenced and seem appropriate for article.
- File:Middleton.Troy.ThreeStars.jpg lacks a fair use rational for this article
- Removed the image. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Middleton.Troy.ThreeStars.jpg lacks a fair use rational for this article
- Language here seems a little off (to me at least): "...the 45th Infantry Division accrued over 25,000 battle casualties...", perhaps consider "...the 45th Infantry Division sustained' over 25,000 battle casualties..." ("accrued" doesn't sound right, almost sounds like its a desirable statistic)(suggestion only).
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "These militias would eventually organize into most of the National Guard units which would make up the 45th Infantry Division...", consider instead: "These militias eventually organized into most of the National Guard units which later made up the 45th Infantry Division..." (suggestion only)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a missing word here: "...and would earn combat participation credit during the Meuse-Argonne campaign..."? Specifically should it be: "...and would earn a combat participation credit during the Meuse-Argonne campaign..."?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1937, the division's troops were once again called up to help manage a locust plague affecting Colorado..." had they been called up previously to manage a locust plague? Perhaps you mean something like: "In 1937, the division's troops were once again called up, this time to help manage a locust plague affecting Colorado..."?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a missing word here: "The division had great difficulty moving across the rivers and through mountainous terrain, and the advance was slow...", consider: "The division had great difficulty moving across the rivers and through the mountainous terrain, and the advance was slow..."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Allied forces conducted a frontal assault on the Gustav Line stronghold at Monte Cassino, and VI Corps was assigned Operation Shingle, detached from the Army Group to land behind enemy lines at Anzio." When?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 45th Infantry Division was mostly stuck in its place...", or should it be: "The 45th Infantry Division was mostly stuck in place..."? (suggestion only)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word here: "but these plans were scrubbed before the division could depart due to the surrender of Japan, V-J Day...", consider "but these plans were scrubbed before the division could depart due to the surrender of Japan on V-J Day."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundant language here: "...these divisions were equipped with antiquated weaponry and they suffered from a shortage of anti-armor weapons...", consider instead: "...these divisions were equipped with antiquated weaponry and suffered from a shortage of anti-armor weapons..." (minor point - suggestion only)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing word here: "Following its arrival, the division moved to the front line replace the 1st Cavalry Division...", consider: "Following its arrival, the division moved to the front line to replace the 1st Cavalry Division..."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be reworded: "...individual unit commanders made great pains to integrate...", consider "...individual unit commanders went to great lengths to integrate..." (suggestion only)
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These sentences need to linked somehow with the language you use, because their proximity implies a relationship but the way they are written doesn't make it clear: "In the spring, the division launched Operation Counter, an effort to establish 11 patrol bases around Old Baldy Hill. The division defended the hill against a series of Chinese assaults from the Chinese 38th Army." This could be as simple as: "In the spring, the division launched Operation Counter, which was an effort to establish 11 patrol bases around Old Baldy Hill. The division then defended the hill against a series of Chinese assaults from the Chinese 38th Army."
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is repetitive: "...but most of the division was held back to hold a defensive line against the Chinese...", perhaps consider rewording?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This lacks context: "The ensuing Battle of Hill Eerie was one of a series of larger attacks by Chinese and North Korean forces which produced heavier fighting than the previous year had seen." Why? I assume it was because the Chinese were looking to gain political advantage at the Armistace talks or was there another reason?
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall, this article is looking good to me but there a few issues with prose that need to be cleaned up / discussed.
- Fixed everything you noted. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also have Buckshot's concerns been fully addressed (I can see changes have been made but are they sufficient)? I'm no expert on US Army units so I'm really not qualified to say either way. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, he hasn't clarified. I'll query his talk page. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy with these changes; however, noting Buckshot's recent comments above I'm putting my support on hold for now as it is beyond my area of knowledge. I'll check back in a few days. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, he hasn't clarified. I'll query his talk page. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 EyeSerenetalk 09:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vannevar Bush was an engineer was an American engineer, inventor and science administrator known for his work on analog computers, as the founder of Raytheon, and for the memex, an adjustable microfilm viewer analogous to the structure of the World Wide Web. What brings him here is his role as an initiator and administrator of the Manhattan Project Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments
- "pressed for the creation of the Legislation to create" - repetitive, and why the caps?
- Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bush stuck to his guns" is a bit cliched
- Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't use contractions
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher for FN82?
- Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this is a reliable source.
- All we have, unfortunately. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments:Sorry, I've only taken a quick look at this.I will try to come back a bit later and read through it more thoroughly. It's quite comprehensive, so may take me a while the get through.I made a couple of minor tweaks and have the following points at this stage:- the last part of the fourth paragraph of the Early life and work section might need a citation as it appears to be unreferenced: "Bush found backing from Laurence K. Marshall and Richard S. Aldrich to create the Spencer Thermostat Company, which hired Bush as a consultant. The new company soon had revenues in excess of a million dollars."
- Ref addeded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this might need a citation: "Bush remained a member of NACA through 1948".
- Also, would it work as: "Bush remained a member of NACA until 1948"?
- Yes. Done that, added a ref. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if this is a US English thing or not, but should "antiaircraft guns" be "anti-aircraft guns"?
- I think that the hyphen is British and that the Americans use one word. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- is there something missing here: "He toured the Western Front in October 1944, and spoke to ordnance but no senior commander..."? (specifically "spoke to ordnance"... ordnance what?);
- Added missing word.
- (nitpick) in the References this is inconsistent: "Washington, DC" v. "Washington, D.C." I wasn't sure what the convention is, so I left it;
- Settled on "D.C." Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Carnegie Institution for Science section there are two links (CIW and CIS), one of which links back to the other. It might make sense to cull the redirect link here;
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the duplicate link checker highlights a few possibilities: General Electric, World War I, Brigadier General (United States), Major General (United States), Rear Admiral (United States), Tufts College, United States Atomic Energy Commission, National Science Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Johns Hopkins University, etc. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed duplicate links. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the last part of the fourth paragraph of the Early life and work section might need a citation as it appears to be unreferenced: "Bush found backing from Laurence K. Marshall and Richard S. Aldrich to create the Spencer Thermostat Company, which hired Bush as a consultant. The new company soon had revenues in excess of a million dollars."
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "During World War I Bush worked with..." I wonder if, for context, it might be clearer as: "In 1917, following the United States' entry into World War I, Bush went to work with the National Research Council..." (or something similar);
- "During World War I, AMRAD prospered with military contracts..." --> maybe better as: "During World War I, AMRAD had prospered with military contracts..."
- "which allowed the organization to hit the ground running" (possibly a little too informal);
- capitalisation here: "40,000 per day.[51] "if one looks at the proximity fuze program as a whole," historian... ("if one..." looks like it is the start of a new sentence);
- "Bush briefed Roosevelt on the Tube Alloys, the British atomic bomb project..." Would this work as: "Bush briefed Roosevelt on Tube Alloys, the British atomic bomb project" (removal of the "the"). AustralianRupert (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These have been addressed now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- "known for his work on analog computers, his role as an initiator and administrator of the Manhattan Project, as the founder of Raytheon, and for the memex ...": Nonparallel. I'd go with: known for his work on analog computers, for his role as an initiator and administrator of the Manhattan Project, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex
- "an adjustable microfilm viewer analogous to the structure of the World Wide Web. He is credited with inspiring the creation of the New Media.": I don't get a hit on "New Media" below the lead, and this is hard to understand. Importing from the last paragraph of the lead, since it's so prophetic: "an adjustable microfilm viewer that influenced generations of computer scientists. In 1945, Bush published As We May Think in which he predicted that "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them, ready to be dropped into the memex and there amplified"."
- "six–thousand": six thousand
- "was a driving force behind it receiving the top priority": WP:PLUSING (pronoun plus -ing, in this case)
- "to it being sold": to selling it, or to its sale. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edits on the above look good.
- "... Dr. Robert H. Goddard, who was regarded as a loner and a crank.": Calling someone a "loner and a crank" needs in-text attribution. If sufficient attribution will be too much of a digression, another option is to tone it down.
- How does it sound now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfect. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it sound now? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. [I stopped listing my edits for a while because the toolserver was lagging for weeks; hopefully it's fixed now.] - Dank (push to talk) 19:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- In the NDRC section, why is Karl Compton the only one without his position identified?
- Because I already said he was President of MIT in the previous section. Should this be repeated? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I missed that when I read through. So perhaps don't link his name again, since (at least to me) that seems like you're introducing him again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I missed that when I read through. So perhaps don't link his name again, since (at least to me) that seems like you're introducing him again. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I already said he was President of MIT in the previous section. Should this be repeated? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the National Science Foundation section, it notes that Bush was open to prosecution over conflict of interest issues from the war. Was he ever charged with anything? If not, why mention this?
