The review department of the Military history WikiProject is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews—both formal and informal—of particular articles and other content within its scope. Requests for B-Class assessment, which any reviewer may assign, can be made here.
The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:
Peer review (an informal review meant to provide ideas for further improvement)
I have been worked on this article and it is currently a GA. However, I would like further input as to how it can be improved to A class or FA. Jhbuk (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually very little substantial information referenced solely under the site, just things like what deployments the ships were involved in - the referencing on the table actually came from the USN at first (I think), but I didn't put the refs in at that point for some reason. I later realised this and just put the first ones I found in, which is why there is a lump of them in the middle. Would it be better to just get rid of them in general, rather than using them to support other sources. Jhbuk (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I think I've done. There are still a couple of refs that need some extra info, but I'll do them later. Jhbuk (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on another Luftwaffe fighter pilot article that I would like reviewed. Again I need to point out that I have nothing on his personal life, sorry for that. You may also have a look at the class rating (start right now) and check if it meets B-class. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Auntieruth55
Again, a nicely done article. Not much to go on without anything his personal life. :(
He had achieved his 50th aerial victory was achieved the previous day on 8 May. This sentence is confusing. ? He scored his 50th aerial victory on 8 May?
jump from where he was born to he transferred to....which is a bit of a jump.
Is it possible to work the promotion request text into your article? This offers an interesting view of his character, and the promotion requirements as well, and might enhance your description of him, which at present is pretty much he shot down this plane on that day, he transferred, he shot down two more planes, he did something else, etc. Just cogitating....Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marine79
I like the article. There are a few things I noticed and one thing I fixed.
Fixed-- I moved the (First Lieutenant)(Second Lieutenant) behind the first references to Oberleutnant and Leutnant so the translation can be made the first time that rank is used in the article instead of in the middle in a quote.
Noticed.1-- In the section of his military career the dates get a little out of sequence. 15 Aug he gets kill 75, 26 Sep he gets 100, 30 Sep he recieves an award, then back in time to 4 Sep is the promotion quote.
.2-- I think re-organizing his career into years might straighten out some of the paragraphs.
.3-- Maybe there could be a table of his victories milestones at the end of is military career section.
The article has been considerably expanded and rewritten. There are very few people commenting and giving feedback on the talk page, so I'd like to get more opinions. I'm especially interested in hearing how readable the article is. Is it interestingly written or is it boring? Is it clear or confusing? Is the language use good enough? Is some essential information missing? Offliner (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the infobox, MIA means "missing in action." I have clarified this. The POV issues are discussed at length in the main war article (2008 South Ossetia war). It was a a conscious decision to let Battle of Tskhinvali focus on the military action, leaving the responsibility and casus belli discussions to the main article. Remember that this article is about a specific battle and not about the war as a whole. Thank you for your feedback. More feedback would be appreciated. Offliner (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very short article and includes every bit of information I could find so far on the guy. Please let me know how to improve the article and/or alternative sources to consult. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Auntieruth
Interesting article, but scarce on the details, as you've pointed out above. I'm not sure where else to look. I suppose you've tried the 1940s era newspapers? I meddled with your lead a bit, because the last two sentences of it were repetitive. In the lead you make a big deal about his receiving the award posthumously, but don't mention that in the article itself. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TomStar81
As a practical matter the article looks good enough to be B-class or even A-class. I think you've done an outstanding job with what you were given to work with. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Statistics: Three rotating images in the Intro, 14 Selected articles, all B-class or higher, 25 Selected biological agents, all B-class or higher, 20 Selected pictures, 10 sets of 2 DYK hooks, all with free-use images, 20 Selected quotes, all with free-use images, and a Rotating In this month section.
I keep meaning to leave comments here and Each time I get to do so something seems to come up. At any rate, I found the portal to be of good quality, nothing is wanting, although I was curious as to why you selected the red biohazard image for the article instead of the black image. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
I'm seeking feedback and re-assessment (Start now) on this article I just worked on. I have ordered another book on the man and hope to find some more background on his personnel life. Please let me know how to improve the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert
I have assessed as a B class article as I believe that it meets the criteria. Well done, by the way. I fixed a typo and a consistency issue with terminology. The only other point I have is about the use of emdashes in the Early life and career section. Per WP:DASH emdashes should be unspaced. Anyway, apologies for the short review. If I get time I will try to come back and give it a bit more time. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is some inconsistency in spelling conventions, with a mixture of British and American English (e.g honour and honor, colour and color, etc.)
Check for consistency in style of citations. At least one citation with a page range does not us "pp.", but instead uses "p.". See citation # 61, where mostly you have used "pp." for page ranges.
There is some inconsistency in terminology. You refer to both the Great War and the First World War; I think you should use only one name, whatever that may be.
As per the above point, you use both the term Tsar and Czar in the Regimental traditions section
The years in the section and sub-section headers are really distracting. Either remove them, or move them to the ends, so they're not right up against the TOC numbers.
The numerous subsections under History are distracting. It would look nicer if it was broken down into small units (no pun intended). Some of the lvl 3 headers, especially those with numerous lvl. 4 subsections could be made into individual lvl 2 sections (e.g. Great War, World War II, Napoleonic Wars)
Are there any notable commanders that can be added under the Commanders section in the infobox?
What makes [1] a reliable source. Some of your other web-based sources, are also a bit sketchy in terms of reliability, but should preferably be replaced.
Link and explain more relevant terms Sybourg's brigade, Moselle River, Treaty of Aix-la-chapelle, Pragmatic army, Battle of Salamanca etc.
The victory at Malplaquet is mentioned before it actually occurs in the 1693-1714 section.
I saw a couple spelling mistakes (Gryes=>Greys)
Try to avoid using numeric forms of small numbers (except in Dates of course). For example, in the Campaign in the Low Countries section, you use "4 new troops to 9 troops..." and almost immediately afterwards, you use "Four troops of Scots Greys"
Overall, I agree with the comments raised above. Lead expansion is definitely needed, and alt text for A-level and FAC (although not generally asked for at GAN). All of the subsections under the History section are a little distracting, I agree with Patar knight that some of them could be removed and others made into different level headings. Other than that:
What makes the image File:ScotsGreys.jpg (under the Waterloo section) fair use? I don't see anything that gives a source or publication date, and I highly doubt that the original uploader was the one who created the original painting. The same with File:Scotland Forever.jpg. In general, I would contact an image expert (User:Awadewit and User:NuclearWarfare are two good ones) to check out your images, especially before going to FAC. There are several that I am iffy on the permissions of, but I'm not an expert on copyright, and so am not the best person to be judging them... :)
I'm not either. I may have used them by mistake after finding them in Wikicommons or they might have been some of the ones who which were on the page when I found it. Either way, I'll look into it. Its my understanding that the Butler one is probably good to use, but I will double check that one. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The captions on all of your images are really long. Per MOS:IMAGES#Captions, image captions should be succinct.
Some expansion on why the "Notable members of the Scots Greys" are notable would be nice.
Some of the web references needs publishers added. Also agree wtih Patar knight on what makes the Spanish Succession website (Ref #9) a reliable source.
It seems fairly reliable and checks with the other sources I have seen. Additionally, although his footnoting could be better in form, they ones that I have looked up check out.--HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes Ref #22 (Scotswar.com) a reliable source? The site itself says that "...we make no guarantees as to the currency, accuracy, or quality of information stored here."
What makes Ref #23 (Britishbattles.com) a reliable source? Same for refs #31, 36, 55
What makes Ref #54 (Ensign Ewart) a reliable source? It appears to be a pub website...
What makes Ref #84 (Anglo Boer War) a reliable source? Same for refs #86, 90, 92
The Boer War site reference will be changed. What that website has done is taken the text of a public domain available history of the Boer War. As far as I can tell, now that I have compared the two, its pretty much word for word.--HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes Ref #112 (Ian Paterson) a reliable source? The site itself says that "As far as I know the information is as accurate as possible", which doesn't sound very definite. Same for ref #114, 128
What makes Ref #119 (Milhist) a reliable source?
What makes Ref #120 (Bardsabode) a reliable source? On first glance it looks like a military source, but then has author information attributed to the guy who runs the website, which is a photography sales and hobby site. Same for ref #121
Ref #129 (Warlinks) is deadlinking.
Fixed --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes Ref #131 (Britisharmedforces.com) a reliable source? The site itself says "This is not a military historical site," and seems to be geared more towards individual rememberances then factual history (nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't make the greatest source).
Its been listed (and currently is) as a site good for referencing on the British military history task force page. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that all of the above are definitely unreliable - simply asking what proves that the above have been written by experts, quoted or recommended by large-scale magazines/newspapers/tv shows, etc. You may want to check with a reference expert (User:Ealdgyth is good) for a more expert judgement on the above and all other sources. User:Fifelfoo may also be a good one to check with regarding the high quality of published sources before going to FAC.
I'll work on the others as I have time. --HistorianBell 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney
I have made some changes to image locations etc, some comments are;
Reference style you should add a list of sources used see todays FA Elwood Haynes for example. Also use Template:Cite web for internet sources.
Unless the notable members section is complete, I would delete it. Keyes and Finnes etc could be used in the article.
The info box is misleading it appears they were an armoured regiment from 1678. I would add Cavalry Corps (United Kingdom) before Royal Armoured Corps with dates. Same for role heavy cavalry before armoured regt.
Also in the inf box citations are needed for the nicknames and motto.
The Waterloo section with three images is one to many I would select the two you like best and delete the third.
In the Great war section the first use of BEF and Brigadier-General Gough I Corps and the battles mentioned should be linked.
The article is currently a B-class. I am interested in opinions of more experienced editors on how the quality and standard of the article can be improved for GA class. The article is not finished yet. Sections: Šubić's rule over the fortress (Šubić family and Tvrtko I) and Fortress lost its strategic weight (Venetians and Austrians) will be expended. After I am done with them, I hope that user Laurinavicius will do the necessary copyediting. The section: Interesting Notes should stay, or be implemented into the article? I will also add all necessary inline citations and improve references. The feedback that I am most interested is abouth the structure of an article. Is it broad in its coverage, focused and neutral? Because we are talking about two thousand year-long history. Thanks. Kebeta (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert
A couple of technical points:
according to the [article tools] there are a number of disambig links that need to be checked and piped through to the more correct links.; Done
the images could have alt text added to them per WP:ALT; Done
there are a few points that have a Citation needed tag, which will need to be rectified for a GA (even a B class would probably require these to be fixed) Done
some of the date format is not consistent with the Manual of Style, for instance in the "Klis - A sanjak centre of Bosnia" section you have 7 April, 1596. Per the MOS this should be either "7 April 1596", or "April 7, 1596" (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Full date formatting; Done
the Bibliography should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname. Done
Anyway, these are just a few points to get the review started. Hopefully some more editors will be able to provide some pointers too. Good work so far, by the way. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About a month ago, I uploaded a massive expansion to this article (as well as the articles on HMAS Sydney (D48) and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran - the ships involved). I am hoping to take this article to FA status, and would like the help of some fresh eyes to find any factual or stylistic errors before the article starts its climb through the ranks.
I request permission to intersperse my replies with your comments... if you wish for my replies to be kept separate, please specify. -- saberwyn23:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I broke that when I was fixing the ndashes in the refs and changed a hyphen in the file to a ndash. Fixed. Also, the formatting of the referencing is now cleaned up, hopefully I didn't miss anything. There were a few places where the italics weren't turned off and the pages were italicised as well as the book title, so that could do with another check. The article is also very, very long, and the forking might be made more vigorous. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for YellowMonkey. Is there anywhere clarifying that all citations for multiple pages should be "pp."? I've been taught to distinguish between consecutive and non-consecutive page ranges by using pp. and pgs. -- saberwyn04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had a good read now (sorry it took so long, Christmas and all that). Firstly congratulations on the expansion - the article is excellent and you've done a great job adding so much info and detail to it. I think you should be angling for an FA in future. A few points:
Is it worth mentioning that this was Australia's greatest single loss in the lead?
Done
The "ships" section might benefit from having sub headings for Sydney and Kormoran. Or, you could go the whole hog and delete the ships section, add subheadings to the background section and move all the ships details under those subheadings along with their past actions.
Crudely done. I'll finesse it over the next few days.
Looks good already
There is significantly more detail on the various salvoes fired by the Kormoran compared to the Sydney. I expect the reason is the obvious, but I just wondered if there was any more detail that could be added to it to balance the section a little bit more?
There is very little detail on the few shots fired by Sydney, and a lot of it is vague or uncertain, mainly because those on Kormoran were too busy maintaining the pressure to pay attention to where the limited return fire came from and its effect. That said, I'll see what I can find... worst case scenario: I strip the info on Kormorans shots back a little to balance.
I'd actually recommend noting what you've said above rather than stripping info, if a ref exists for it.
I'm not sure I'll find a blatant citation for that...its just my impression from reading the various sources. Eyes will be kept open, though. -- saberwyn21:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This might be nothing but thought I'd check - In the 4th paragraph of "Analysis: Histiography" the quote reads "reasonable and persuasive... [h]owever, she tried too hard to defend the crew of the Kormoran... at the expense of Sydney". What is the "h" substituting? I just can't think of another word that uses "owever", and wondered if the bracket should be around the entire word instead of just one letter.