- No, he was never charged; but it was the reason for his desire to wind up the organisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That explains it much better. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he was never charged; but it was the reason for his desire to wind up the organisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The source link for File:Lawrence Compton Bush Conant Compton Loomis 83d40m March 1940 meeting UCB.JPG is dead.
- Link rot. Switched to another location. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a couple of tweaks, hopefully they're ok. Parsecboy (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're great! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me now, so I'm moving to support. The Compton thing is pretty minor, and you don't have to do anything with it if you don't want to. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're great! Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the NDRC section, why is Karl Compton the only one without his position identified?
- 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 EyeSerenetalk 09:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James B. Conant was a chemist, educational administrator, government official and diplomat. What brings him here is his role as an administrator of the Manhattan Project Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Page for FN 63?
- Added URL Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher for FN 47?
- Added publisher. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "One of the contributing causes was Conant's faulty test procedures" - can you explain a bit more?
- All I have is what Conant says: "The account Loomis gave me of what had actually happened showed that the procedure had been formulated erroneously, which was no one's fault except my own." (p. 45)
- "He went to work...where he worked", "OSRD handed over the atomic bomb project...over to the Army" - repetitive
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we know why the sons didn't have his surname?
- Because I left them out. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "unlike some other Universities" - why the caps?
- Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It diminished further" - why?
- Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: looks good overall. I made a number of minor tweaks. I have the following suggestions/comments:
- the duplicate link checker reveals a number of examples of possible overlink: Harvard Medical School, Roger Adams, Columbia University, National Academy of Sciences, Harry S. Truman, United States Atomic Energy Commission,
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hershberg 1993, pp. 50–43" --> "Hershberg 1993, pp. 50–53"?
- Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent caps: "awarded honorary degrees" v "an Honorary degree on Conant";
- Used lower case consistently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "With L. K. Nash, eds. Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science". Is this the title, or should it just be "Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science"? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the duplicate link checker reveals a number of examples of possible overlink: Harvard Medical School, Roger Adams, Columbia University, National Academy of Sciences, Harry S. Truman, United States Atomic Energy Commission,
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with minor comments below:
- "The first part, supervised by Richards, was about "The Electrochemical Behavior of Liquid Sodium Amalgams"" - "concerned" vice "about"? Also, the MOS would allow a lower case "The" if you wanted it, to smooth the flow.
- Changed the wording, but kept "The". Have your say on this important issue here; I'm not touching it because I'm already over my wiki-drama quota for this month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Subtly different parts of the MOS... I'd go out on a limb over Liquid Sodium Amalgams, but no number of barnstars would cause me to venture into the correct use of the definite article with music groups... :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Their marriage produced two sons..." To me this felt a little archaic as a formulation; could it run on from the previous sentence instead? "They were married in the Appleton Chapel at Harvard on April 17, 1920, and had two sons..."?
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He supported the "meatballs" as lower class students were called." I'd have gone for a comma after meatballs.
- Me too. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Conant did so as member of the Educational Policies Commission..." did what? I wasn't sure if this was his calling for a ban in the previous but one sentence or not.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- "A graduate of Harvard, which awarded him his Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1916": Graduating Harvard with a Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1916
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, Garner's likes "Graduating from Harvard", I'll fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "James Bryant Conant (March 26, 1893 – February 11, 1978) was a chemist, educational administrator, government official and diplomat. As the President of Harvard University he reformed it as a research institution. A graduate of Harvard ...": I understand you want to get the important stuff in first, but I'm not on board here. How about this? "James Bryant Conant (March 26, 1893 – February 11, 1978) was a chemist, a transformative president of Harvard University, and the first U.S. Ambassador to West Germany. Graduating Harvard ..."
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "bomb, and, as part of the Interim Committee advised President Harry S. Truman to use atomic bombs on Japan.": needs a second comma after "Committee", but that's a lot of commas. How about this? "bomb, and was on the Interim Committee that advised President Harry S. Truman to use atomic bombs on Japan."
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "After the war, he served on the influential General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and the Joint Research and Development Board (JRDC), which was established to coordinate defense research.": Here's one way to deal with the problem of "which was" in a compound object (considered redundant by some and necessary by others), namely: "After the war, he served on the Joint Research and Development Board (JRDC), established to coordinate defense research, and on the influential General Advisory Committee (GAC) of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)." Does that work here?
- Sounds good. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "during which time he oversaw": overseeing
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "He then became the first United States Ambassador to West Germany, serving until 1957.": If you take my suggestion for the first sentence, you can get away with less here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I removed "educational administrator, government official", since that's implied by "president of Harvard University, and the first U.S. Ambassador to West Germany". - Dank (push to talk) 21:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at James_Bryant_Conant#Chemistry professor. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- No dab links [11] (no action required)
- External links all check out [12] (no action required).
- Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [13] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
- Images are all PD and seem appropriate for article.
- Is there a missing word here: "An incident took place during 1941 Harvard–Navy lacrosse game...", specifically would this work better: "An incident took place during the 1941 Harvard–Navy lacrosse game..." Anotherclown (talk) 04:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added missing word. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This is an excellent article, an example of our best work. I couldn't find anything to comment on, or any improvements to suggest. Great work. Parsecboy (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Constantine ✍
The twin article of the 806 campaign, this expedition was Harun al-Rashid's first major military undertaking and likewise one of the most well-known campaigns of the entire Byzantine-Arab conflict. The article passed GA without major problems a couple of weeks ago, and I think it meets A-class criteria. Constantine ✍ 09:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had a quick look at the article in "editing". There are a couple of things that are very minor and I'm possibly picking at it. (1) Article infobox can be expanded to include the strength, units, casualties and losses. Image in infobox increased by 20px (to 300px) (2) In the "Background" section pargraph two, after Caliph Umar (r. 634–644) there is a space between the closing of the bracket and the fullstop. (3) Sources changed to Bibiolography. Mind you this is my first attempt at trying to help with an article for ACR assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time for reviewing this! Don't worry, I am grateful for any help you an give. I'll fix these issues, but, in addition, how do you perceive the article as a text? Is it understandable and complete? Would you like something elaborated upon? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- I'm well outside my lane here but since few of us seem to be reviewing at the moment so I'll give it a go:- No dab links [14] (no action required).
- External links all check out [15] (no action required).
- Image lacks Alt Text so you might consider adding it [16] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
- The map (very impressive BTW) is licensed and seems appropriate to the article (no action required).
- This sentence seems a little awkward to me: "Taking advantage of the internal difficulties of the Caliphate, resulting from the Umayyad civil wars in the 740s and the subsequent Abbasid Revolution, the Byzantines under Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) were able to regain the initiative in their eastern borders and pursue an aggressive strategy." Perhaps consider something like: "Taking advantage of the internal difficulties of the Caliphate that had resulted from the Umayyad civil wars in the 740s and the subsequent Abbasid Revolution, the Byzantines under Emperor Constantine V (r. 741–775) were able to regain the initiative in their eastern borders and pursue an aggressive strategy.
- "but the Byzantines were still capable of major counterstrikes...", → "although the Byzantines were still capable of major counterstrikes..." (suggestion only)
- "Hasan led over 30,000 troops into an invasion of Byzantine territory, but the Byzantines offered no opposition and withdrew to well-fortified towns and refuges, until a lack of supplies forced Hasan to return home without achieving much...", → "Hasan led over 30,000 troops in an invasion of Byzantine territory, yet the Byzantines offered no opposition and withdrew to well-fortified towns and refuges, until a lack of supplies forced Hasan to return home without achieving much..." (suggestions only)
- This seems like it is missing a word: "Thumama was entrusted with the other half, invaded Anatolia proper and marched west as far as the Thracesian Theme, but was heavily defeated there by Lachanodrakon...", perhaps "Thumama, who had been entrusted with the other half, invaded Anatolia proper and marched west as far as the Thracesian Theme, but was heavily defeated there by Lachanodrakon..."
- Hadath is linked twice, the second instance should be delinked per WP:REPEATLINK.
- Overall, this article looks quite good to me and there are only a few issues to deal with / discuss. It reads well, is well cited, appears to cover the topic sufficiently (although I'm not an expert) and is succint. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One other point. Harun al-Rashid is mentioned in full in the lead (correctly); however, he is not formally introduced in the text of the article until the aftermath section. His full name should be used in the first instance (with a wikilink) in the "Background" section, then he should be referred to as "Harun" there after per WP:SURNAME. Anotherclown (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time for the review! I've implemented your suggestions and made some minor tweaks elsewhere. Please have a look and tell me if there's anything else. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Happy to support now. Anotherclown (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time for the review! I've implemented your suggestions and made some minor tweaks elsewhere. Please have a look and tell me if there's anything else. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting, but there wasn't much to do. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support:
- I've read through the article a couple of times and I agree with the endorsements above regarding prose (no action required);
- article is well referenced and IMO meets the A-class requirements in this required (no action required);
- the sole image used in the article appears correctly licenced to me (no action required);
- no duplicate links could be found (no action required);
- copyright: I checked the online sources using the Duplication Detector, searching for strings of 5 words or more: nothing popped out as concerning (no action required);
- (nitpick) there is a slight inconsistency in your dash useage. For example you use a spaced endash here: "His son and heir Harun – better known by his laqab, or descriptive name, al-Rashid – was left". But you use an unspaced emdash here: "heavy annual tribute—the Arab sources mention various amounts between". As these are doing the same thing, they should be consistent. Either style is fine, IMO, but consistency the key;
- in the infobox: "spring-summer 782". I'm not sure, but I wonder if this should be "Spring–Summer 782";
- in the References: The Cambridge Medieval History, Volume IV: The Eastern Roman Empire (717–1453) has an editor listed on Worldcat - "John Bagnell Bury". I'm not sure if you want to list them or not. I've added an OCLC number for the work, though, as it doesn't appear to have an ISBN due to its age. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previous nomination: here
I am nominating this article for A-class review on behalf of Adam, per this request on my talk page: [17]. The article is currently rated GA and was previously nominated for A-class, but withdrawn upon Adam's request. Adam has done quite a bit of work on the article since then and would like to receive feedback upon whether or not it qualifies for Milhist ACR. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- Technical
- No dab links [18] (no action required).
- External links all check out [19] (no action required).
- Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [20] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
Done
- I've added this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Citation Check Tool reveals multiple errors with reference consolidation (this is fairly minor housing keeping - not a major issue):
- Andrew, (1999), p. 147. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. xi. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Hearn, (2006), p. 15. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 258.(Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 146. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 9. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Hearn, (2006), p. 10. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 10. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Arthey, (2004), p. 163. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 18. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 171. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/hollow-nickel/ ''FBI: Rudolph Ivanovich Abel (Hollow Nickel Case)''] (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 172. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 94. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 96. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 109. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 148. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 175. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 147 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. xi (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 258 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 146 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 9 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Hearn, 2006, p. 10 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 10 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Arthey, 2004, p. 163 (multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2011, p. 18 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- FBI (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 171 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Hearn, 2006, p. 15 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 172 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 94 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 96 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 109 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 148 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 175 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- File:Young Vilyam G Fisher (1937).jpg might need a tag indicating why its PD in the US, although I'm not an expert in this field.
Not done
Done Taken out image altogether. Adamdaley (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose - can be a little awkward in places so I have added some suggestions for its improvement:
- "His parents, ethnic Germans from Russia, were revolutionaries of the Tsarist era, and had fled to the United Kingdom in 1901...", consider instead "Revolutionaries of the Tsarist era, his parents were ethnic Germans from Russia who had fled to the United Kingdom in 1901..."
- "His father, Heinrich, a keen Bolshevik, whilst living in England took part in gunrunning, shipping arms from the North East coast to the Baltic states to help the proletariat...", consider instead "His father Heinrich was a keen Bolshevik and whilst living in England took part in gunrunning, shipping arms from the North East coast to the Baltic states to help the proletariat..."
- "The Fisher family left Newcastle upon Tyne in 1921, to return to Moscow, following the 1917 Russian Revolution...", consider instead "Following the Russian Revolution the Fisher family left Newcastle upon Tyne to return to Moscow in 1921..."
- "After the family's return to Russia in 1921, Fisher worked for Comintern as a translator, as his lingual fluencies included English, Russian, German, Polish and Yiddish...", consider instead "Fisher was fluent in English, Russian, German, Polish and Yiddish and following his family's return to Russia he worked for Comintern as a translator..."
- "During his military service in the Red Army, 1925–1926, he was trained as a radio operator...", consider instead "He served in the the Red Army during 1925–1926 and was trained as a radio operator..."
- This is a little informal to me: "In the view of Fisher's bosses in the KGB...", perhaps: "In the view of Fisher's superiors in the KGB..." (suggestion only)
- Tense here could be improved: "Members of the network stopped cooperating, due to the tightening in security at Los Alamos, after the war...", consider: "Members of the network had stopped cooperating, due to the tightening in security at Los Alamos, after the war..."
- A little awkward: "Whilst it is not known for certain where Fisher went or what he did, it is believed one place he travelled to was Santa Fe, New Mexico, the collection point for stolen diagrams from the Manhattan Project...", consider instead: "While it is not known for certain where Fisher went or what he did, it is believed he travelled to Santa Fe in New Mexico, the collection point for stolen diagrams from the Manhattan Project."
- "However on October 21, 1952, a thumbtack was left on a signpost in New York's Central Park..." by whom?
Not done
Done Expanded and added source. Adamdaley (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tense here: "The real Maki was born in 1919, in the U.S. to a Finnish-American father and a New York mother...", consider instead: "The real Maki had been born in the U.S. to a Finnish-American father and a New York mother in 1919."
- "Häyhänen prior to opening the coin misplaced it, either buying a newspaper or using it as a subway token...", consider instead: "However, prior to opening the coin Häyhänen had misplaced it, either buying a newspaper with it or using it as a subway token."
- "preferring conventional", conventional what? Perhaps consider "preferring more conventional styles" or something similar.
- "Whilst in Moscow Fisher expressed to his superiors his dissatisfaction with Häyhänen...", consider instead: "While in Moscow Fisher informed his superiors of his dissatisfaction with Häyhänen."
- "the same location and using wrong radio frequencies...", might be reworded as: "the same location using incorrect radio frequencies."
- "By early 1957, Fisher had run out of patience with Häyhänen and demanded that Moscow recall his deputy...", consider instead: "By early 1957, Fisher had lost patience with Häyhänen and demanded that Moscow recall his deputy..."
- "Firstly he made contact with the KGB residency, receiving another two hundred dollars for his journey to Moscow...", consider instead: "Making contact with the KGB residency he received another two hundred dollars for his journey to Moscow."
- This is too informal: "Häyhänen, upon his arrival in the U.S., was grilled by the FBI and proved very cooperative...", consider instead: "Upon his arrival in the U.S. Häyhänen was interrogated by the FBI and proved very cooperative..."
- "During Fisher's detainment at the Federal Alien Detention Facility...", the facility has already been mention so it could be dropped altogether to avoid repetition. Consider: "During Fisher's detainment the FBI had been busy searching his hotel room and photo..."
- To be honest the level of detail about field craft might not be required in a biography article, perhaps you might consider condensing it in parts? This is particularly so given the lack of success Fisher appears to have actually had as a spy.
Not done
- I wonder if the structure of the article cannot be improved. Its a fairly minor point but I think you might consider spliting the "Capture and later life section" into a "Capture" section and a "Release and later life", with the later incorporating the last two paragraphs of the article? (suggestion only)
- The heading "In the Secret service" seems a little off to me, would something like "KGB service" work better? (suggestion only).
- Overall, this article is not in bad shape but needs to be copy-editted. Pls have a look at my notes above and once you have done so I would be happy to have a read over it again. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam. I've been bold and implemented the bulk of these comments so pls review my changes and feel free to revert / discuss any you disagree with. Once you have done so I will give it another read and possibly a light copy edit. Other than that the only thing outstanding is the issue of the image (needs a US PD tag I think). Are you able to have a look at that please? Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I've marked the issues that are still outstanding. Most are not enough to stop me from supporting but I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam. I've been bold and implemented the bulk of these comments so pls review my changes and feel free to revert / discuss any you disagree with. Once you have done so I will give it another read and possibly a light copy edit. Other than that the only thing outstanding is the issue of the image (needs a US PD tag I think). Are you able to have a look at that please? Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical
- Sorry. I was going to do the changes you recommended this weekend. I appreciate you doing what you've done and I'll do the rest in the next few days or over the weekend. Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems at all, when you're done I have another look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am satisfied with the article now. Anyone wish to look over it? Adamdaley (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Adam, good work with this article. Unfortunately Anotherclown is away for at least another three or four weeks on an exercise. I would like to review the article for A-class, but as I have been involved with it in the past (copy editing etc.) I probably can't review it due to a conflict of interest. I will ask some favours on your behalf to see if anyone is free to offer you their opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again Adam, I got back a little earlier than expected so I've gone over this again. I have made a couple more changes so pls review to ensure I haven't changed your intended meaning. I am quite happy with the way this article has progressed, and all my points have now been addressed. There are still a few points raised by Ed and Ian which need to be actioned but I will gladly support once these are done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of comments in this ACR appear to have been actioned now so I've added my support. Well done Adam. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again Adam, I got back a little earlier than expected so I've gone over this again. I have made a couple more changes so pls review to ensure I haven't changed your intended meaning. I am quite happy with the way this article has progressed, and all my points have now been addressed. There are still a few points raised by Ed and Ian which need to be actioned but I will gladly support once these are done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Adam, good work with this article. Unfortunately Anotherclown is away for at least another three or four weeks on an exercise. I would like to review the article for A-class, but as I have been involved with it in the past (copy editing etc.) I probably can't review it due to a conflict of interest. I will ask some favours on your behalf to see if anyone is free to offer you their opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am satisfied with the article now. Anyone wish to look over it? Adamdaley (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems at all, when you're done I have another look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I was going to do the changes you recommended this weekend. I appreciate you doing what you've done and I'll do the rest in the next few days or over the weekend. Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- The Early Life section is almost problematically terse to me. In one sentence he's 15, two lines later he's fluent in five languages. Are there any ideas of his personality or interests? I assume there isn't a great level of detail, but some kind of background would help.