The current name does not conform to precendents. I took the liberty of changing it, but i probably should have discussed it on the talk page first. We have dozens of Good Articles, A-class articles, and featured articles titled as Action of (insert date) for battles that do not have established names such as this one does. There are no Good Articles for single ship actions using the title that had previously existed on the article.XavierGreen (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion would have been nice, because the article has undergone several without-warning name changes (accompanied by equally-without-warning reverts) since the 2008 rediscovery (see [2][3]). However, if the new title is what consensus is, I'll roll with it. -- saberwyn04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current review and all the infrastructure associated with it will also need to be re-titled if this new name is also retained. Once that has been determined, please let a coordinator know. -MBK00405:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I preferred the old title, which described this action far better. Admittedly there isn't a clear name for the engagement, but given the common references to the event in the media (using the ships names), I'd have said using the ships names is a better idea. As a common courtesy I'd have at least discussed this first, especially as the editor who has done the most to the article just opened this peer review to discuss such changes. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion underway on the article's talk page. Could any comments regarding the article's name be directed there? Thanks. -- saberwyn20:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
MBK004
This is one of the better articles that I have seen come up for a peer review in quite some time, so you deserve credit for doing an excellent job. It is my opinion that you should go ahead and nominate for GA and/or A-Class. I believe that any issues that may arise in those reviews would not be time-prohibitive to cause a nomination to not succeed. -MBK00403:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the peer review open for another week or so (in case anyone has any comments or observations they wish to make), and will nominate this for A and/or GA class in the new year. -- saberwyn12:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saberwyn: closing
Thanks to all for commenting. I'm closing the peer review, but I won't be taking this (or the articles on the two ships) to A-class or FA until the variousdiscussions about what the article should be called come to a resolution. Could any further comments or suggestions for improving the article be taken to the article's talk page? Again, thanks! -- saberwyn07:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few issues that I'd like get opinions on before I send this up for GAR. Is the lead too short? Where's the best place for the bit of trivia about the captain and the grass skirt? The differences between New Zealand and her half-sister Indefatigable are generally covered in the class article, but I'm wondering if I need to address them more here as well?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06
Er, please be careful about your use of terms, Sturmvogel. Neither the Maori nor the Royal New Zealand Navy would be happy about you terming the Captain's wearing of the piu-piu and tiki in battle - and the subsequent lack of any serious damage to the ship - as 'trivia.' The two were ceremonially handed back to the Navy within the last couple of years and are now in the Royal New Zealand Navy Museum. [4]
There is no mention of the fact that a considerable number (~10%?) of the country's population cam aboard on the initial visit, and there is also no mention of the New Zealand officers and ratings that served aboard. Buckshot06(talk)05:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both good points, and I have seen some numbers for her 1913 visit; now just to remember where. And where does the mention of the regalia belong? I'm a bit inclined to put it into the pre-war section as that's when it was gifted. What do you think?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Having looked up my sources, this is what they say:
..when war was declared, there were three NZ officers serving aboard, all from Christchurch: Lieutenants D. Boyle and R.C. Garsia and Mid H. Anderson.
(during Jutland) '..Many on board put their luck down to the fact that throughout the operation Captain GReen wore a Maori piu piu and greenstone tiki given to the ship in 1913 by an old chief in Rotorua. On that occasion, the chief advised that both the piu piu and tiki were to be worn by the captain when the ship was in action. With the gift came the prediction that the New Zealand would be hit three times, but her casualties would not be heavy. Capt Halsey wore the gifts at Heligoland and the Dogger Bank, and Capt Green followed suit at Jutland. ..'
'..The ship's company were firm believers both in the old chief's prophecy and in the ability of the piu piu and tiki to ward off trouble. More than a year after the Battle of Jutland, on the last occasion that New Zealand sighted enemy ships and went to action stations, a seaman was seen to climb a ladder to the bridge and take a quick look around. 'It's all right,' he called to his mates below, 'he's got them on' - a shout that assured them that the captain was wearing the piu piu and tiki.'
Grant Howard, 'The Navy in New Zealand: An Illustrated History,' A H and A W Reed, ISBN 0 589 01355 6, Wellington and Sydney, 1981, p.30-31
Therefore I'd argue that this gift was directly in the tradition of British regimental regalia, customs, traditions etc and was a potentially significant factor in crew morale. Buckshot06(talk)05:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D
This is a solid article which provides a good history of the ship, and I really do intend to upgrade the article on Australia ;) My comments are:
I'm suprised to see that no New Zealand sources have been used; while this was a British ship, there's presumably coverage in NZ sources of the decision to fund her and how she was regarded
I'm more familiar with the technical stuff rather than the politics, so bear with me. If you've got any pointers I'll be glad to follow up, but the situation isn't as easy as it is for HMAS Australia and the RNZN wasn't yet in existence to document her as well as her sister was. Hell, I'm not even sure if the RN made any effort to collect New Zealander sailors in her crew or not. The brief mentions of her on the RNZN museum website don't imply so, but I dunno one way or another.
Stating that the ship was a "gift to Britain" is a bit inaccurate; while NZ funded the ship, it was an investment in imperial security and was made as part of a deliberate empire-wide strategy, and wasn't a disinterested present. Saying that Australia was merely "funded by the people of Australia" also isn't correct as she was a unit of the Royal Australian Navy manned mostly by Australians.
That's more true for the Australians who did form the RAN, but New Zealand, IIRC, had no conditions placed on her by the New Zealand PM when the money was donated.
Is the reason NZ switched to funding a BC really not known? This may have formed part of the fleet unit strategy, in which British and dominion battlecruisers were to form the basis of task forces to protect imperial shipping routes in the event of war (the RAN was established to provide a fleet unit, and the concept worked fairly well in 1914).
Yes, she was to form part of a fleet unit, but the accounts in Lambert and the Australian official history are rather vague on the exact reasons.
The coverage of the ship's career outside of the battles she was involved in is very sketchy, and should be expanded. Topics such as how she was crewed and her training program should be covered.
She didn't have much of a career outside the war, other than the tours of the Dominions that she conducted before and after the war. And details such as you are asking for are very hard to dig up without a book dedicated to the ship.
The 'In service' section appears to be largely boilerplate text about the battles, and there's no real focus on New Zealand's role in them. This section could be trimmed heavily, as there's no real need to provide detailed coverage of battles in which New Zealand was just one of many British ships involved.
That's true of the raid on Scarborough, but not at all true of the main three battles in which she participated. You need a fair amount of context to properly show New Zealand's actions.
The geocities link needs to be replaced; geocities wasn't a reliable source when it existed, and it was turned off a few months ago. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The in-line citation could be stronger; there's quite a few paragraphs (e.g. the "Battle of Heligoland Bight" section) containing a large number of facts - in fact a whole battle's worth - but only one citation, citing quite a large section of a book. Breaking up the citations so that each new fact was covered by a different citation would probably help.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citation covers 4 pages; I don't feel that every single fact in a paragraph needs to be cited individually if they're all found in the same source, even if they're on different pages. It's just not that hard to find a single fact in those few pages.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dana boomer
The lead should be expanded. WP:LEAD recommends two to three paragraphs for an article of this length.
ALT text needs to be added for A-class and FAC, but is not generally needed for GAN.
The Wartime modifications section has a lot of short paragraphs, which make for a very choppy look and read.
The prose overall looks good, but you may want to take another look over it. For example, In service section, "Walter Cowan was her Captain in 1914–15." Captain should be decapitalized here. Also in the Background section, "For some reason it was built to a modified". "For some reason" sounds rather unencyclopedic. Like I said, overall its good, but could use another comb-over before GAN.
I've made a few tweaks to the references, adding publishes and making the formatting work right. I don't think that more needs to be said about the differences between the New Zealand and the Indefatiguable. I hope the above comments help. Dana boomer (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose
Good work as usual, I don't think much needs to be done for GA that hasn't been already noted, however:
For some reason sounds a bit unencyclopedic; if you can't think of an alternate expression I'd just lose those three words entirely.
If I review for GA I'll be asking for alt text on the images; I'd also recommend increasing their size as most are quite miniscule for what they're trying to display.
It would be preferable to remove the IWM watermark from the main image.
I think the Battle of Heligoland Bight image would be better on the right-hand side; it stuffs the subheader (on my PC anyway) as it is, may do for others as well.
I'm seeking feedback and re-assessment (Stub now) on this article I just worked on. Unfortunately I couldn't find much background on his personal life. Please let me know how to improve the article. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert
This is a very good article in my opinion. I've assessed as B class for the Military History project. There's not much I can say in the way of suggesting improvements. A couple of points, though:
there is one disambig link (Vogelsang) per the Featured article tools;
a sentence or two on his family and early education would be great, but as you say you couldn't find much then this is kind of a redundant point (sorry);
a couple more images would be great, if possible - are there any of one of the planes he flew, perhaps?
perhaps move the post war life information out of the In defense of the Reich section and put it in a Later life section?
Yes, a very good article. I've fixed some of the prepositions and such. Also, in the lead, you put the German translations in parens, and in the body of the article, you use only the German. I've added some of the English in parens, but it should be consistent. I've added some commas, tried to smooth out some of the language, as in Lent and Moelders.
This is confusing: Schlund's ability to drive off the attacking fighter force was instrumental in a mission against the Warrington Propeller Works located north of Liverpool. Further missions included the attack and destruction of the lock entrance to the Manchester Ship Canal at Eastham and the attack ... What did he use, his microphone? Or did the radio operator also operate a weapon?
It does feel skimpy to me. Odd that some of the big-time sources (Hinchcliffe?) don't include much on him. Do you have access to these ?
Antony L Kay and John Richard Smith, German aircraft of the Second World War : including helicopters and missiles, Annapolis, Md. Naval Inst. Press 2002
Georg Brütting, Das waren die deutschen Kampfflieger-Asse : 1939-1945, Stuttgart : Motorbuch-Verlag, 1974.
Hajo Herrmann, Eagle's wingsOsceola, WI : Motorbooks International, 1991
Christopher F Shores, Duel for the Sky, Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday, 1985.
This article just passed as a B class on a WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Need suggestions to improve the article further. Thanks! Kebeta (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kyriakos
Overall, it is a good article but there are a few points that you can improve on in this article.
The lead should be expanded to explain a bit more about what is said in the article. - Will do!
It would be good if you could add a new section at the start of the article, explaining the background of the topic like the Ottoman Conquest of Hungary. Done
The aftermath section would be better off not having any subsections and just having the casaulties and the consequences as seperate paras instead of seperate sctons. Done
It would be good if they See Also section could be removed. The first two links in the section are already incorporated in the article so there is no need for them there. There other two links could be incorporated into the new section at the start. Done
"The count Zrinsky scorned all answer to the insulting offer, and only fought with the greater desperation, when superadded to religious and national hate, there grew up within his breast the incitement of personal indignation.[14]" Needs to be verified with a modern source. I don't see how this offer can be insulting, it's pretty normal for that age. National hate needs definetly a source, we are in early modern times, the national concept will evolve a few centuries later.
"heroic obstinate commander" needs to be balanced. It's not always heroic to be obstinate and not every hero is obstinate. And it was a hopeless cause, so everybody fighting for a hopeless cause is a hero?
"One disputed view by a historian asserts is that before leading the final sortie by the garrison" Who says that. "a historian" is not precise.
"colossal booby trap" is an exageration. It was pretty normal that the powder magazine blew up in this time, either by a direct artillery hit, by carelessness or on purpose.
"Hundreds perished when the magazine exploded." and "The Vizier and his mounted officers had just time to escape, but 3000 Turks perished in the explosion which shortly followed." contradict each other. if 3k died it's thousands. if 300 died it's hundreds.
The number of survivors is contradictionary. Were there only four men saved by the Janissary or were there more?
You need to discuss sources on these events. What bias do they have. Take a look at Greco-Persian Wars for an example. This is very important because the strong national feelings of Hungary and Croatia are being tied to this event.
19th century sources have other problems that are discussed in modern works and someday somebody will discuss the problems of our modern historiography, however, you must make the reader aware that the waves of nationalism played there part in shaping perception of this event. Thus be careful with old sources and check whether this information is still used in the same way in modern historiography.
I have not a clue what the men are fighting for. It makes hardly sense to defend an undermanned fortress for a few weeks and it wouldn't have made any difference for a determined Turkish army that was set out to conquer Europe. Please explain the reasons why this battle happened at all.
You totally ignore Turkish politics. The death of the Sultan resulted in a bloddy powerstruggle between the grown up male descendants with only one survivor(in early times the other brothers of all his women were killed, later they were imprisoned in the harem). Information in this power struggle gives one side a decisive advantage and thus the events are linked to the dynastic politics. While the military action by this ban was pretty senseless, he got a lucky hit. Still the theory that the sultan didn't have a comfortable life and died because of that needs more than one source because it's a very questionable theses.
Thanks Wandalstouring for your review! I agree with you in some point, and disagree in some others. But, I think that after a necessary copyediting, we will see things more alike. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 the class= or list= 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.
The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.
If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:
Comments Reviewing by Username
Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:
Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username
If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:
Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed
This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.
Requesting a review to be closed
A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.
After A-Class
You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.
Demotion
If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think that this article meets all the requirements for an A-class article, although the lead may need to be lengthened. Suggestions are welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
No problems reported with alt text or dab links. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise.
It was a redirect, which has been fixed.
The entire external link cluster appears to be in Russian, not that I am complaining or anything, but out of curiosity were you unable to locate anything in English?
The servers are in Russia, but the sites are in English.