- "...his parents were ethnic Germans from Russia who had fled to the United Kingdom in 1901." -- Any idea why they fled?
- "...before being accepted into London Universityin 1919." -- What was his area of study, and did he complete his degree?
- "...despite the accusation that his brother-in-law was a Trotskyite" -- this is the first mention that he might have siblings. Are any known? Could be included in the early life section.
- " Kayotis conveniently disappeared while visiting relatives in Europe." -- I'm not sure if this is loaded language, but please make it clear if he was somehow incapacitated by the KGB or if his name was used just because he had gone missing.
- The "KGB service" section could use breaking into a few subsections for better organization.
- " he knew that if he cooperated with the FBI, he would not see his wife and daughter again." -- Again this could use some adding in earlier in the article, even if it's just to say "During this time he married and had a daughter." That way it's less of a surprise to find out this late in the article.
- The photo in the "release" section needs a caption that clarifies who is who in the photo, including which of them is Fisher.
- Haynes ref is in Bibliography but not used.
- "West" should be moved from further reading to bibliography.
- A few lines or section indicating his honors and accolades might help, particularly if any of his military decorations are known, or more details about him being on the stamp featured in the infobox.
- Just a few comments. Happy to support once they're addressed. —Ed!(talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a small update in the last 48 hours. Progress is being done with the other changes you've suggested. Adamdaley (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looking at the article now, I'm satisfied with the changes and now support for A-class. —Ed!(talk) 16:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Date ranges: I've made the change in the lead but not anywhere else -- you only put spaces around dashes in complex date ranges, e.g. "5 March – 10 September 1954", not year-only ones like "1953–1955".Over-linking: Countries don't need to be linked unless they're historical, e.g. Soviet Union makes sense but United Kingdom not really -- people don't tend to oppose an article at reviews on this basis alone but it is an example of over-linking. World War II, being so well known and so wide-ranging, is also not really necessary to link, nor are common/generic terms like spy. Finally, you may need to make some links more precise, e.g. in the lead, does New York mean the state or the city, i.e. New York City? Pls check this sort of thing throughout.Still seeing overlinking and ambiguous linking, including the examples noted above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citations: I'm not a hard-arse on formatting these as long as it's consistent within the article, however it is redundant to put a comma in front of the date when the date's in parentheses, e.g. "Hearn, (2006), p. 10." -- in fact you could omit the year entirely if you only have one work by the author, so it reads "Hearn, p. 10."- This appears to have been actioned by Anotherclown. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you don't need to cite something in the lead if it's cited in the main body of the article, so you don't need to cite things in the infobox if they're cited in the main body: examples of such redundant citing in the infobox include his birth date, and the first and second of his aliases (at least, I stopped checking after that) -- pls check for others.Some of this done, but Martin Collins and Robert Callan are mentioned/cited in the main body, and so don't need citation in the infobox. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He served in the Red Army in 1925 and 1926 and was trained as a radio operator" -- bit confusing to me, was he trained as a radio operator for his 1925–26 Red Army service, or did he serve in the Red Army in 1925–26 and then get training as a radio operator?Still not sure about the order in the rewritten sentence -- was he not trained as a radio operator before serving in the radio battalion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In the spring of 1955, Fisher and Häyhänen visited Bear Mountain Park, and buried five thousand dollars, destined for the wife of Morton Sobell, a Soviet spy sentenced to thirty years in jail" -- this last clause reads oddly; can we say roughly when he was sentenced, e.g. "recently"?"debauchery" is a rather old-fashioned and general term, can we be more specific, e.g. alcohol, parties, whatever?"...a hollow shaving brush, cuff links and numerous "trick" containers including hollowed-out bolts" -- the significance of the cuff links isn't clear from this; were they hollow like the shaving brush?Spotcheck of the one online source (CN5) revealed the following concerns:- CN5(d): Couldn't see Hicks Street mentioned in the source, only Fulton Street.
- CN5(f): "On May 28, 1957, FBI agents observed a man resembling "MARK" on a park bench opposite the entrance to 252 Fulton Street" in the article is a close paraphrase of "On May 28, 1957, agents observed a man resembling "Mark" on a bench in a park directly opposite the entrance to 252 Fulton Street"
- CN5(g): Paraphrased okay but prefer you didn't employ the exact term "exclaimed" used by the source.
CN5(i): Both article and source use the exact phrase "his former trusted espionage assistant".Other citations to this source look okay, however based on this I think you need to review your offline references and spend some time checking and if necessary recasting the article wording vs. the sources' wording.- Obviously I'm taking on good faith that you've checked that info from your book/offline sources is employed in the article accurately and without close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the above, images, structure, level of detail, and now referencing/citations appear okay. Overall, an interesting and enjoyable read.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the process of changing what is recommended. Adamdaley (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many hours have been spent doing the changes. Even after midnight. Adamdaley (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the process of changing what is recommended. Adamdaley (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. Adamdaley (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How many more people does it need to "support" it to become "A class"? Adamdaley (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally at least three. I can see most of the comments I made above have been actioned and I've struck those, pls see further comments on others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Last changes done. Adamdaley (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally at least three. I can see most of the comments I made above have been actioned and I've struck those, pls see further comments on others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How many more people does it need to "support" it to become "A class"? Adamdaley (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose – Isn't it clear that he was in the Red Army in 1925–26 where he was taught to be a radio operator? Even prior to this he had an interest in basic radio's, while after the two years in the Red Army he was able to teach others and used radio's during World War II and his time in the United States. Adamdaley (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it could be expressed more clearly but, in any case, I can see that you've addressed most of my recent follow-up points so let me have another read through the article, during which time I may copyedit a little more, and we'll see how we go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, based on the latest changes and following my final copyedit, I'm happy to support -- well done. Just one last thing: I realised on my latest copyedit that we say "He was, however, dismissed from the NKVD in 1938" without having explicitly mentioned his membership of the NKVD. I know the Soviet intelligence apparatus had many names and layers so if he was in the NKVD by default through membership of some other organisation previously mentioned, fair enough, but we should make the connection clear. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Adamdaley (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus (talk)
- The article's previous A-class review can be found here.
A biography of one of the best known Polish military commanders, from the Golden Age of Poland. Also, an illustration of how our standards change. This was one of my first FAs years ago, in the days of Brilliant Prose. Recently I got around to adding inline cites, and bringing it to a GA status. Now, I hope we can move it forward to A-class, and eventually, FA-class. With regards to the "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" concern raised at an earlier review (and/or the "heavy reliance on one source"): Podhorodecki (1978) is THE decisive biography of the subject, no significant work has on him has been published since (and the entry from Polski Słownik Biograficzny predates Podhorecki's work, and he discusses it anyway). (And in case anybody wonders: no, there are no good English sources). PS. If somebody can do the "Update the transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page, found by using the "What Links Here" feature." part of the instructions, I'd appreciate it, it doesn't make enough sense to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical comment (not by way of review): I have completed the requested transclusion updates with these edits: [21] and [22]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, here are some comments of mine.
- "Koniecpolski also negotiated with the Cossacks near Olszanica, where the Cossack register (list of privileged Cossacks in the Commonwealth military) was limited to 1,000 and Cossack raids on the Black Sea were banned" This seems a bit confusing in structure. Is what happened that: In negotiations with the Cossacks of Olszanica, Koniecpolski banned raids on the Black Sea and limited positions that the Cossacks from Olszanica could hold in the Cossack register to 1,000. If so, your current structure seems a bit confusing. Also, perhaps the total # in the Cossack register should be mentioned. Later, you seem to mention that the register is related to military service. Perhaps a bit more could be said about this.
- When was Treaty of Khotyn signed?
- Date added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything to say about his relationship with Khmelnytsky other than what is already said? This seems like it could be important due to Khmelnytsky's later rebellion.
- Nothing significant. Chmielnicki had more of a (bad) relation with Stanislaw's son, Aleksander Koniecpolski (1620–1659), but this is outside the scope of this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps something should be said about his legacy for future Polish and European/worldwide military leaders. That could also be somewhere that would describe tactics that were characteristic of him.
- An excellent idea, if only there were any sources for that. As far as I know, there aren't, or at least I cannot find them. If anybody would like to point me to any specific source, I'd be more than happy to read it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This [23] seems like it has a section on the Polish Art of War in the 16th and 17th centuries. That section, from what the Google Book preview shows me, does seem to talk about the influence of Koniecpolski on some later commanders, though I can't tell because some pages are not in the preview.Perhaps that might be of help. Other than this, I'm willing to support. --DemonicInfluence (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent idea, if only there were any sources for that. As far as I know, there aren't, or at least I cannot find them. If anybody would like to point me to any specific source, I'd be more than happy to read it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also are foreign language sources really not allowed?
- Why wouldn't they be...? I just made that note above for the occasional editor who thinks so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think this article was decent, but it felt like it lacked a bit of a conclusion. DemonicInfluence (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: I have focused on nitpicks. I hope these won't come off as too petty, but if you want to take it to FAC, you will probably need to consider some of these sorts of things:
- some images appear to have alt text, but others don't. It is not an A-class requirement, but you might consider making it consistent: [24] (suggestion only);
- Sure, fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a disambig link here: "negotiated with the Cossacks near Olszanica" (Olszanica, being the dab). Can this be dealt with?
- Well... there is one location that makes the most sense, and I disambiguated the link there, but it's not like the source is specific. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Notes, there is a tense issue: "after the diary of Karol Ogier, a French courtier, who in 1635 noted that Koniecpolski is 43 years old". (It should probably be "after the diary of Karol Ogier, a French courtier, who in 1635 noted that Koniecpolski was 43 years old);
- in the lead "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is overlinked;
- elsewhere in the article, the duplicate link checker reports quite a few instances of possible overlink: Sieradz, Sigismund III Vasa, Jan Zolkiweski, Iskender Pasha, Krzysztof Zbaraski, Khan Temir, viovode, Sejm, Black Sea, Pomerania, Puck, Danzig, Gniew, Tczew, Baltic Sea, stutter (and others);
- in the Gustavus Adolphus: 1626-29 section, there is an incorrectly spaced emdash: "putting his small forces to most efficient use — quick". Per WP:DASH, emdashes shouldn't be spaced;
- in the Wealth and influence section, there is an incorrectly spaced emdash: "Like most magnates, Koniecpolski sponsored artists — painters, sculptors". As above;
- in the Wealth and influence section, "Koniecpolski inherited some 7–8 villages from his father". I suggest changing this to: "Koniecpolski inherited seven or eight villages from his father";
- some of the inline citations end in full stops, but others don't. For example consider # 47 and 48. Either style is fine, but consistency is the key;
- the works in the Further reading section are not presented in a consistent style. For example consider Czaplinski v. Jasienica. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My concerns have been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport - some technical stuff, mostly nitpicking:- This article has some WP:Overcite issues - you don't need citations to the exact same reference for consecutive sentences, this is poor citation use and not in line with general practice in writing history.
- I beg to strongly disagree here. No, we are not writing a history book; we are writing a wikified encyclopedia. For such a medium, those are very good citations. That we accept lesser standards is a pity, I most certainly refuse to write substandard articles. (Sorry if I came of strong here, but this is something I feel very strongly about; and the citation style I use is not forbidden or discouraged by current rules). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns over text-source integrity, but the way you're going about it doesn't really accomplish anything different than using less dense citations. People always can insert new material into sentences with sources (see here for example). There's nothing you can do about that besides remain vigilant; it doesn't matter how densely you cite things. Annotating the citations to include what material they cover would probably be a better way to ensure text-source integrity, as then, if other material was inserted, the readers would at least know what each citation actually covers. Even still, as long as at least one person is keeping an eye on an article, it shouldn't be a problem. For example, I wrote SMS Von der Tann four years ago, and no such problems have crept into the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, nonetheless a densely cited article is better than the one that is not. While both can suffer from unreferenced text sneaked into referenced sentences, the densely cited one will at least not suffer from the question of "whether this sentence is referenced or not." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I lost track of this ACR for a little while - I won't oppose over the citation thing, since it's just a matter of opinion. Hopefully this can be passed soon, since it's been open for almost 2 months now :) Parsecboy (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, nonetheless a densely cited article is better than the one that is not. While both can suffer from unreferenced text sneaked into referenced sentences, the densely cited one will at least not suffer from the question of "whether this sentence is referenced or not." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns over text-source integrity, but the way you're going about it doesn't really accomplish anything different than using less dense citations. People always can insert new material into sentences with sources (see here for example). There's nothing you can do about that besides remain vigilant; it doesn't matter how densely you cite things. Annotating the citations to include what material they cover would probably be a better way to ensure text-source integrity, as then, if other material was inserted, the readers would at least know what each citation actually covers. Even still, as long as at least one person is keeping an eye on an article, it shouldn't be a problem. For example, I wrote SMS Von der Tann four years ago, and no such problems have crept into the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to strongly disagree here. No, we are not writing a history book; we are writing a wikified encyclopedia. For such a medium, those are very good citations. That we accept lesser standards is a pity, I most certainly refuse to write substandard articles. (Sorry if I came of strong here, but this is something I feel very strongly about; and the citation style I use is not forbidden or discouraged by current rules). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, there are several instances where three or more citations are used to support one sentence or even a single clause - this is overkill, especially for non-contentious material. For example, why do you need four citations for this sentence: "On 2 April 1627 Koniecpolski managed to recapture Puck."
- You are right here, I removed three unnecessary cites.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What source was used to create File:Rzeczpospolita.png?
- We would have to ask User:Halibutt. Out of curiosity, are we finally up to removing and tagging unreferenced maps? I suggested we should do this years ago, but the community was not interested then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what the general consensus is, but at the FAC I'm doing right now, Nikkimaria raised concerns over a map that did not specify a source, so I removed it. It makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could ask her. I'd support such a policy, but I'd hesitate to remove a useful map from an author I trust, just because we are going above and beyond our current policy. In this case I am pretty sure the map is accurate and neutral, and seems helpful. I've also left a comment at User_talk:Halibutt#Sources_for_your_maps and you're welcome to chip in and pressure 'but for the sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what the general consensus is, but at the FAC I'm doing right now, Nikkimaria raised concerns over a map that did not specify a source, so I removed it. It makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We would have to ask User:Halibutt. Out of curiosity, are we finally up to removing and tagging unreferenced maps? I suggested we should do this years ago, but the community was not interested then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The description for File:Bitwa pod Oliwą 1627 3.JPG gives a date in the "mid 20th century" - if this was painted in the mid-20th century, it is not PD in the US and therefore unusable.
- You are probably right. The description of the file is bad, I'd suggest notifying the uploader, USer:Mathiasrex, and nominating it for deletion on Commons. I'll remove it from our article till this is resolved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful with image placement, they shouldn't sandwich text between two images.
- Fixed; they don't on my screen... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The monitor I'm using right now is somewhat small, so that might have been why.
- Fixed; they don't on my screen... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an eye on low value links - stutter, hip, and fire power should probably be de-linked, for example. Also, some things are linked more than one, such as Tartar.
- This article has some WP:Overcite issues - you don't need citations to the exact same reference for consecutive sentences, this is poor citation use and not in line with general practice in writing history.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "de facto unofficial ruler" - this is redundant.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Foreign language terms should be italicized consistently.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "sponsored artists—painters, sculptors, writers." - this is not how an emdash works. You should use a colon, or something like "sponsored artists, including painters..."
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More nitpicking: He also sponsored military fortifications (Bar, Kudak)." - I really don't like putting things in parentheses like this; it's much cleaner to say "...military fortifications such as at Bar and Kudak" or similar. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of comments/questions after a cursory reading
- The Crown Grand Hetman: 1630–37 section uses the spelling Zygmunt III Waza, while elsewhere in the article that king's name is spelt Sigismund III Vasa
- Is "Grand Crown Hetman" a different title than "Crown Grand Hetman"? Fornadan (t) 16:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both (standardized). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: Not much to point out here given it's a well written article and you fixed a lot of what the others pointed, but I did pick up on a few things:
- A little context for some specialized terms like "Hetman" and "Podstoli koronny" is lacking.