See about splitting the intro paragraph up into at least two paragraphs, having the one doesn't exactly bode well this far up the assessment pole.
The bomb bay was modified to allow for a single 5,000-kilogram (11,000 lb) FAB-5000 bomb to be carried and provisions were added to carry VAP-500 or VAP-1000 poison gas dispensers under the wings. What kind of poison gas dispenser? Also, I am curious to know how such a device would work. Surely you'd have bee a lot close to the ground than 30,000+ feet? Do we have an article here that you could link to for the operation of such a device?
I don't have much at all on the dispensers, but I presume that they were canisters that mounted to the external bomb shackles and would spray the gas from nozzles in the rear of the canisters. Nothing on the Chemical Warfare article that is relevant. And, yes, I believe that spraying operations would be at a few thousand feet at most.
Perhaps a little trimming of the history section would do some good, there seem to be a lot of details in there concerning operations that I think could be better dealt with at the regiment and squad level.
Trying to give a sense of how the aircraft was used. Since so few were made there's a lot of overlap between the general history of the aircraft and the individual regimental histories, especially since the latter are incomplete in the sources.
See about formatting the external links so the site names are all that are visible.
That's the opposite of what the MOS says. But I've reworked them anyways.
Support. The prose could do with a bit of a tidying before FAC, but besides that it was very interesting and informative. – JoeN02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a little more specific? I've stared at this so many times that I tend to be a bit "blind" to my own writing by now.
Support -- Reviewed and passed this for GA, and since then further info has been added so I see no reason to withhold A-Class status. I note someone has added a fact tag to the specs but this appears unnecessary as a source is mentioned there already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Is there any reason the images in the body can't be bigger? I know one of them's a postage stamp but do they both need to emulate that when it comes to displaying in the article...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images blown up to 250px.
Support — one comment: shouldn't the Hauptmann in Hauptmann Heinrich Prinz zu Sayn-Wittgenstein be in italics and followed by an English equivalent rank in brackets (or vice versa). Also IV./NJG 5 denotes the 4th group of NJG 5, maybe this could be made more explicit. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rather thought that the link would suffice for a translation for Hauptmann, but OK. But why should it be italicized? Rewrote the bit about IV./NJG 5.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No problems with dab links or external links. I didn't see any alt text though, so see about getting that fixed.
In the design section the line The cruisers proposed as part of this ranged from the 6,000 long tons (6,100 t; 6,700 ST) Atlanta class to monster 38,000 long tons (39,000 t; 43,000 ST) ships carrying a main battery of twelve 12 inches (300 mm) and a secondary battery of sixteen 5 inches (130 mm) guns. Could you add a design or a class name of something to the sentence please? I read through this the first time and missed the switch to from the Atlanta class to the unnamed class referenced in the latter part of the sentence.
Take another look now. There was no class or design name in G&D, so...
Ten designs were drawn up through late 1939 and June 1940, most focusing on ships bigger than 24,000 long tons (24,000 t; 27,000 ST) and all utilizing 12-inch/50 and 5-inch/38 caliber guns. Could you clarify what we are talking about here on the design front? Did these start as heavy cruisers or battle cruisers, or was their a classification for them at this point in the design history?
Heh, I had a feeling this might get me into a little trouble, as I'm trying to summarize four pages of information in two to three sentences. I can't really answer your question though; all I can tell you is that the navy was only looking at the 12-inch gun for these designs, meaning that—at the very least—it was going to be a very heavy cruiser. I'm starting to doubt the Alaska-class cruiser's assertion (gotten from Morison and Polmar) that the class used "CC" (ie battlecruiser) early on because all of the designs in G&D that have designations are of the form "CA-2x", where x is a letter between A and I. I've got to finally get to reading what Friedman has to say in U.S. Cruisers before I decide on a course of action though. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Six ships of this design were officially ordered in September 1940 along with a plethora of other ships as a part of the 70% Expansion Two-Ocean Navy Act. Anything in there about the Iowa-class battleships, or the Montana-class battleships for that matter? They will be do for a PR/FARC at some point next year, and the more info we have on them for citing when that time comes the better able we will be to ensure these articles stay current on the OMT task force.
Well WP's article indicates that Illinois and Kentucky were the two authorized under that. G&D, p. 114 say that Iowa and NJ were authorized on 17 May 1938 and Missouri and Wisconsin followed on 6 July 1939, but are very vague about Illinois and Kentucky, only saying that they were authorized in "the summer of 1940". —Ed(talk • majestic titan)08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we find a picture of the planned conversion to the missile cruiser or to the command ship configuration? I think that in this case, as with USS Kentucky, a picture would go a long way to helping people visualize what exactly the USN was trying to do. I grant that this is one of those 'give or take' categories for improvement, but see what you can do.
Can we maybe move the gallery section out of the article? A commons link would suffice I think, but I leave that decision to you.
Well, the article only has room for three pictures if I want to avoid sandwiching the text between an image and the infobox, so I added a gallery to include a decent amount of photos. Then it just kind of ballooned into a five-image thing. I really want to keep the gallery in there, but should I reduce the amount of pictures to three? —Ed(talk • majestic titan)08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Brad. The first and third bullets are done, but the bed is calling my name, so the second will be a task for tomorrow. Will be waiting in a few days to argue your points. ;) (kidding) —Ed(talk • majestic titan)08:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking at the Alaska article and it mentioned a "carrier panic". Did that panic have any effect on Hawaii with its later build date from Guam? Seems like it did so might be worth including here.
I highly doubt it. I just double-checked the source for that paragraph in the Alaska class article, and it said that the studies looking at converting the Alaskas were ended in January, whereas Hawaii was canceled in May of that year.
Instead of having to explain the use of USS in the opening paragraph is there anything that says you can't just use Hawaii (CB-3)? I believe the conventions pertain to the article title but not the wording within the article. --Brad (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Ed. The issue is a difficult one and is currently being discussed again. Likely it's better to leave it alone but the alternative isn't a bad thought either. I suppose that removing the USS and the note will only result in having to place a note explaining why the USS isn't there. You still need to convert Mach to kph and mph as well as the nautical miles in distance of the missile. Alt text is still missing. --Brad (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know either. I think that the USS with a note is clearer rather than "Hawaii (CB-3)[A 1]", but... it's a problem no matter how you change it. I converted the nautical mailes, but I don't think I can convert the mach, as it varies based on what the speed of sound is in the medium, which (I think) would change based on height above the ground. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it meets requirements, it's passed all the previous steps (B, GA), it's even had a DYK, and it fills a gap in wikicoverage. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support.
:*In the lead you contradict yourself when you say in the first paragraph he commanded the left wing and at the end that he commanded the right wing. fixed
In the lead it'd be nice if you could somehow integrate the parenthetical date ranges into the text - as it is they are kind of awkward.fixed
"during the action on October 1793," Either in October or on October XX, please. fixed.
I think the article is very well written and does a great job of covering the subject. I do have a couple of minor recommendations though.
There appear to be several references that are identical and I recommend combining the into one rather than several identical ones. The main one I notice is the one that looks like reference 4. do you mean the named refs template? I find that impossible to read when people use it, and won't use it myself.
I looked at the article in AWB and there are couple of places were months are abbreviated and per the MOS should be spelled out. I think the month in questions was Oct. thanks. fixed.
The Military person infobox does not support Mother and Father so I am not sure if they should be there or not. I see that you identify the father in the article but since the Infobox doesn't display it you may also want to mention the mothers name as well. she is mentioned.
I see you use the de icon template, and I am not sure about its use but I do notice that many of the references look bare and I would recommend using the cite templates. Besides giving structure to the references it also allows for meta data about the reference to be read by other applications and websites. that icon is acceptable. What do you mean, they look "bare"? Not enough info? The required info is there, I think. Give me an example, please. I don't like the cite templates, find them very cumbersome to use.
What I meant by bare was, using 4 as an exmaple it just appears to be a link with no, publisher, accessdate, or publish date.--Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what you mean. Well, I use the full reference on the first mention and after that, an abbreviated one, according to AHA style (American Historical Association). The full cite is also included in the bib.
I would recommend adding the placeofburial option to the infobox. he had two places of burial; one in Schanis, and one later, after he was dug up and reinterred in Bregenz. So place of burial is confusing.
Fair enough, I understand. I usually use the current or final burial location myself but thats just personal preference so I understand if you leave it off. --Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problems reported with alt text. External link checker reports three dead links and a bunch of others that are suspicious, please check and advise. There are currently no dab links in the article.
**Throughout the article you have linked Hotze's rank to the main article, but if at all possible I would suggest that you try and find the rank for the specific country he was promoted in and link to that instead. no rank for specific country. Habsburg military. There is Austria-Hungary, but no Habsburg. If you know where it is hidden, please say so.
During his early career did he retain his rank and responsibilities while transferring between the Duke's army and the Prussian forces? The article does not say. neither do sources.
In the section "Habsburg service" you note that Hotze went to Russia after he was promoted to colonel. Did he retain that rank in Russian service? He was loaned to Catherine to help start the service arm. So he didn't enter her service, he was just borrowed.
Do we have link for Lieutenant Field Marshall? It sounds important enough for its own article. no we don't. It redirects to Field Marshal.
Nitpick: The article is a little thin on pictures, perhaps one or two more could be added? It would, in my opinion, improve the article. will go hunt for extraneous pictures. 'Added one.
Support I guess this one's a little obtuse for finer details such as I've suggested. At any rate, its solid, so I lend my support. Bon Chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these Austrian field marshals are an obscure and esoteric subject. I found a source on the Habsburg military, so when I'm done with German Peasants' War, which should be next week and for which I could use a collaborator (hint hint), I' write the article on that. Until there is more info on Hotze, it isn't going past A class, as far as I'm concerned. If someone finds something else, which I really don't think is out there yet, then it might be possible to take it to the next level. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wrote this back in August, and haven't had the time to take this higher than GA until now. I look forward to any and all comments towards improving the article, so this can eventually go to and pass FAC. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to look the article over. Parsecboy (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Comments
Design section, "adopted for the preceding Delaware's". I think it should be "Delawares", without the possesive apostraphe.
General characteristics section, "This was an increase of approximately 1,500 tons (1,400 tonnes) larger than". Redundancy, "increase", "larger".
Armament section, "or Common types, though the Common type". Should "common" be capitalized.
USS Florida section, "However, under the London Naval Treaty of 1930". I don't think the "however" is needed.
Same section, last paragraph, there is a repetition of the fact that she was broken up for scrap.
USS Utah, "Utah was also retained under the Washington Naval Treaty, and was heavily rebuilt during the mid-1920s.[4] In 1924–1925, the ship sailed on a good-will cruise to South America. Following her return to the United States, she was taken into dry dock for significant reconstruction." Did the ship get rebuilt twice, or is this more repetition?
Overall, this looks like a nice article, but there seems to be quite a bit of repetition. I've given some examples above; there may be more that I have missed. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Dana boomer (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good, but it'd be nice if you could get a specific name and date for the Secretary of State carried by Florida. Are you moving to the American ships now? – JoeN18:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support A preliminary read through the article did not show anything wanting, but I would like another crack at the article before offering full support. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Suuport Ok, after another read through I find everything in order, but I am concerned about the size of the article when compared to the North Carolina and Iowa- class articles. I think more could probably be said about the class, but insofar as the requirements are concerned the article does meet the standards set forth for A-class. I do caution though that you may encounter some size concerns at FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Nothing has been added regarding wetness of the casemate guns as commented in the GAR.
Description of the armor layout seems a bit cursory.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Very interesting article. I've learned a lot from it (always a good thing), and you're filling a gap in wikicoverage. That said, here are some general comments:
Lead is pretty short. Can you expand it some, and make it smoother? For example, you have a few shifts of verb tense, which is awkward, and the focus drifts a bit from the subject. It would read better in the simplest past tense.
Awkwardness. There are many sentences like this one throughout: The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, catching the Republic of Korea Army completely by surprise, resulting in a complete rout for the South Koreans, who were disorganized, ill-equipped, and unprepared for war (Background) which could be better constructed. For example: The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, surprising the South Korean army and resulting in a complete rout of the disorganized, ill-equipped and unprepared South Koreans. I selected this one as an example. There are many more that would benefit from parallel structure, simplified modifiers, and simpler verbs.
Still confusing. On the night of June 25, 1950, ten divisions of the North Korean People's Army launched a full-scale invasion on the nation's neighbor to the south, the Republic of Korea. The force of 89,000 men moved in six columns, catching the Republic of Korea Army by surprise, resulting in a complete rout. The smaller South Korean army suffered from widespread lack of organization and equipment, and it was unprepared for war.[2] Numerically superior, North Korean forces destroyed isolated resistance from the 38,000 South Korean soldiers on the front before it began moving steadily south.[3] Most of South Korea's forces retreated in the face of the invasion. By June 28, the North Koreans had captured South Korea's capital of Seoul, forcing the government and its shattered forces to retreat further south.[4]
The middle sentences say the same thing, basically, just in different ways. Where did the South and North Koreans engage? On the night of June 25, 1950, ten divisions of the NKPA launched a full-scale invasion on the nation's neighbor to the south, the RK. A force of 89,000 men crossed the international border in six columns, surprising the 38,000 men of the South Korean army and routing them at *where: multiple places?*. Unprepared, poorly equipped and badly organized, the South Koreans were unable to mount a coordinated defense. Most units retreated, and the North Koreans systematically destroyed any isolated resistance. In 72 hours, by 28 June, the North Koreans crossed the (how far) of territory and captured the South Korean capital of Seoul, forcing the government and its shattered army to retreat further south.
Ambiguous actors. The 21st Infantry Regiment was determined to be the most combat-ready of the 24th Infantry Division's three regiments, and the 21st Infantry's 1st Battalion was selected because its commander, Lieutenant Colonel Charles B. Smith, was the most experienced, having commanded a battalion at the Battle of Guadalcanal during World War II. Who determined this? Truman? MacArthur? My kindergarten teacher? General Who-Howitzer identified the 21st Infantry Regiment as the most combat-ready of the 24th Infantry Division's three infantry regiments. Furthermore, the commander of the 21st Infantry's 1st Battalion, Lt. Colonel Charles B. Smith had the most combat experience, dating from his participation as a battalion commander at the Battle of Guadalcanal. (or something like this).
I agree with Joe (below) about this article. Much improved since the start, although still needs some polishing. In particular the lead needs some help. :) I'll be glad to work with you on it after tomorrow, if you'd like. Generally, I support this, for content and coverage, focus and context. The citations appeared reasonable to me.
Lead: The Battle of Osan was the first engagement between United States and North Korean forces during the Korean War. A US task force of 400 infantry supported by an artillery battery were moved to Osan, south of the South Korean capital Seoul, and ordered to delay advancing North Korean forces for as long as possible while more US forces arrived in the country to support them.
? In the Battle of Osan (July 1950), a United States task force delayed an advancing North Korean army south of the Seoul, the capital of South Korea. It was the first engagement of the five year Korean War. ?? Not great, but the first sentence needs a date, and what it was. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not really happy with the prose, although content is good. Could we also have a map? this one could be tweaked to suit. File:Korean Peninsula topographic map.png My geographical knowledge of Korea is very shaky. Perhaps it would help also to put some distances in the article. I've tweaked it some, and feel free to undo what I did if I've really mucked it up. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Fixed some minor readability problems, but...
"Before nightfall 250 of Task Force Smith's force had returned to the American lines, about 150 of them killed, wounded or missing." How could they return if they were dead or missing? Please clarify this sentence.
Much improved since the start of the review, and should be good, although some polishing might be necessary before FAC. – JoeN21:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport: Not a bad effort. I have a few points:
there are no dabs, external links all work and alt text is present;
I think the alt text might need a little work to make them a little more descriptive (for example the first image might detail the colour of the uniforms, and that there is a soldier in DPCU at a lecturn, etc.;
This one has been dealt with, but if you are thinking of taking it to FA, I'd suggest enlisting the help of an alt text expert. Alt text is not my strong suit so unfortunately I can't really help, but I still feel that perhaps the alt text in the article could be improved a bit more and someone with more experience at it might be able to give a few more specific suggestions. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another inconsistency in style, the company designations seem to vary. In one instance you use Company B and then in another you use B Company. (See for example in the Aftermath section). — AustralianRupert (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words, what makes rt66.com a reliable source? To me, it appears to be of iffy quality, but I want your opinion on the matter before I judge the site too harshly.
I don't understand what you mean; I didn't use that source as a reference, the only two web site references I used were the US Army Homepage and the US Army Japan Homepage. If that site is being used as a reference anywhere in the article then it was not done by me and I would remove it. —Ed!(talk)23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the "outbreak of war" section I would like to hear more about the drawbacks to the services; this can be accomplished either by adding to the article or by adding a main article link at the top and finding a page that better suits the discussion of the times. Being that we were so poorly prepared for the attack and that this page lists the belligerents as U.S. and NK I think you could get a way with a little more info on the US situation here. It would certainly help paint the bleak picture of the services at the time, providing the 'context for the content' such as it were.
In the section "task force smith" you have an infobox for the units composition and a quote. These two are close enough together that they could cause some text bunching in larger monitor displays. May I suggest you look into moving the quote to the top of the section, such that appears as the one here does? I will not hold this one against you, but I think it may help the text flow some.
Your images seem to force size with size parameters, as a rule though, we try and have people leave the size parameter blank by simply listing the image as "thumb", that way the browser for the computers used to access the page can configure the image to the right size for the monitor in question.
Support - Thanks to MBK for pointing out you got back to me. I'm happy now, and my net thing seems to be not there, so I offer my support. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
I am nominating this for featured article because...it has passed all the requisite reviews (GA, WP Military History A), it meets the requirements of notability, comprehensiveness and focus. I think its illustrations are in line with requirements, and the sourcing is in order., Furthermore, the subject—Austrian general in the Napoleonic Wars—is of broad interest to readers. French generals are well-covered in Wikipedia articles, but the generals of the Coalition(s) are not. Thanks for reading! I look forward to your comments. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read the rules. It doesn't matter "what national variety of English they speak in Austria". What matters is that the addition of these conversion templates has improperly put those -re endings into the article, contrary to the usage in the rest of the article. It is a change that is improper according to the MoS. What matters is that when such a widely used template defaults to a particular variety of English, rather than requiring all users to specify the variety of English, then somebody better be watching or we could just as well throw the long-standing WP:ENGVAR rules right out the window. FA review is supposed to be checking whether articles are written in accordance to our policies; in this particular case, it doesn't seem to be done. Gene Nygaard (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please identify one or more of these improper -re endings that have been introduced into this article as a result of the convert template. That might be helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've only read the lead so far, but here are a couple of points:
"Handschuhsheim" should be linked in the lead. "Wagram" could be linked to Deutsch-Wagram. The military unit "brigade" probablyprequires a link, too. You have linked the rank of "lieutenant field marshal" to "field marshal", presumably not the same rank.
No, Lt. Field Marshal is one of the variants of field marshal and covered in the article. The link to brigade would be to a modern brigade, which was not the same in the early 1800s. The article on brigade is clearly not about the early-modern and Napoleonic brigade, and there is nothing comparable in wikipedia that I could find. The rank of field marshal is a general, and more or less comparable. Also, the link to Lieutenant field marshal redirects to field marshal. Wagram could be linked to Deutsch-Wagram, however, I'm referring to the battles, not the towns. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit worried by the sentence: "Klenau remains arguably among the best of the field generals...", particular as, so far as I can see, this is supported in the text only by the statement: "Many considered General of the Cavalry Count von Klenau one of the best Austrian corps commanders of his age,..." with no indication as to who these "many" are (there is also a tense issue with "considered", but leave that aside for now).
Further comments: I have not been able to give this a thorough prose review, but I have read through it, with some observations listed below. I also made a few copyedits on the way. The military detail is extremely good and thorough, in line with the standards of your other Wikipedia contributions. However, I found that the article ended rather suddenly; it is common for biographical articles to conclude with some sort of assessment or "legacy" section, as is the case with other military figures who have reached FA status, and there seems to be a need for such a section here. How have the military historians assessed him, for example in comparison with the other commanders of this era? A shortish section dealing with Klenau's historical standing and reputation would round the article off.
Early career: Strictly, Bohemia is not "the present-day Czech republic" but "within the present-day Czech Republic", of which it occupies about 65%. fixed.
"plus Portugal..." etc is a little inelegant, and "in addition to " and "together with" are worse. Perhaps "and also Portugal..."? fixed.
Most of the conversions in the article are from kilometers to miles. Suddenly we have "12-mile (19 km)". Any reason? fixed
"In 1796, in the Italian theater, Klenau demonstrated again his field command flexibility and confidence." I feel that sentences like this should be more directly related to sources, so that they don't appear to be editorial judgements. it is cited.
I believe you...but the cite, presumably [18} (Boycott-Brown) is a long way away, so the sentence in question looks like a bit of editorialising even though it isn't. It would be better to rephrase. e.g. "In 1796, in the Italian theater, Klenau demonstrated again what Boycott-Brown describes as his field command flexibility and confidence." Brianboulton (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What sentence are you looking at? The sentence I am querying is the first in the "Action in the Italian Theater" section, which reads as I have quoted above. It does not carry a citation. The nearest citation to it is about six lines further down, and is [18] which is Boycott-Brown, not Ebert. Brianboulton (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I found what you meant. That was one of those transitional sentences. I just took it out. Probably not as smooth a transition, but... Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"two-to-one" is normally written as three words, not with hyphens. fixed
"but 2,000 captured,..." doesn't seem like a "but" clause to me. Connector should be "and". fixed
Another miles to km conversion: 4.7 miles (8 km) fixed
"the Charles' army" Odd use of apostrophe, and why "the"? You wouldn't refer to "the Rommel's army". Conventional English form would be "Charles's army". just a remnant from earlier revision. Fixed.
Jarring prose: "requisite request". Perhaps "mandatory" or "obligatory" fixed
"complete military defeat in 1813-1814 campaigns," sounds as though a "the" is missing. fixed
The "Background" and "Third Coalition" subsections of he Napoleonic Wars section take the story away from Klenau's narrative, dealing as they do with events (e.g. Austerlitz) in which Klenau played no part. While I understand the need for background and context, perhaps a little too much has been included here. Links to other articles might be used to limit the need for explanatory prose here. considerably shortened, used notes
Continuing this trend, the following section, "Danube campaign: Road to Ulm" mentions Klenau in the first line, and the last line mentions his release from capture. Nothing at all about what he did in the campaign. This lack of focus on the object of the article is beginning to seem a problem. there was some discussion of his single victory at Haslach, but it seemed lost in the text, so I've vamped it up a bit. It was a 3 month campaign, with a single victory (Klenau's), and the campaign concluded with the surrender of the entire Austrian army.
made notes on fixes. Re Legacy. There is very little about him. No definitive Biography, as yet, partly, probably, because the emphasis in Napoleonic literature is usually on the French, and only now beginning to focus on the generals in other armies. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the material for a "legacy" section does not exist, did military historians assess his career and come to any conclusions about it? An earlier version of the article included a sentence: "Many considered General of the Cavalry Count von Klenau one of the best Austrian corps commanders of his age, for his aggressiveness, his confidence and his talent," cited to a German source. Is it possible to identify some of the "many" , and summarise what they said?
Support: responses to my various concerns, as detailed above, have been satisfactory. I am confident that the MilHist review process will have established the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the article. Any remaining concerns are likely to be niggles, and I am pleased to give support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments regarding the portrait in the infobox - The white square around the portrait doesn't look good in the gray infobox. Is this an original part of the portrait, or can it be removed, alt. coloured grey. (see for example File:Pontiac chief.png) Is there any information on the painter, perhaps an wikilink? Since nearly all historical paintings were pov, painter and an approximated creation date would also be good for the other paintings. See, for example Pontiac's RebellionThe Ministry (talk)01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it doesn't look that great. I have another copy in color, if you think that would look better. As far as where it is from... Approximate creation date would be 1813-1815, because of the medals he is wearing. I'll see what I can find on the others, but these are mostly lithographs from 19th century books on the Napoleonic and fr. Revolutionary wars which have been copied into web service. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
all the other images have (in commons or on the wiki page) complete and translated info. The portrait has no info that I can find, other than that it is widely distributed. . I have no other source information. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I extensively reviewed this in the MILHIST A-class review and am satisfied that it now meets the FA criteria. One quick comment: in the "1800 Campaign in Swabia" section, can you pick one of the images to keep? One of the two will always be shoved into the following "Napoleonic Wars" section. —Ed(talk • majestic titan)01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on refs need more than a little work, or perhaps simply need to be explained. Inconsistent etc., hard to know how to proceed. Forex, full refs given twice for books – once in notes, once in Bibliography. Why duplicate? And I've found a couple that are given in the notes but not the refs, but I can't tell whether or not this is deliberate. • Ling.Nut08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything cited in full on first mention. In some cases, as in the Digby Smith Databook, if I've cited a battle page, if it is not obvious which battle, I include the name of the battle. If it is the only battle on the page, I don't include the name. Bibliography includes complete citations of all sources. I don't use the ref template, makes me crazy when I'm using it, and it doesn't allow me to add explanatory notes, nor to add two citations in the same footnote. I don't like reading articles that have strings of numbers either. I'm just old fashioned. I also use the AHA style for citations and bib and they are (should be) consistent in the article. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - There are several instances where sentences like this one appears, “In his early military career Klenau demonstrated, not only at Zemon but also in the skirmishing and raids of 1778–1779, the attributes required of a successful cavalry officer: the military acumen to evaluate a situation, the flexibility to adjust his plans on a moment's notice, and the personal courage to take the same risks he demanded of his men.” I know that they have proper refs, but since they are value judgements I would much rather you wrote “According to ‘historian/writer/whatever’ Jon Doe, Klenau demonstrated...” (especially when the
source is the one hundred years old ADB) Just as we in an article about a movie writes "According to critic Jon Doe, the movie is funny" instead of just “The movie is funny.”