- I have reviewed them in text and I see no good way of explaining them on their first use. They are however blue-linked, so the reader can easily learn more. Commonwealth had over two dozen of unique titles and offices, and it is simply impractical to explain them on their occurrence. PS. Hetman is explained in lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In autumn of the same year he rejoined the army" An army wasn't previously mentioned nor is it specified which.
- I thought it would've been clear from the context, but I made it even more so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "King Sigismund III Vasa granted the buława (ceremonial mace or baton) of Grand Crown Hetman to Stanisław Żółkiewski and the baton of Field Crown Hetman to Koniecpolski." Either both should be "baton" or "buława" to be consistent. (I'm assuming both are equal in status)
- "The conflict ended in cease-fire and in the Treaty of Kurukove; the Cossack register was set at 6,000; and the Cossacks again promised to stop raiding the Black Sea shores and provoking the Tatars." When did the conflict come to an end and the treaty get signed?
- "In 1625 the Zaporozhian Cossacks, led by Marek Zhmaylo,, rebelled, allied themselves with Szanhin Girej, and attempted to form an alliance with Moscow (the Zhmailo Uprising)." Unnecessary comma.
- In some instances you refer to Władysław as "King Władysław IV" in others as "King Władysław". This should be consistent.
- Sigismund III's last name is spelt as "Vasa" while his son's is spelt as "Waza". Why?
- I suggest that birth place and death place have the entity that existed at the time and a note saying "(present-day Poland)" and "(present-day Ukraine)" -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support, good work. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Here are some comments on the first two paragraphs:
- "(szlachcic)", "starosta", etc.: italicize words that haven't entered the English language and aren't proper nouns.
- I removed szlachcic, but szlachta and starosta seem to be used in specialized English literature without italics ([25], [26]). This is not consistent, and I could italizice them, but is this supported by MoS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:MOS#Italics, "Foreign words". - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed szlachcic, but szlachta and starosta seem to be used in specialized English literature without italics ([25], [26]). This is not consistent, and I could italizice them, but is this supported by MoS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "from 1625": Usually we say "from 1625 until his death" or whenever.
- "Grand Crown Hetman": The series is nonparallel, because this phrase needs a "the", not an "a".
- I am sorry, I don't understand this comment. I don't think the text uses "a Grand Crown Hetman" phrase anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at it again, follow the link I provided, ask around, and if it still doesn't make sense, let me know. I'm not trying to be evasive; when I work as a copyeditor, it's helpful to know how much the writers can do on their own. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess there is an extra the, or his, or such in text. As a non-native speaker, those are sometimes a lottery to me, so if there's an extra, or missing, I am afraid the only way I could know which one would by by random guessing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at it again, follow the link I provided, ask around, and if it still doesn't make sense, let me know. I'm not trying to be evasive; when I work as a copyeditor, it's helpful to know how much the writers can do on their own. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, I don't understand this comment. I don't think the text uses "a Grand Crown Hetman" phrase anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and later": after all the preceding things in the list?
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "(second-highest military commander, after the King)": Some will read that as highest other than the King; some will read it as second-highest.
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Koniecpolski's life involved almost constant warfare.": Generally avoid the word "involved"; it has too many different meanings, and it's often taken as a sign of intentionally evasive writing, even when the writing isn't evasive.
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Before he had reached the age of 20": Before age 20
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Battle of Cecora (Ţuţora) (1620)": ... in 1620
- "After release in 1623": After his release in 1623
- "defeated ... in 1624–26": This is a hard call; there's no consensus on when dashes are good substitutes for words. Personally, I'd say "between 1624 and 1626." - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both.
Due to RL, I may not be able to address/respond this issues for a few days; I'll try to do so around Tuesday the latest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both.
Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer, not because I don't think it can pass, but because I don't want to see it passing in the current shape, where even when I point out a very basic problem in the opening sentence (no "and" in a list is the problem at the moment), the nominator says that he can't spot a problem. The number of problems is also part of the problem. It's not the job of copyeditors and reviewers to go through the prose of an A-class article fixing a lot of mistakes this basic. If you don't want to find a co-nominator who can help, then ... I'm not sure what's the best way to put this, but help others with their articles and it's likely that someone will help you with yours. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Dan and Piotr. I made an attempt at reworking the lead. Dan, is that an improvement? If so, and if Piotr is also happy with it, I will make another run through the article. Piotr, could you please review my change to the lead and check that I haven't changed the meaning? Also, I think there was an error in the dates. I changed 1625 to 1632 for Koniecpolski's rank of Grand Crown Hetman. Was this the right thing to do, or have I missed something? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rupert. I've done more with the first two paragraphs; see what you think. I'm seeing problems in every sentence of the third paragraph as well. (The second sentence is a judgment call; I'm concerned that Wikipedians will read "sources" as the word is used on Wikipedia, and I don't expect most readers to read it that way ... I'd prefer something more specific, such as "his biographers", "historians of the period", whatever.) If it's more than you want to do, then let's talk about the fairest and most productive way to tackle this problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done a couple of small sections. I will leave it at that for the moment, as I would like to make sure that Piotr is okay with my changes before I move on. I had a little trouble with some of the foreign language words, so unfortunately I might have misinterpreted something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and edits. I've m tweaked some things in lead. I hope they are to your liking. I very much appreciate proofraeding and copyediting, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a native speaker and those are my weak points. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to see this pass A-class, Piotr, and I don't want you to give up on Milhist's A-class process. It would be nice if we could get more help from WP:POLAND here, since few (none?) of us can read the main sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of help? Even through WP:POLAND is pretty active, it is no milhist, we have several active editors. They can verify some facts, particularly online, but I would very much doubt they anybody would bother to verify an entire book, particularly given that most of Polish books are not visibile in Google Books, so they'd have to get a real physical copy. (Btw, I used to try to reference certain key facts with English sources, but after being repeatedly told by reviewers that my articles are over sourced, I begun to give up on that). PS. The best idea I have, source-wise, is that if there are any controversial or other claims in the article, I can quote the Polish text which translation you can have another editor verify (mind you, however, I am traveling between US and Poland often, and I may not have some sources at hand). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my two cents is that this is a bigger problem that we can solve all at once. Yes, I'll ask over at WT:POLAND for a "spot-check" of the sources; what that entails will be up to whoever does it. We'll help with prose on this one, and I'll put some deep thought into a longer-term and more general solution to the problem; it's not fair to burden you with what I see as a wiki-wide problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like thinking about wiki-wide issues (see User:Piotrus/Morsels. But in this case, I don't see what we can do beyond getting more reviewers, who are the function of more editors... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my two cents is that this is a bigger problem that we can solve all at once. Yes, I'll ask over at WT:POLAND for a "spot-check" of the sources; what that entails will be up to whoever does it. We'll help with prose on this one, and I'll put some deep thought into a longer-term and more general solution to the problem; it's not fair to burden you with what I see as a wiki-wide problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of help? Even through WP:POLAND is pretty active, it is no milhist, we have several active editors. They can verify some facts, particularly online, but I would very much doubt they anybody would bother to verify an entire book, particularly given that most of Polish books are not visibile in Google Books, so they'd have to get a real physical copy. (Btw, I used to try to reference certain key facts with English sources, but after being repeatedly told by reviewers that my articles are over sourced, I begun to give up on that). PS. The best idea I have, source-wise, is that if there are any controversial or other claims in the article, I can quote the Polish text which translation you can have another editor verify (mind you, however, I am traveling between US and Poland often, and I may not have some sources at hand). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to see this pass A-class, Piotr, and I don't want you to give up on Milhist's A-class process. It would be nice if we could get more help from WP:POLAND here, since few (none?) of us can read the main sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and edits. I've m tweaked some things in lead. I hope they are to your liking. I very much appreciate proofraeding and copyediting, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a native speaker and those are my weak points. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done a couple of small sections. I will leave it at that for the moment, as I would like to make sure that Piotr is okay with my changes before I move on. I had a little trouble with some of the foreign language words, so unfortunately I might have misinterpreted something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rupert. I've done more with the first two paragraphs; see what you think. I'm seeing problems in every sentence of the third paragraph as well. (The second sentence is a judgment call; I'm concerned that Wikipedians will read "sources" as the word is used on Wikipedia, and I don't expect most readers to read it that way ... I'd prefer something more specific, such as "his biographers", "historians of the period", whatever.) If it's more than you want to do, then let's talk about the fairest and most productive way to tackle this problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is a page needed tag in the Early career section. Could this be dealt with? If you are citing the whole work, then it is probably fine to just remove the tag, although it would probably be good to add a page range. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, removed that ref, the single fact it cites is covered by another ref. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this might be better presented in a footnote (like the one currently at 'a'): "Podhorodecki gives slightly different estimates—just over 15,000 (including low-quality Gdańsk infantry) against 21,000". As it currently is, it seems a bit abrupt and breaks up the flow of the narrative. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing. I see "Podole Voivodeship", and "Podole" linked to Podolia, but apparently Podole can mean a lot of things. Are we talking about Podolia in both cases? - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to stop at chorąży koronny. One problem is, if they do click on chorąży, they'll find out it can mean several different things, and they have to read a fair amount to find that out. Please go through the text making sure that a reader who doesn't speak Polish can understand what the text is saying. We worked carefully on the language at WP:Checklist#clarity: "Read your work slowly to make sure that you're saying what you mean to say. Avoid obscure technical terms. For words and phrases that are common in the sources and hard to do without but unfamiliar to a lot of our readers, provide a link to a Wikipedia page or section of a page that clarifies the term. If many readers won't even be able to guess what the sentence means without clicking, give at least a clue to the meaning in the text in addition to the link." Many readers won't guess from the context what chorąży koronny means here. Please ping me when you've had a chance to go through the text, using English wherever possible (but it's fine to also give the precise, Polish words at the first occurrence), and adding clues to the meanings of Polish words where that's necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I understand what you are asking for. Both Podolia and Podole Voivodship are linked; they are not a disambig, and I don't think we explain geographical terms in text. I added an explanation for chorąży and podstoli. I don't see anything else from Polish terms that needs explaining, but if there is, let me know. Other terms, perhaps raitar...? On the subject of copyediting, I am not comfortable with one of the recent changes, I see that the word voivode has been replaced with the word governor. This is not correct, which is why we even have different articles on those concepts. I understand that if an English term exists, we prefer to use it, but this should be done only if this is a direct translation, and no article exists on the specialist term. When it does, as is the case with voivode, it should be used, even if it is less familiar to the reader. This is, after all, not a Simple English Wikipedia. Besides, use of approximate translation is a pain; I cannot begin to count how often I've seen inacurate translation even in academic works, making it impossible to correctly link or define a term without the use of Polish sources (oh, and FYI - the most common incorect rendering of voivode in English is not governor, but palatine...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A voivode is a provincial governor, right? What's wrong with "provincial governor"? - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about I get started on the difference between provinces of Poland and voivodeships of Poland? There were no provincial governors, only voivodeship governors. Known as voivodes :) Look at {{Polish terms for country subdivisions}} and try not to cringe - most if not all of them have no good translations. And Poland is no exception, France has its arrondissements, Germany has its Regierungsbezirk, Russia has its oblasts... calling them provinces or counties is not correct, not for a proper encyclopedia, that's why we have loanwords. Btw, check the naming discussion we are having at Talk:State country :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it's sometimes best to use the more exact foreign words, and I'm aware that the words that I proposed weren't exact translations. When we put "the voivode (governor)" in the lead, we're hoping that people who care about the distinctions will know that when we say "governor" in what follows, we mean voivode. What you've said has been helpful, and if this one is still here in a few days, I'll come back to it, but I'm really pressed for time right now so I won't have time to finish copyediting. I see Rupert had a chance to work on this one, and I've struck my oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and help so far! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it's sometimes best to use the more exact foreign words, and I'm aware that the words that I proposed weren't exact translations. When we put "the voivode (governor)" in the lead, we're hoping that people who care about the distinctions will know that when we say "governor" in what follows, we mean voivode. What you've said has been helpful, and if this one is still here in a few days, I'll come back to it, but I'm really pressed for time right now so I won't have time to finish copyediting. I see Rupert had a chance to work on this one, and I've struck my oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about I get started on the difference between provinces of Poland and voivodeships of Poland? There were no provincial governors, only voivodeship governors. Known as voivodes :) Look at {{Polish terms for country subdivisions}} and try not to cringe - most if not all of them have no good translations. And Poland is no exception, France has its arrondissements, Germany has its Regierungsbezirk, Russia has its oblasts... calling them provinces or counties is not correct, not for a proper encyclopedia, that's why we have loanwords. Btw, check the naming discussion we are having at Talk:State country :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A voivode is a provincial governor, right? What's wrong with "provincial governor"? - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I understand what you are asking for. Both Podolia and Podole Voivodship are linked; they are not a disambig, and I don't think we explain geographical terms in text. I added an explanation for chorąży and podstoli. I don't see anything else from Polish terms that needs explaining, but if there is, let me know. Other terms, perhaps raitar...? On the subject of copyediting, I am not comfortable with one of the recent changes, I see that the word voivode has been replaced with the word governor. This is not correct, which is why we even have different articles on those concepts. I understand that if an English term exists, we prefer to use it, but this should be done only if this is a direct translation, and no article exists on the specialist term. When it does, as is the case with voivode, it should be used, even if it is less familiar to the reader. This is, after all, not a Simple English Wikipedia. Besides, use of approximate translation is a pain; I cannot begin to count how often I've seen inacurate translation even in academic works, making it impossible to correctly link or define a term without the use of Polish sources (oh, and FYI - the most common incorect rendering of voivode in English is not governor, but palatine...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment: This struck as a very good article (being made better by the current copy edits) with a messy reference section, so as I had some time on my hands I spent the last week tiding up the reference section, in the process of this I also converted the references to the "short format" type - I hope everybody is OK with this. --Thefrood talk 20:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the cleanup. I think I'll start using the "short format" ref type myself, inspired by what you've shown me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator(s): ◅PRODUCER (TALK) and Peacemaker67 (talk)
Peacemaker67 and I are nominating this article for review because we believe it meets the criteria for A-class status. ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Images: File:Pavle Durisic.jpg lacks source information and I request you fill out the FUR somewhat mroe thoroughly: why isn't it replaceable, etc. ?
- File:Pavle Đurišić Iron Cross.jpg has a bizarre life+100 tag for an image created in 1944. What is the rationale behind that?
- All other files lack a valid US copyright tag, which is a requirement.
Opposeon those grounds. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I will address these concerns. Give me another day. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 22:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the late response. I've expanded the FUR as requested and added what I believe to be the appropriate US licenses after doing a bit of research on the matter. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed the article and have the following comments to make:
- Style Generally, OK but I did make changes throughout. Please review these to make sure I haven't changed any meanings - the most significant change was to the second paragraph of the "Italian Occupation of Montenegro 1941-1943" section.
- I reviewed your changes and they look fine to me. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- References - I can't spot check the references as I don't have any of the rather specialised books on this subject, but applying good faith, article looks well referenced. Each paragraph has at least one inline citation, with some having several. The main sources are books and the remaining appear to be news websites.
- The majority of the references are available on Google books and can be checked when in doubt. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Content - I am not at all familiar with the subject matter, but as a non-specialist, my major concern with the article is that there is no information about Đurišić prior to 1941, schooling, profession, position etc... The article really needs an "Early life" section to lead into the "World War II" section. The article mentions he was a captain, but in what? It is only with very careful reading that it becomes apparent that he was in the Yugoslav army - this needs to be improved. There is also no context for Draža Mihailović - what was his authority for making Đurišić commander of forces in Montenegro?
- I've found a source detailing his early life and expanded that section accordingly. I'll add a bit of context for Mihailović. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "early life" section looks good and makes the article much more complete IMO. I've done a bit of a tweak of the text but some the links in the next section (WWII) needs to be moved into the "early life" section, e.g. Italy/Albania. However, it is still not clear which army he joined in 1927. Ideally, the second paragraph would read something like "...commissioned as an infantry lieutenant in the X army...". A link to the specific army should be in the infobox as well. On reviewing the article again, another area I think may need some improvement is the "Commemoration controversy". It seems like it needs a sentence or two about Đurišić's legacy in Berane - presumably he was well thought of, which would explain why a monument was proposed in the first place. Otherwise it seems odd to celebrate his memory given his conduct against the Muslim population. Zawed (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Early life: Clarified it was the Royal Yugoslav Army and added that allegiance to the infobox. Don't know how that slipped my mind.
- Commemoration controversy: Added that the town was where he founded his headquarters and that residents consider it the "Montenegrin Ravna Gora" hence the name. That its "odd" is something that any rational outsider would conclude, but this is in the Balkans and such praise of mad men is not uncommon. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did another passover of the article, just needs clarification of who Mihailović was, as per my earlier comments, and then I will be happy to support. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Peacemaker67 has already modified the sentence about Djurisic's promotion slightly. Legally Mihailovic didn't have any authority, but then again he wasn't bound to as this was done solely on his initiative. The Chetniks were only recognized by the royal Yugoslav government in exile as the new army in January 1942. To be honest I think the previous sentence was fine as no source questions whether or not Djurisic was promoted by him. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 13:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did another passover of the article, just needs clarification of who Mihailović was, as per my earlier comments, and then I will be happy to support. Zawed (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "early life" section looks good and makes the article much more complete IMO. I've done a bit of a tweak of the text but some the links in the next section (WWII) needs to be moved into the "early life" section, e.g. Italy/Albania. However, it is still not clear which army he joined in 1927. Ideally, the second paragraph would read something like "...commissioned as an infantry lieutenant in the X army...". A link to the specific army should be in the infobox as well. On reviewing the article again, another area I think may need some improvement is the "Commemoration controversy". It seems like it needs a sentence or two about Đurišić's legacy in Berane - presumably he was well thought of, which would explain why a monument was proposed in the first place. Otherwise it seems odd to celebrate his memory given his conduct against the Muslim population. Zawed (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found a source detailing his early life and expanded that section accordingly. I'll add a bit of context for Mihailović. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 17:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Style Generally, OK but I did make changes throughout. Please review these to make sure I haven't changed any meanings - the most significant change was to the second paragraph of the "Italian Occupation of Montenegro 1941-1943" section.
- Still needs context for Mihailovic and his position within the Chetniks. How about replacing the first sentence of the "Italian Occupation of Montenegro 1941–1943" section with: "In October 1941, Draža Mihailović, a prominent Chetnik leader supported by the Yugoslav government-in-exile, appointed Đurišić as the commander of all regular and reserve troops in central and eastern Montenegro and parts of the Sandžak." There is no need to mention the trial itself, which has no relevance to this article. And reviewing this article again, I think the WWII section needs a sentence just explaining what the Chetniks were. It could be as simple as amending the sentence "The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists..." to read "The uprising also included large numbers of nationalists, who would organise themselves into the Chetniks,..." Your thoughts? Zawed (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added your suggestions. I noted that Mihailovic was "later supported" per above. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At this stage, I
opposedue to my concerns with content. Happy to look at this again once the nominator responds. Zawed (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Support as concerns now addressed. Zawed (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- See WP:MOS#Quotation marks; use double rather than single quotes.
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments:Good workso far, but I think it needs a little more work to make it to A-class.These are my comments/suggestions:- wikilinks: I suggest adding links for "platoon" and "company" on first mention to help non-specialist readers understand these units/formations;
- Done. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent English variation: "organized" and "organise";
- Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this sounded a little awkward to me: "killed about 1,200 Muslim fighters and about 8,000 old people, women, and children, and destroyed all property except for livestock, grain and hay, which they seized". Perhaps replace "old people" with "elderly people" and change the order of the list, for example: "about 8,000 women, children and elderly people, and destroyed all property that they had seized except for livestock, grain and hay";
- Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent use of double or single quotation marks. E.g. you use single here: northern Montenegro and was described as 'a law unto himself'; but you use double here: for "cleansing the Muslim population from Sandžak and the Muslim and Croat populations from Bosnia and Herzegovina" amongst. As Dank says above, the MOS asks for double;
- Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Đurišić and his local Chetniks were also impatient to turn on the Muslims and Albanians in the region". Could some explanation of this be added? Why were they wanting to turn on them? It probably only needs a small clause or sentence to explain this;
- Appended "due to their animosity towards them" to the sentence. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- capitalisation: per WP:Section caps the capitalisation in the section headers is incorrect in a number of instances (i.e where it isn't a proper noun only the first letter of the first world in the header should be capitalised). For example, "Capture and Release" should be "Capture and release";
- Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this a little awkward: "On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported by the Italians, and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children". Perhaps reword to: "On 10 January 1943, Đurišić reported that supported by the Italians, Chetniks under his command had burned down 33 Muslim villages, killed 400 members of the Muslim self-protection militia supported, and had also killed about 1,000 Muslim women and children";
- The Muslim militia was supported by the Italians. Your version implies the Italians supported the massacre. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. Apologies, I found it hard to keep it straight in my mind who was fighting who, but that is probably because it appears to be a very complex situation. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Muslim militia was supported by the Italians. Your version implies the Italians supported the massacre. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent presentation: ...carry out "cleansing actions" against... and then ...orders for 'cleansing actions' against ...
- Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent presentation: "partisan" and "Partisan";
- Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Corps consisted of some of Đurišić's former soldiers that were released..." This might be smoother as: "The Corps consisted of some of Đurišić's former soldiers who had been released...";
- Fixed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "By this time, whilst he still formally owed allegiance to..." This might sound smoother as: "By this time, although he still formally owed allegiance to...";
- Done. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "he also owed some allegiance to the Germans and Nedić..." Perhaps smoother as: "he also owed some allegiance to the Germans and to Nedić..." (emphasis added to highlight the suggested change only);
- Done. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces had to to withdraw from Montenegro..." Could something be said as to why, so that the reader has a little context? It would probably only need a small clause, e.g. "In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces had to to withdraw from Montenegro, due to Allied advances in the region..." or something similar depending upon the reason;
- Changed to "With the fall of Grahovo, Partisans from Herzegovina had a way into Montenegro and Đurišić had to withdraw. In early December 1944, the Germans and Đurišić's forces left, part of the way together, with the Germans going to Austria and Đurišić's forces to northeastern Bosnia to join Mihailović." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 08:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that this is grammatically correct: "Đurišić, however, appears to have tried to outsmart the NDH forces and Drljević by sending his sick and wounded across the river, but retained his fit troops south of the river". ("sending" and "retained" don't work together here);
- Simplified to "Đurišić apparently tried to outsmart them and sent only his sick and wounded across the river, keeping his fit troops south of the river." -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- given that this is a biography, if possible (i.e. the sources say), you should include mention of a wife and children if he had any. If these are mentioned, but not covered in detail, you could probably just add it at the end, in a manner similar to this: "Durisic was survived by his wife, so and so, and their x number of children". No dramas if its not mentioned in the sources, though;
- Nothing is mentioned about Đurišić having a wife and children in the sources. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes 1 and 2 appear to be the same, so they should probably be consolidated as you have done with Note 5;
- Merged. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- locations for publishers in the References. Currently one (Pavlowitch) has it, but the others don't. If you want to take this to FAC, it would be best to make this consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work, your changes look good so I've added my support above. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 10:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- wikilinks: I suggest adding links for "platoon" and "company" on first mention to help non-specialist readers understand these units/formations;
- Comments
- italian should be capitalized, "anti-Partisan offensive" should not have the word partisan capitalized;
- Every instance of "Italian" is capitalized. "anti-Partisan offensive" is stylized as such in the sources and in the rest of the article. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there are numerous unreferenced sentences, that should be referenced per WP:V. While I am not insisting on all sentences to be referenced (it would be nice, but it is not an official requirement), I see sentences which contain strong claims that are unreferenced. For example: ..."the Chetnik Supreme Command ordered Montenegrin Chetnik units to carry out "cleansing actions" against Muslims". This is an EXAMPLE, not the only instance I'd like to see referenced.
- Everything in the article is referenced. Having citations after every single sentence is cumbersome and is WP:OVERCITE. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some historians" - weasel, please list them.
- Done. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems light on ilinks, both blue and red. I see unliked locations (Ravna Gora), concepts ("Italian troops" should link to the Italian Army, Montenegrin resistance, Operation Weiss), anti-partisan offensive, Chetnik Supreme Command, Second Proletarian Division. This list is not exhaustive, but should clarify what I mean.
- Expanded wikilinks. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When foreign sources are used, their exact language should be declared, and it would be nice to see translations for titles and publishers.
- Distinguished which language they are in. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes Glas javnosti, Večernje novosti and B92 websites reliable (they also should be ilinked in the article)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are prominent news providers in Serbia and are reliable for what is being claimed. -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 12:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- italian should be capitalized, "anti-Partisan offensive" should not have the word partisan capitalized;
- Support now; but I am still concerned about the rather untypical capitalization of "anti-Partisan" (and the lack of link to anti-partisan operation). Perhaps you could consider this issue further. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the co-nominator (who is embarrassed he hasn't done much to make the various improvements - great job, PRODUCER...), am I correct in my interpretation of this page that User:Piotrus, User:AustralianRupert, User:Dank and User:Zawed all now Support this article for A-Class? Peacemaker67 (talk) 13:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I confirm my support. Zawed (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.