So and so said... They are all sourced to at least one citation, and in most cases, more than one, thus it is difficult to say a single historian said it, and cumbersome to say, Smith, Kudrna, Castle, Ebert, the ADB author who uses only his initials, and Gates say that.... Also, I've paraphrased the statement to accommodate what all of them have said, not what a single individual has said. This is a writing style that I use, rather than talk about what individual authors have said, I focus on the subject of the biography. In other types of articles, I handle the situation differently when I'm discussing an historiographic school, but in biographies, this is the rut I've adopted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Old sources. Just because they are old doesn't make them useful. The ADB is particularly interesting for its wealth of detail. I rely on sources like ADB for the basics—birth, death, promotions, campaigns, etc.—and on other sources for much of the other kinds of material: what units, etc. The great thing about ADB is its no nonsense character. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source. Napoleon online is in part a collection of biographical material compiled from original sources (at least the part I used here) and is the German-language partner-site to Napoleon Series. The latter is peer-reviewed, and Burnham keeps a tight rein on what goes on the site, and the sites he partners with (when possible). Sometimes the writing isn't stellar —he often offers students the opportunity to publish on the site as well as people whose native language is not English—but the content is reliable. It is also a good location to find transcriptions of original documents. I talked with him (Burnham) about the policies at a conference once (we were both presenting papers), and he explained that he does require a peer review of the articles, from other contributors, usually. Some of the articles have been part of the Napoleon period writers contest. His contributors vary widely: John Gill, Ian Castle, among others. Ebert writes in German, and is compiling a substantial core of biographies on the Austrian generals. I've double-checked his material, and find it to be accurate and reliable. So, based on my evaluation of the site, my checking of his information, and the relationship with another site I trust (and that is trusted by many), I consider it reliable. I refer my students to it if they are looking for something on a topic covered there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport I was the user that passed this article for GA, and it has significantly improved and expanded since then. I enjoyed reading it, but there were too many problems to support at this stage, although I would be happy to do so once improvements have been made. The problems largely fall into two categories 1) widespread prose errors, both in terms of grammar and typos and 2) Too much context in some places and not enough in others. In all, a very nice article, but not quite there yet.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big improvements, but still a few minor points below to address. Don't worry about expanding or cutting context at this stage, but there are still some prose issues to deal with. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I think this article could do with cutting down, but that is only a matter of opinion and not something I consider actionable in this FAC. Otherwise it is a very good article that I am now happy to support. Regards --Jackyd101 (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The son of a Bohemian noble, he joined the cavalry as a teenager" - is something of a non sequiter - can you make it flow better with the sentances around it?fixed
"In the early years of the French Revolutionary Wars, he distinguished" - say "Klenau" instead of "he" the first time you reference him in a paragraph.done.
"main Austrian force after its defeat at Wagram" - repetition of Wagram changed
"at Aspern-Esslingen and and its defeat at Wagram" - too many "and"s
"on the first day of battle. After the battle" - repetition of battleI added the battle name again.
The word "he" is repeated too often in the final paragraph of the lead, try to find ways to avoid using it as much.fixed
I too am slightly uncomfortable about the "In his early military career Klenau demonstrated" section not being directly attributed, but I accept your response above and don't think any additional work is needed on this at this time. When someone writes a bio of him...
"looked upon the revolution in France" - link to the French Revolution and give a date. I think that there is too much detail here on the causes of the war given that this is a biography of someone who was not involved at all at this stage, although again, I don't see it as a barrier to FAC, just something to think about. initially it didn't have this much, when you saw it at GA, but one of the A-class reviewers wanted more context.
I think you have the wrong Battle of Wissembourg linked. Wissembourg lines, 12-13 October 1793? That isn't the right one?
"and mowed down Dufour's infantry" - mowed down is not an encyclopedic term, find a different way to say it.generally it is described that way. I changed to cut.
Out of curiosity, do you think that the Battle of Zemon, the Battle of Handschuhsheim, the Siege of Ferrara, the Battle of Büsingen deserve their own articles? Certain Handschuhsheim should. The others? Not so sure.
"Bonaparte's victory there" - name and link the battleit's in the same sentence, but I repeated it.
"among others—achieved several victories" - is in the wrong tense "among others— had achieved several victories"fixed and reworded.
"Peace and the Congress of Rastatt" - Klenau isn't mentioned once in this whole section. I understand the need to provide context, but I'm concerned that this section (and others like it) go too far off topic. see my comment above. I'll try to pare it down, but given the previous review....
"Archduke Charles of Austria in the late 18th and early 19th centuries" - this doesn't make sense, do you mean "Charles, Archduke of Austria in the late 18th and early 19th centuries"?got it.
"on 24 May 1799, Klenau captured the fortress at Ferrara, the lynch-pin in the French Po River defenses" - you have already described the capture of the fortress, and stated that is was the lynchpin. This repetition needs to be removed.done I think.
"a strategically key point in the region" - you mean "a key strategic point in the region"
"Despite the imperial losses" - Imperial is a proper noun in this context and should always be capitalised. done
Battle of Wertingen is linked. At the first, near the Bavarian town of Wertingen, 40 kilometers (25 mi) northwest of Augsburg, on 8 October, Murat's Cavalry Corps and grenadiers of Lannes' V Corps surprised an Austrian force half their size.
"The campaign started badly at the Battle of Eckmühl" -badly for who?for Klenau
"16 mounted squadrons, which he led Archduke Charles lost the advantage in the battle;" - looks like something is missing here? A period?
This article makes it sound like Klenau won the battle of Aspern-Essling almost single handed. Can you place his participation in a wider context? widened'
It's still not clear that any other Austrians were engaged other than Klenau's force - how important was his contribution to the overall battle?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
added more.
"Saxon campaign 1813" - Its a little odd, but having given extensive and not always relevant context to every campaign up to this point, the narrative suddenly leaps ahead four years with no context at all - please comment on events between 1809 and 1813, both in Europe and regarding Klenau personally.did some, but expanded at 1812
"the Schwedenschanze, of the Swedish Redoubt," - what was the "Swedish redoubt" Schwedenschanz means Swedish defensive position, or the Swedish redoubt. Built by the Swedes in the 30 Years War.
Question - “Johann von Klenau, also called Johann Josef Cajetan von Klenau und Janowitz,” should it really be “also called”, isn't the long one just his full name? The Ministry (talk)01:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources usually refer to him as Johann von Klenau. Sometimes the longer name is used. Count of Klenau and Baron of Janowitz.
Support - Read the article & went through it mostly for the "French side of the story", i.e. linking to the right individuals, editing French words etc., I am leaving the technical discussion to the pros as I see that the small problems are being resolved the instant they are brought out.
Un grand merci to Auntie Ruth for this new interesting article. Frania W. (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images:
A question about the lead image, File:Johann Graf von Klenau Freiherr von Janowitz.jpg. It's on the Commons and seems old enough, so it should be okay, but I notice the author is unknown, and there is no first publication date. Is there anything that tells us its age, even roughly? I'm unsure about whether we can assume this particular image was made in his lifetime.
It's at least pre 1819. It is the type of picture usually contained in a miniature, and given the medals he is wearing, it was probably done after he received his Commanders' Cross.
Personally, I agree with you, but I've been challenged myself in the past for not providing an author or a publication date that shows the image really is that old, and isn't something that was created more recently and made to look that age. I'm new to image reviews and therefore unsure how strict we're meant to be, so I'll have to leave this one to the delegates, but if you can track down more information about it, it would clear up the uncertainty. SlimVirginTALKcontribs18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image has been released by Luca Giarelli, but we don't say who that is. If it's a Wikipedian, we should link to the user page. I checked the English WP and she's not here.
I hope I'm not being obtuse, but how do we know this map was created before 1923? The source doesn't say anything about it that I can see.
this looks like an image from the Baedecker guidebooks. Not entirely sure. I can replace it with an image of the castle itself, but this little map explains better how Klenau could take the city, but not the castle. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this image was taken and released by Peter Stein, but the image page doesn't say who that is. There's no user on this WP with that user name.
He is a photographer living in the Bodenseeraum (in Radolfzell). I added his website to the description. I added Photo by Peter Stein / CC-BY-SA 3.0 to the caption. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one needs a link on the image page to say which website it came from. It says artnet, but we need a link to the page, or some more precise citation.
Another concern: File:Napoleon.Dresden.jpg is a 19th-century painting, and there's no problem using it, but the person who took the photograph has tagged it as his/her own work and cc-by. Should it not be the painting that's tagged, rather than the photograph of the painting? SlimVirginTALKcontribs13:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the painting's age that matters. The photographer didn't add anything creative, so in addition to the release by the photographer there should be an appropriate tag for the painting.SlimVirginTALKcontribs18:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what I wrote there, a release from the photographer isn't needed at all unless there was creative input, but given that we have one, it would make sense not to remove it.SlimVirginTALKcontribs19:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) I also found the documentation on the original. At least I think it is. Andrea Bolzoni. I added it to the commons file. I'd rather keep the older one, that's in there now. I've found the Klenau portrait in a modern book and it appears to be in public domain, since they do not credit it to a museum, or another book. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Klenau image. I found a copy of it in Hollins, Austrian Commanders of the Napoleonic Wars 1792-1815, Osprey, p. 22. He gives no attribution for Klenau's picture, or anyone else's. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a paper copy of the book? If so, there should be an acknowledgments section somewhere for images. I just tried to look on Google books, but it's only letting me see a few pages. One of them (p 2) thanks the Austrian National Library Bildarchiv, so that's probably where this image comes from. You could email them, or email the author, David Hollins, via the publisher: info at ospreydirect.co.uk. SlimVirginTALKcontribs02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I partly agree with you, but the image rules on WP say that we must know both the source of an image (where the Wikipedian got it from), and its provenance (who owns the copyright; have they licensed the image; or if copyright has expired or was never appropriate, name and dates of author and/or date of publication, so we know how old it is. I believe all you have to do with this image, and that of the map, is show that they were published before 1923. You don't necessarily need the names of the authors or first dates of publication. This is one of my first image reviews, so I really don't know how strict the delegates are. I'll look around to see what others are doing. SlimVirginTALKcontribs19:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an article here about reviewing images for FAC. If you look under "policy-mandated elements," it says images at FAC require: an image summary, which you have; a source, which you have; and a copyright tag along with sufficient information to determine that the tag is the right one. That's what you're lacking for the lead image and the map. See point 3 under "policy-mandated elements." I'm sorry, I know it seems strict and is frustrating, but there's a real risk that these images will be challenged in future by someone else, so it's worth getting it sorted out. SlimVirginTALKcontribs21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) SlimVirgin is correct. Per WP:IUP#Requirements, sources for the image to help verification of title, author, and date(s) should be provided. Also remember that creation does not equal publication, and that under US laws, centuries-old photos/paintings might be still be copyrighted if published at the "wrong" time (see WP:Public domain#Artworks). Images of paintings should either have the location of their gallery stated, or the site from where the digital image is gotten (remember to point to the page where the image is displayed, and not to the image themselves). Publication data should be stated. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took the portrait out and substituted a picture (Handschuhsheim charge) in its stead. When I finally get a lead on where that portrait came from I may switch it back. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "After their defeat at Wagram, the Austrians withdrew into Moravia, leaving the French in control of that part of the Danube valley; Wagram was the largest European land-battle to-date, engaging 262 battalions and 202 squadrons—153,000 men—for France and her allies, and 160 battalions and 150 squadrons—135,000 men—on the Austrian side" has how many em dashes in it? I count four, but two are the limit suggested by the guideline at WP:DASH. The same guideline suggests two per paragraph as a good limit, but your paragraph beginning "Although the Coalition forces" contains four em dashes.
Two are the limit suggested, but in this case, for parallel structure, I used them.
At your phrase "the position seemed unsustainable", could you use the word "untenable" instead?
Sure. Done.
In one reference by Vann, you have two page ranges with one a subset of the other: pp. 291–310, pp. 297–298. Same with Sked: pp. 175–193, p. 176; and Leggiere: pp. 39–84, p. 64. I suggest deleting the subset pages since they are included in the larger range.
The general page ranges are for the article, the single page is the page cited.
Ah! You can easily drop the article page range and just go with the page(s) specifically cited. Down in the bibliography section, you already have the article page range defined, so they are not needed twice.Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your en dashes include a combination of HTML coded ones and single characters. I suggest converting the HTML ones to characters for consistency. The reader will not see the change but an editor who uses this article as an example of FA style will.
That just means the auto-ed hasn't gone through it again, since someone did some editing. Auto ed has now gone through, and all are converted. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One instance of the words "to-date" has a hyphen linking them. Is this purposeful?
It wasn't for me, but I'll check it.
I see a mix of British and American spellings. The convert template specifies U.S. but the hyphens in east-south-east and counter-attack are British. The spelling of "storey" is British.
The spelling of "storey" is also American. East-south-east are also American, as is counter-attack. As far as I know. I live in the US, and use them/read them all the time. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Southeast is spelled with one word when it is a place (such as Southeast United States). Locations of the compass east–south–east are not a single word, but indicative of a range, and therefore, as I understand the guidelines, should be hyphenated. So perhaps the MOS has a contradiction in it.
In any dictionary I've read storey is the proper way to spell the word for horizontal levels in a house, not "story", which is a tale told at the fireside. I understand that it may be "story" in the United States but it is not necessarily that way in the United States. This may be a generational issue, also.
Once more in WP:DASH, the guideline talks about mixing prepositions with dashes when discussing a date range. The use of "from 1778 to 1779" is fine, but "from 1778–1779" is not, as it mixes the two. Also: "between 1801–1805". These could be fixed by deleting the word, or changing the en dash to a word.Binksternet (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In early July, in the Johann_von_Klenau#Wagram section, Klenau takes the same villages again from Masséna (even though nothing we say implies that Austria lost them in the meantime), only to then lose them to Masséna.
that would be yes. A couple of nights in both battles, when the fighting stopped for the night, the French and Austrians were within pistol shot from one another. One source I read said that they could smell each other's cigars and cooking. Given the standards of 19th century hygiene, they could probably smell each other, too. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both times we say he got his orders late but made up the time.
Are we somehow telling the same story twice? Or did France retake Aspern and Essling between May and July, and Klenau really did get his orders late on both occasions? --JN46623:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aspern-Essling and Wagram were fought on the same territory—within sight of the Vienna ramparts—a few weeks apart. The same armies were there, plus more French brought up in the meantime (from Italy). Austrians didn't get additional men because Archduke John dawdled along the way (didn't understand the urgency). And in the meantime, the Austrians didn't learn to do staff work any better. The Austrian command structure was very cumbersome, so it often took a long time for orders to be written and delivered, unless Charles gave instructions himself directly to a commander, which in this situation did not happen. I wondered too if Klenau got his orders late on both battles; my sources re Aspern refer to late orders and my sources re Wagram refer to late orders. So I wrote about late orders. Auntieruth55 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I am still confused (and so, I am sure, will readers be) how Klenau could take Aspern and Essling from the French in July, when he had already taken them from the French in May, and there was a lull in fighting between May and July. Perhaps we should dig for some sources and close that gap. I am sure we'll get this fixed though and am happy to support. --JN46617:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
Supports from Brianboulton, Jackyd, Ed, Frania W, JN. Binksternet has struck issues. Slim Virgin did image review. (her first, YAY, throws confetti). Ealdgyth -did sources. Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet struck all my comments. I would not like to see the non-breaking space overuse issue remain in place and thus reinforce continued non-MOS requirements pushed down the throats of FAC nominators. I can't find one non-breaking space that must stay in this article. Binksternet (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked: yikes ! We do *Not* need nbsps on dates. They should be removed, but I'm not going to hold up promotion over that. There was once a long discussion on the MOS talk pages, and we put to rest the idea of NBSPs on dates-- they are not needed, and really clutter the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish... I have removed all of the non-breaking spaces, including the ones in front of the words "million" and "percent", because there was no confusion with monetary symbols or the percent sign. I now fully support this FAC. Binksternet (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query: is that infobox really only 300px? It is seriously huge on my browser, and really jamming the text into only a few lines. I don't know how/where to check this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image was set to be 1.75 times as wide as your personal choice for thumbnail width. What is your setting? Mine is still at 180px, wiki default, and the resulting image measured out to about 320 pixels wide. Your width is probably gigantic because you like bigger thumbs. ^_^
Thanks for fixing this Binksternet. And for fixing the dates. I have crossed this off my Wikiwoops list...things I didn't do right initially and was told I must do. Glad to have it clarified. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Peter Heywood was the Bounty mutineer who got away. Denounced, captured, tried and sentenced to hang, he was given a Royal Pardon and then allowed to continue his naval career, becoming a favourite of the top brass who were happy to accelerate his promotion. How did this come about? There are murky elements in this story—hints of bribery, perjury, and class prejudice, and somewhere along the line three men were executed. Heywood's story throws some fascinating light on the workings of the British Navy in the late 18th century, and provides a new dimension to the oft-told tales of "Captain Bligh and Mr Christian". Thanks to Ruhrfisch for the map, and to others for generous peer review help; I believe this is now ready for FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed the prose in this article extensively at the peer review and see no point in repeating it. In my view, it amply meets the FA qualifications. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: after correcting some stuff on the images (and uploading a few better ones), they are all verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport:
"In 1791 Heywood and his companions were captured in Tahiti by the search vessel HMS Pandora and transported back to England in irons. This voyage was prolonged and eventful; Pandora was wrecked on the Great Barrier Reef, four of Heywood's fellow-prisoners were drowned, and Heywood himself was fortunate to survive."
My reading gave me the initial impression that he was "transported back to England" by Pandora, which becomes a puzzlement since it was wrecked on the Reef. Could this be clarified?
I've amended to: "...by the search vessel HMS Pandora and held in irons for transportation to England. The subsequent journey was prolonged and eventful;..." I hope that is clearer.
"... Douglas, Isle of Man, the fifth of the eleven children ..."
Is this where (between "... Man, the fifth ...") a dash would be better, or by breaking the following clause into a short sentence?
I've gone for the second of your options, as a dash looks intrusive.
"... as sailing master to Captain James Cook on the latter's final voyage."
Suggestion: "... as Captain James Cook's sailing master during the explorer's final voyage."
Suggestion accepted.
File:Tahiti scene frontispiece.jpg's caption seems to be wrong... the title of the drawing is "George Young and his wife (Hannah Adams) of Pitcairn Islands" (as from the book), which seems to indicate this is Batty's vision of life at Pitcairn Islands, not Tahiti...
Yes, I didn't read the title carefully enough. George Young was the son of the mutineer Edward Young, and was not born until after the events described in this article. The picture probably dates from the 1820s, and is barely relevant to Heywood's story. Rather than contrive a connection, I have replaced the image with Bligh's sectional drawing of a breadfruit plant (which was in an earlier version of the article but was dropped because of image clutter). Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... all the 14 surviving Tahiti fugitives ..."
This makes it sound like the fugitives were Tahiti natives... "... fugitives in Tahiti ..."?
Agreed, done
"... Montagu of Hector ... was "my particular friend" ..."
Heywood's or Paley's friend? Perhaps drop "my" from the quote and identify whose friend Montagu was?
Done
Did Heywood ever go back to Tahiti for his first wife and daughter?
There is no record that he did.
"The only known child of Heywood ..."
I think you meant "The only confirmed child of Heywood ...", right?
Yes, OK
Great read, Heywood's court-martial was so full of COI then... I would like some clarification of the above niggles first. With the clarifications, I support this article for FA. Jappalang (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I made the map for the article and made a few comments about it in peer review, where I felt it was already ready to pass FAC. I have made one edit since and reread it carefully. My only quibble is whether it would be better to identify the breadfruit plant illustation as Sections of the breadfruit plant, from Bligh's book, rather than the current Sections of the breadfruit plant, drawn by Mackenzie (since the image page makes it clear that the identity of Mackenzie is not known). Well done, Ruhrfisch><>°°13:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your map work, and for your support, also for your suggestion relating to the breadfruit drawing. I will fix the caption accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose While this article is very well-written and engaging, I feel that it is not quite comprehensive. More needs to be said about Heywood's career after the Bounty incident. I read the Dictionary of National Biography entry on Heywood and it provides some more details, such as his participation in what appears to be the Napoleonic Wars, and it also lists the following source, which may be helpful: A. C. F. David, ‘From mutineer to hydrographer: the surveying career of Peter Heywood’, International Hydrographic Review, new ser., 3/2 (2002), 6–11. I look forward to supporting this article soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can add more about his post-pardon career, though I am reluctant to add too much. The main focus of the article must be on the part of his life which was notable. His later career, while honourable, was far less notable, and had he not been the ex-Bounty mutineer he would, I am sure, have remained one of hundreds of naval officers who served their country honourably but anonymously. I have plenty of sources, including the DNB entry (but not the David article to which you refer) and it should'nt take too long to put something together, but give me 24 hours. Brianboulton (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I have expanded the "Subsequent career" section to give more details of Heywood's various appointments and activities after he resumed his naval career. There's a bit more about his hydrography activities, and mention is made of what seems to be his one and only direct engagement with the French during the Napoleonic wars - the clash with the frigates in the Bay of Biscay. Other events are touched on - but his career was worthy rather than action-filled. He was mainly well away from the heat of battle. I think the general tenor of his career (conscientious, honourable obscurity) is properly represented with the new material. I have had to slightly reconstruct the latter part of the article, but nothing of significance has been removed. I am happy with this balance. Let me know your feelings. Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - these improvements are even better than I was hoping for - BB, you always exceed expectations! I am happy to support this article. Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support an excellent biographical article providing just the right amount of background on the mutiny. As Awadewit, I would also be interested to know a bit more about his actions during the Napoleonic Wars. --DavidCane (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I added a note that the ODNB requires a fee, since it's only free to library card holders in the UK) Ealdgyth - Talk16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks.Alt text is present (thanks) but has some problems. It contains details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and therefore needs to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. Problematic phrases include "springtime", "the front of the Vimy Memorial after the completion of the restoration project", "cigarette box card", "Victoria Cross recipient Lieutenant Richard Jones", "the Victoria Cross", "the dedication ceremony for the Vimy Memorial". Another bit of advice: generally speaking, alt text should not contain proper names unless they're obvious to a non-expert (see WP:ALT #Proper names). The alt text for File:Plan of Attack Vimy Ridge.jpg needs to be rewritten to convey the gist of the map (see WP:ALT#Maps for advice). The phrase "A name panel on the memorial damaged by mineral deposits." duplicates the caption and should be rewritten or removed as per WP:ALT#Repetition. Also, please remove the phrase "photo of" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid. I got about halfway through the alt text, but I hope this list of issues gives you an idea of the problems that need to be fixed.Eubulides (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Overall, this looks like a very good piece and I have made a few trifling fixes. The one area that seems underdeveloped to me is the artistic side, much of which has been left to a gallery of images and their captions. I've identified some further sources on the talk page that might be useful to exploit. Please follow up there as you will. Cheers, Askari Mark(Talk)05:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain what more can be incorporated on the artistic side using reliable sources. The article incorporates the origins, influences and artistic design of the memorial. In particular it incorporates the influences of other works, of both Allward and others, which have demonstrated influences on the memorial. I would appreciate more detail than simply saying it requires more on the artistic side, is there an artistic elements or movement that you are aware of that has not been properly incorporated.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not any clearer there what you wish to see changed or addressed.
The terms 'Mother Canada' and 'Canada Bereft' are both used and cited using reliable sources.
This page is not a bio of Edna Jennings or any other memorial model, which there were a number of, she is noted in the notes but that's as I am willing yo go with it.
Comments - I've been editing in this area recently, and this article stood out as one of the best articles we have on the memorials in France to the WWI missing (though here it is also one of the national memorials). I am going to add comments here as I read through the article, and have read though the earlier (GA and A-class) reviews as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the A-class review, the ending of the article was said to be choppy. I tend to agree, and the Death of Georges Devloo section in particular feels like a strange way to end the article (I always look to see if an article ends in a logical or strong fashion, rather than petering out). You said: "I am inclined to leave the Death of Georges Devloo section because the event got national news coverage in Canada, mentions in the Canadian House of Commons and resulted in official condolences from the Canadian Minister of Veterans Affairs." Did you consider bringing that out in the text of the article itself? As for ways to end the article, I would suggest that the "Restoration and rededication" section is the best way to end the article, unless there is more recent news. Are there plans for the future that you could end the article with? Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular attachment to the Death of Georges Devloo section. I was simply making a point that the events serounding his death were notable. GIiven the events took place a year ago I would be comfortable removing it at this time. Thoughts?--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Restoration and rededication fits more appropriately with the History section of the article, which provides the flow of events from conception to current date. Would you suggest moving the entire Site section and placing it before the History section, otherwise I'm not sure how to pull it off an keep the flow. --Labattblueboy (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too bothered, but thought it worth mentioning. I don't have any solution to offer, really, except the possibility of a "future events" or "future plans" section. Maybe end saying there is a ceremony or service each year at the memorial on the Sunday before Remembrance Day (though the only real source I could find for that is this). Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing with the "Influence on Canada" section has met this concern for me about how the article ends, though something about ongoing commemoration and annual visits would also round it off, I think. I've just now remembered an objection I forgot to mention, which is the way that the section is titled "Death of Georges Devloo". I think that bit would be better as part of a section about who visits the site and who runs the site, and the guides and the site superintendent, and the relationship between the memorial and the nearby villages (Vimy and Givenchy-en-Gohelle) and some more on the views of the French (government and locals) on the memorial (the bit about Devloo would fit in naturally there, as an example of local French generosity). i.e. about the relationship between France and Canada in the context of the memorial. Starting from the initial gift of the land in perpetuity, to current stuff such as this which points out that the Embassy of France in Canada has an art deco representation of the Vimy Memorial in one of its hallways. More on that here (better picture) and here (details of the artist and other WWI commemorative sculpture in the hallway) and (getting a bit off topic now) here. So maybe something on how the Vimy Memorial relates to France-Canada relations? Carcharoth (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says that the memorial site is maintained by Veterans Affairs Canada, but the infobox mentions the Commonwealth War Graves Commission as well. I'm not clear on the exact relationship, but from from some reading I did recently about the equivalent Australian National Memorial (at Villers-Bretonneux), it seems the various Commonwealth national agencies are partners within the CWGC (an intergovernmental organisation). In Australia, that seems to be the Australian War Graves Commission (Office of Australian War Graves), along with Department of Veterans' Affairs, Australia. The OAWG acts as Australian agent for the CWGC. Is there a similar relationship between the CWGC and the relevant Canadian agencies over this memorial? According to this page, the Canadian CWGC agent is this body (inventively called "Canadian Agency Commonwealth War Graves Commission"), and it is "co-located" with Veterans Affairs Canada in Ottawa. It may not be necessary to delve into the bureaucratic responsibilities in the article, but the lead only mentions Veterans Affairs Canada, while the infobox mentions the CWGC. Is it possible to make clearer what the responsibilities of each body are?Carcharoth (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site is managed by Veterans Affairs Canada, through their Canada Remembers Division. They handle all the site maintenance (with the exception of the cemeteries which is handled by the CWGC), programming, ect and even staff their Director general of European Operations on site. There are, as I understand it, areas of shared responsibility given that the CWGC has the mandate to commemorate all WWI dead by name and the Canadian government agreed to include the names on the memorial. The CWGC does not however manage the site.
The Canadian Agency of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is co-located with Veterans Affairs Canada, in Ottawa, although its employees are not employees of the Canadian Government. The agency is really an arm of the CWGC and represents its interest in Canada, rather than vice-versa. From what I understand, it has responsibility for some 19,000 Commonwealth war dead buried in Canada and the United States. It doesn’t handle any of Canada’s interests in Europe. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From that same paragraph, there is mention of a Vimy passport - is it possible to get a photo of one of those? - and of the speech by King Edward VIII - is it possible to quote something from that, or link to a source that gives the text of the speech?
The mention of battlefield archaeology is good, but something on visitor numbers and battlefield tourism would be good as well (though we don't have an article on the latter).
Some of our articles on memorials that list names give links to articles we have on people listed on the memorials, especially VC cross recipients. You may not be able to get a comprehensive list, but a few names as examples may be possible.
Done. I have listed the names of the VC winners at the end of the Vimy memorial section. I haven't found a comprehensive list of notables names amongst the sources so I think going beyond the VCs might not be prudent (eventhough there are a number of impressive individuals on the memorial - ie. J. B. Ironside MM & 2 Bars, Croix de Guerre (France)).--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also found Allan Davidson, but as you say, it gets silly if you go beyond just a few examples, and the VC recipients seems the logical place to stop. Hopefully links will still be coming in the other way, though, and a list could be maintained on the talk page. One minor point: the reference you used may have been misformatted when you made that edit? Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"a dedicatory inscription to Canada's war dead, in both French and English, also appear on the monument" - is this the same as the one quoted in the infobox? If so, it would be nice to have the text in French as well.
Article says 11,285 names of the missing dead. Infobox says 11,169. This is likely due to discrepencies in sources. Best to get the most recent and authoritative source and use that figure - remember that names are removed over time as bodies are found, identified and buried in a war grave. Numbers quoted in original inscriptions will be out-of-date now.
No discrepancy. Unlike other memorials which were designed with nameplates that could be removed as bodies were found and identified (ex: Hebert Perterson's body was found in 2007), the Vimy memorial is a continuous band of names and thus modification is not possible, so there are a number of cases where people are commemorated by both a headstone and on the memorial. So there are in fact 11,285 names on the memorial but only 11,169 names of missing. I'll insert a note to clarify the ambiguity. --Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard that on other memorials where the names are carved (and this is more usual than using nameplates, I think, at least for the inter-war era) the names are removed, so that might be worth double checking. The CWGC at least makes a big point about only commemorating someone once, either on a memorial, or by a war grave headstone. It is possible that the removal of the names is simply being deferred to the next restoration/maintenance project. If this part of the discussion is best moved to the article talk page, that is fine. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am well ware that the CWGC seeks to treat everyone equally and are thus commemorated by them only once. I know there was a discussion regarding amending the name list but it was ultimately decided to leave the memorial as is. The names aren't even blanked out, as is the custom on other memorial (Menin Gate, Thiepval Memorial to the Missing of the Somme, ect), because it would interrupt the continuous band of names. Last night, I check the VAC website where they have photos of all walls posted online (http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=Memorials/ww1mem/vimy/expvimy/memoriam) and double check their post-restoration images against names of individuals whose bodies (ex: H Peterson) were identified and sure enough still on the memorial, even though the CWGC list them as being commemorated by an identified headstone.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That satisfies me, and I see what you mean about the continuous band of names. Most of the points I've raised are being addressed. What is the tidiest way to note that? Strike them and leave the other comments unstruck, or what? Carcharoth (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked if the image of the Morrocan Division Memorial has alt text giving the inscription, but a quote of what is said there may be an idea. Not sure, though, as it may rather overwhelm that section.
The alt text for the Morrocan Division Memorial gives a description as well as the inscription. I believe inserting the inscription into the images text would overwhelm the section.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On a second pass through, I thought of the following:
There should be a mention of the annual ceremonies and maybe the major anniversaries commemorated here and other ceremonies, other than just the inauguration and rededication. See here, which talks about "the annual Vimy Remembrance Ceremony" and "The official "Canada / France Vimy Memorial Ceremony" held each year on the first Sunday before 11 November." and "the services in Vimy commemorating the 70th, 75th, 80th and most recently on 07 April 2002 the 85th Anniversaries of the Battle of Vimy Ridge and the 50th and 60th Anniversary of the dedication of the Vimy Memorial." (that would need updating). There is also mention there of "the transfer ceremony at Vimy for the unknown soldier to Canada" (in 2000) - was that at the memorial as well? It is not always clear where these ceremonies take place, but it seems the memorial is a focal point for such things. I also found this (Google cache of a 'Canada in France' ambassadorial website that doesn't seem to maintain its pages very well) that led to this pdf of speeches at the 75th, 80th and 90th anniversary ceremonies. The latter (Villepin) you already mention, but the other two anniversary speeches by Francois Mitterand and Adrienne Clarkson may be worth mentioning. There have likely been other anniversary ceremonies as well, but a reliable source listing them all may not exist, unless you want to look at newspaper archives for every year since 1936.
I noticed that this webpage has a video of the inauguration of the memorial. It would be nice to somehow point people towards that.
Luckily enough the films author relinquished copyright when they donated them to the Archives of Ontario and the archives has declared the copyright expired so I was able to upload it. See: File:1936 Vimy pilgrimage.ogg. Maybe the 1936 pilgrimage will have to be my next article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is there looks good. The only thing I would say is that it feels a bit short. The first few sentences, in particular, hint at a lot more, and as I suggested above, more on France-Canada relations (at all levels) in the context of the memorial would be good, not just the influence on Canada, but also on France. Carcharoth (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I forgot - are there sources for the costs of annual upkeep and maintenance, and who employs the people who work at the memorial site and in the memorial park (I assume a mixture of Canadians and French), and who pays for this? This ties in with the point I was making above about how responsibilities are divided between the CWGC agencies, Canadian agencies, and French agencies.
No idea on cost. I haven't seen anything published. The staff are all employed or contracted by Veterans Affairs Canada. This includes the office staff, guides, shepherd (for the flock of sheep that cut the grass) and security guards. Far as I know, the cost of operating the site is fully borne by the Canadian government but I do not have a source to confirm that.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feared that there might not be definitive sources for that sort of thing, though there must be some sort of annual report somewhere, but maybe it is not made public. The bit about the sheep is instructive, as it leads back to the amount of unexploded munitions and the preserved nature of the battlefield. I'd definitely try and work that into the article somewhere (you can probably find a news story that mentions it), but these are all minor points that I'll bring up on the talk page now (instead of here). I've got just one more comment to make, and then that should be it, as nearly all my comments have been promptly addressed, or explanations given, so I'll just sum up what I think still needs to be addressed and leave it at that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up from above, what I still think should be considered:
Paragraph or section on the history of major anniversary events held here, plus details of any annual events
Paragraph or section on the management and maintenance of the memorial and park, and facilities and services provided
This one is not possible because there are no reliable sources on the subject. To obtain the data would require primary research alone. The guided tours are mentioned, but beyond that nothing in terms of reliably sources data is currently possible. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was unclear. I didn't mean the stuff about how much it costs to run, or how many people are employed there, but the general sort of information about what facilities and services are provided and what sort of things happen at the memorial site. I found this on an 'Interpretive Centre' that was opened in 1997 (already mentioned in the article, but the opening date is not mentioned). This page says that there is a Student Guide Programme run by VAC for students wanting to work in France as guides at the Vimy and Newfoundland memorials. And if the bit about Devloo and no public transport from the Vimy village train station is going to be mentioned, it should also be mentioned that there is a shuttle bus service from Arras, otherwise you may mislead people into thinking that travel is only possible by car, taxi, and tour bus. It is possibly to travel there independently without a car or being part of a tour group on a bus/coach, you just have to get the shuttle bus and avoid getting the train to the village of Vimy (you go to town of Arras instead). I hadn't realised that before I read the website, as the Devloo section in the article had confused me. It even left me thinking "how can the French authorities not provide transport?!", when in fact they do. One final thing that could be mentioned is: "the France-based Friends of Vimy volunteer group" (Les Amis de Vimy). That can be reliably sourced to the VAC page on the Interpretative Centre. The pictures on this page show some of the sort of things done at Vimy (note the mention of a memorial capsule, and at the bottom 'Les Amis de Vimy' presenting a medal). Here is an expenses claim for some ambassadorial staff member to "attend, on behalf of the Ambassador, the annual meeting of 'Les Amis de Vimy'", so clearly they are an established enough group for the Canadian ambassador's representative to visit them. Here is another example. It is the flavour of the day-to-day and routine and non-routine activities, not necessarily the details, but the atmosphere with some examples, that it would be nice to get across in the article. Carcharoth (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies I misinterpreted the intent. I think I can work something out to include much of this information. I just need to think of how to organize it properly. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph or section on the responses to the memorial over the years (by critics, supporters, locals, governments, and others)
Will Longstaff died it 1953. For additional information on the painter see: here. For confirmation of death in 1953 one example may be National life & landscapes: Australian painting, 1900-1940 by Ian Burn, Longstaff is on page 80-81.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg refers to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Victoria Cross Reference migration. Is that sufficient or not? The image page also says: "Photo submitted by Martin Hornby - (Gallaher Cigarette Cards)." That implies to me that it was scanned from a 'Gallagher Cigarette Card', presumably produced by Gallaher Group. The key here appears to be the age of the original cigarette card. According to this ebay page, the cigarette card series in question was produced during the war itself, and hence before 1923. For extra confirmation, see this site, which lists the sets of Gallaher cigarette cards, and the one we have here will be from one of the "The Great War VC Heroes" series (issued between 1915 and 1918). Hence all scans of these Gallaher VC cigarette cards will be PD by age. Are any of the above URLs enough to count as URL sources? I'll try and work out what is going on with the other images, so will add more here later. Carcharoth (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the PD1923 tag to the image. It's certainly a gallagher cigarette card but I don't know which series. Either way, the latest was produced in 1918 so certainly PD under PD1923.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not point to the image directly, point to the page that displays the image. The point of this is that a direct link to the image only allows one to easily verify there is such an image (which pretty much is obvious and stares one in the face on looking at the Wikipedia copy). A link to the page helps one to get more information on possibly author, date, and most importantly, any copyright claims or such. If the image exists as a link on the page (or through a search form), either point the link out (or you can add the image link next to the page link) or describe what search terms to use to get to the image. Jappalang (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I want to bring this article to the next level. I believe it may meet the featured article criteria. Please let me know how to improve. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: all photos are from the Bundesarchiv; as far as Commons is concerned, these images are CC-licensed for free use. The Nazi flag and Luftwaffe insignia are in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsConditional support:
"To be considered an ace, a pilot must be credited with shooting down five or more enemy aircraft during aerial combat; Lent shot down 110 aircraft, 103 of them at night."
The explanation of "ace" seems a bit jarring here. I suggest changing the two sentences to "Lent shot down 110 aircraft, 103 of them at night, more than the target of five enemy aircraft required for the title of ace."
I am not enamoured with the Summary of career section. Most (if not all) of its content has been expressed in prose in the article. I fail to see why there is a need for References in the Wehrmachtbericht sub-section either.
The main reason for breaking out the references in the Wehrmachtbericht is that I want to give the reader an easy overview and secondly because they are my personal translation of the original German text. Further the style I used here is copied from two other featured articles Heinrich Bär and Werner Mölders. I'd like to see how others feel about this MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A one-sentence Legacy section does not look good. Integrate the sentence into the Death sub-section. The same goes for the circumstances that surround Lent's medals in the Awards sub-section.
(Add-on) The article is mostly based on the Hinchliffe source, and I wonder if the heavy emphasis might lead to a loss of certain aspects of the man. Williamson's Knight's Cross with Diamonds Recipients mentions that Lent "initially hated night flying and had to be persuaded against a transfer back to day fighters." This is interesting, yet the article does not speak of Lent's attitude to his work. Was it missed or was Williamson wrong? Spick seems to have expounded on Lent's attitude in Aces of the Reich. It also seems that Lent would have a friendly rival in night fighter kills in the form of Schnauffer (a former subordinate of Lent's), according to Constable and Toliver's Horrido!: Fighter aces of the Luftwaffe. It seems the article falls a bit short of comprehensiveness here. Jappalang (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! This is an omission on my part. Peter Hinchliffe is the best and most thorough source I have come across. I added a paragraph indicating his initial reluctance to become a night fighter. Most other sources have condensed the information to the point of making it "untruthful". I therefore can only advise to follow Hinchliffe's reference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the "rivalry" between Schnauffer and Lent? Lent is supposed to be Nazi Germany's second highest-ranked night fighter pilot in terms of kills (behind Schnauffer). Is that notable to be of mention? If Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer is the world's top-scoring night fighter pilot (according to his article), does that not make Lent the second? Jappalang (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I read I wouldn't say that his ambition as a fighter pilot distinguished itself from that of others. The rivalry between Lent and Schnaufer, at least to my interpretation of the sources, does not excel to the point that I would want to mention it here. There were others, Sayn-Wittgenstein for instance, who were driven or even obsessed by the idea to be top scoring fighter pilot. But this is something to be addressed in his article not Lent's. MisterBee1966 (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was driving at the point that Lent's achievement is his status as the second highest ranking night fighter pilot (global or Germany only?). It seems a notable achievement (whether he wanted it or not), but is not mentioned in the article. If he and Schnauffer had a well-reported rivalry, it would flesh out more, but that does not seem the case now. Jappalang (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the the first of the sentences added might be redundant, and tweaked accordingly.[10] You might want to check my tweak and rewrite or revert it. Whether it requires the Williamson cite should also be checked. Note that if there are reliable sources who proclaim Lent as the "second highest scoring" night ace, then it should be made explicit in the article because right now, the article does not state if Lent is second, third, or fourth in such rankings. Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel Summary section is superfluous, and without in-depth knowledge of the subject, I am not certain if all sources have been covered. However, the current article is very comprehensive for a WWII pilot who died then, and I feel any other sources of information would likely not add so much that the current article can be thought of as failing WP:WIAFA 1b. So unless a substantial number opposes the Summary section with reason, my support is behind this article. Jappalang (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should qualify my support by mentioning that I contributed as a copy editor to this article, but not to its content. There may be an occasional prose hiccup, but there shouldn't be much. That said, I have a couple of comments to make:
first, I appreciated the editor's effort to maintain a fair and balanced pov throughout the article (and indeed, through the article's creation).
second, unlike one of the other reviewers (above), I liked the inclusion of the Wehrmachts Bericht section separate from the text. Yes, indeed, it could have been incorporated directly into the article, regardless of the fact that it is B's translation, and not a published one. But in other articles he has edited he has used the same format, so, for consistency's sake on this project, I think it belongs separately and, perhaps more importantly, it is primary source material, included separately to enhance the article.
third, Hinchcliffe, as a dominant source, seemed fair to me. A lot of articles rely on one or two sources as their "primary" (main) secondary source, especially when that source is the "go-to" source for the subject.
I think that the article is very well written, but I have a few concerns before I support. Additionally below are the things I did to check the article.
Lede -
Well written
seems to be the proper length
does a good job of summerizing the article
Concern - It is typically frowned upon to have references in the lede. It appears that most of the references in the lede are also detailed later in the article so I would recommend removing them.
AWB Edits
I ran the article through AWB and didn't find anything significant there.
DAB links
There are no disambiguous links
Alt text
Alt text looks good, although a couple are rather long.
External links
There doesn't seem to be any significant problems here
Dates
The dates throughout the article appear consistent using the Day Month Year format.
Concern - The dates in the References in the Wehrmachtbericht table under the summery of career section appear on more than one row. I would recommend using the DTS template to fix this allowing the entire date to be on one row.
This section is were you lost me. I think this whole section needs to be cleanup up. The article otherwise is very well written but this section really pulls it down for me.
I changed my Comment to a weak support based on the evidence you proveded with the previously approved articles. I still do not like the layout of the Career section however and think that it should be cleaned up regardless of how the other articles appear. Basically I think that an article of this status shouldn't have what amounts to a series of bullets and should be rewritten to be in a more prose format. This also brings up an issue for me that has been a contentious topic to many and that is how to display military ribbons and badges. To me having a bunch of bullets doesn't provide the same information as a graphical display such as the one on Smedley Butler. Since some do not like the graphical display I think we should provide some kind of prose wording to better inform the reader about the information related to these military decorations. I served in the U.S. military and am knowledgable on that but I couldn't tell you a thing about these german ones. For example, what do the extra devices on the Cross for Swords and diamonds look like, are these ribbons displayed in order of how they would be displayed on the uniform or are they in chronological order, are they authorized to be worn as ribbons or are they medals only (which is a practice used by some militaries) when were they recieved, who gave it to him, are there any citations that can be added stating what he recieved them for (such as the Smedley Butler article (and I know that it is not quite to FA status yet either). Basically I just think that there is other information that can be provided to allow for a more readible and professional looking layout of the sectiom. Even if a graphical display is not used (which I personally think is a better but not everyone does). I hope this helps and good luck on getting it passed. --Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I would suggest scrapping the promotions section since it serves no real purpose for the article. Otherwise, ti does appear that everything is in order for the FA star. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be changed; I can't quite articulate it, but it's not correct English.
Here's some more: Lent flew a further mission on 3 September and another on 4 September. At this point of the campaign, when the Polish Air Force was all but defeated, that the tactical use of Bf 110s switched from bomber escort to ground-attack.
For his actions in the Polish campaign Lent was awarded one of the first Iron Cross 2nd class on 21 September 1939 of World War II. Wouldn't it read better if the date was given after the bit about one of the first EKIIs of WW2?
Helmut Lent was ordered to intercept and engage the attacking bomber force and after refuelling—Lent had just landed at Jever from an armed patrol—claimed three more Wellingtons When did he shoot down the first ones?
There's a severe problem here with missing WP:NBSPs, causing many of the words and terms to wrap on my screen: please fix, I left samples. Also, it would be good if the article could try to stick to one convention on translations: some use the German word with English translation in English, others use the English word with translation in German, and others have no translation. These won't hold up promotion, but I hope they will be addressed soon, and not repeate on MilHist articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Here we have an article about Richard the Lionheart's favourite castle. There's not an enormous amount to say about it because the site was built in one phase, a monumental effort that was mostly complete in just two years, and the most important parts of its history were the first few years of its existence. The article details the main points about the castle, touching on its history and its importance in the context of castle building, and I believe it is comprehensive. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the letters on the plan should be explained further in the caption, & tied into the text. Also the photos, or at least one of them, should identify the larger lumps left, and the direction of view. Barthélemy, who I used on Castle, says that Richard's ""manor" [palace] was situated outside and below the citadel" - not sure if this is H on the plan or outside the castle altogether. A couple of lines on Richard's career would give context - he'd been back from the Crusades for less than 2 years in 1196. In "Walter de Coutances travelled to Rome in the winter of 1196.." - is that 1195-96 or 1196-97? Best to specify. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I can explain the letters on the plan; I can't find Viollet-le-Duc's explanation of the plan. Allen Brown has a plan in his book (Allen Brown's English Castles) but doesn't go into as much detail as Viollet-le-Duc; in fact all he does is lable the baileys, moats, and the keep.
Other points fine. V-D's plan, or an equivalent, ought to be online in French somewhere. I may have a look over the next few days, & I need to give it a thorough read-through, but we seem on track here. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text added (I knew I'd forgotten something). I've not added any alt text for the plan though as it would pretty much be repeating the caption. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some alt text needs to be there. It needn't repeat the caption, as the image contains many details not in the caption. However, if you think the diagram merely repeats the adjacent article (not the caption), please use a placeholder as per WP:ALT#Placeholders. Also, the location map needs alt text; please use the |map_alt= parameter of {{Infobox Military Structure}}. The alt text you added looks very good; thanks! Eubulides (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The panoramic pictures were a lucky find. I couldn't decide which to use so thought I'd go for both! The coloured image gives a fuller view of the castle, but the black and white photo is a personal favourite as it's just stunning. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I hazard it is some sort of natural phenomenon by which red-stained water precipitates? The "omen" bit helps a bit, but readers might still wonder if it is a supernatural occurence. I would suggest enclosing "rain of blood" in quotations to make it distinct as taken from the original text. Of course, as you said, an article on rain of blood (even if a stub) would resolve the issue as well. Jappalang (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the quotation marks. I've found what looks like an interesting article on occurrences of blood rain in medieval literature but haven't got round to reading it yet. The Red rain in Kerala is a modern equivalent (and apparantly you get red rain in Britain due to dust from the Sahara), but in the Middle Ages I suppose it must have been disconcerting and it probably did seem supernatural. Nev1 (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"On 6 April 1199, Richard died due to an infected arrow wound on his shoulder."
A brief on what circumstance he received the wound is perhaps in order (name and link the battle or such).
I've added that it the wound was sustained while besieging Chalus, but I'm wary of going into more detail as it didn't happen at Château-Gaillard. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The curtain walls are studded by flanking towers, intended to provide enfilading fire, were cylindrical, typical of contemporary towers."
A word might be missing from this sentence, or it requires breaking up. Either way, the current sentence structure "... are studded by flanking towers, ..., were cylindrical, ..." seems weird.
Oppose, not nearly comprehensive [failing 1 b)], and don't see how it can be resolved in this session. E.g. "In the 1990s, archaeological excavations were carried out at Château-Gaillard; in conjunction with the archaeological work, efforts were made to preserve the structure." Fascinating ... would expect a paragraph if this were a realistic FA candidate, but in fact that's my lot. # Innovations and layout is just awash with such assertions, that just hint at info but then move on. Fair enough for a B, not for an FA. Appears that most of the material on this castle is in the French language, but there's nothing in the main references section in that language; maybe that's the problem? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most important French source not directly referenced in the article is Le Château-Gaillard et les fortresses des XIIe et XIIIe siècles by Pierre Héliot. Now an article dedicated to the site in a renowned journal on castles is essential. Although it is not directly referenced by Wikipedia's article, Allen Brown's English Castles uses the Héliot article so I don't see this as a big problem; it is represented in the article, albeit indirectly. As for the excavations in the 1990s, the conclusion was essentially that more work needs to be undertaken on the site as a whole.
I realise this might be an annoyance, but could you specifically list your problems with the innovations and layout section? Nev1 (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stuff about the excavations should be in the article, and yes it is a problem if you don't utilise the main sources for a topic you wanna get to FA.
The section is question is just to fleet-worded on the lay-out aspect (it's ok on the innovations, though even this needs more context), jumping from topic to topic (in one para, from the gatehouse to a quote about how great the castle is). "Liddiard emphasises the importance of the throne room in the keep; one of only two rooms in the keep (the other was an antechamber), the throne would have sat in front of a large window" ... why is this the first time we hear about the throne-room, and in passing? "Château-Gaillard consists of three baileys – an inner, a middle, and an outer with the main entrance to the castle – and a keep, also called a donjon, in the inner-bailey" ... and that's all we hear of those. And so on. Ideally, I'd like to see sections for each part of the castle, even if short ones, descibing them physically, archaeologically, historically. and functionally. Not sentences interwoven with random quotes in a huge confused paragraph. Do you have the local site guide? This would be useful. For an FA, you'd want if not to print it thing off and take it there, at least to find it useful. This section of the article is basically useless except for the map and the citations. It looks like a guide that's done the history section, and then got cut off except for a rushed summary of the rest. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have to agree to disagree about the sources; as an English castle Château-Gaillard is covered in English-language books which refer to the French-language sources. I would obviously like to have more French sources, but they are not indispensable as their subject material is covered by the other sources (apart from the stuff about the most recent excavations which doesn't seem to have filtered into English-langauge sources yet).
On reflection, the innovations section could do with some restructuring as it is perhaps confusing and disjointed. I agree that notes on function would be useful, however separate sections are excessive and would involve a lot of repetition. The castle was essentially built in one phase (one of the sources comments on this as unusual as most castles have several construction phases over their lifetime (I should have included that actually) so should be treated holistically. I don't think this needs to be confusing, it just needs some rearranging and explanation. Unfortunately, I don't have the site guide. I'll also see what else can be added on the excavations, but can't promise that a whole lot will be added. Anyway, that gives me something to do on Boxing Day! Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would obviously like to have more French sources, but they are not indispensable as their subject material is covered by the other sources
Obviously, you can't know that unless you access them. By not using them you not only limit the comprehensiveness of the article (that other sources use them is really another argument for using them, not against ), but you deprive yourself of the opportunity to know whether it is comprehensive. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more on the excavations (and have asked someone to doubled check my interpretation of the French source) and reorganised the innovations and layout section. What do you think of the revised section, does it work? Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, and I appreciate that you're making an effort to address my concerns, I really do. But it's still very far from comprehensive. I understand you have a problem getting and reading the sources, but if you can't use the main sources then you can't make the article comprehensive, and so you'd probably be better putting your energy into a topic where you can. The architecture section ("Innovations and layout") is still many times smaller than it should be. Even now the French article has more text and pics on this matter.
Incidentally, you might wanna double check some of your dates.
King Henry V of England besieged Château-Gaillard for six months before capturing it in 1418; the French retook the castle in 1420, but it soon fell into English hands again.
The French wiki gives December 9, which obviously may not be reliable, but this map in the The Cambridge illustrated atlas of warfare: the Middle Ages gives December 8 (if I'm reading it right). I myself have gotten dates wrong in articles because I write so many and make the occasional mistranscription. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether this article becomes an FA, I'll try to make it as complete as I can. It is currently the comprehensive English-language article on the castle available and provides useful links to anyone wanting more. As for dates, I double checked with the source used and it does state 1420 rather than December 1419, but I'm more inclined to believe that Cambridge history so I've changed it.
As for comprehensiveness, all I can is that the article should "neglect no major facts or details and place the subject in context". An article can be comprehensive without being complete. The most important events in the castle's history were its construction and the first siege, hence why there's so much detail. In the history's of Henry V of England's life, the fall of Château-Gaillard to the French is given barely a footnote. Could you suggest what more should be added to the innovations section? I'm not going to harass you to change your oppose as I think it's perfectly valid and one I should really have foreseen. I was perhaps lulled into complacency by the amount of information I was able to find in English. Thanks for the assistance and pointers, you've helped expand the article further than I thought realistic. Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just regarding this section, is it not that this is the date the English capture it? Just to thicken it, the ODNB says that Thomas Beaufort duke of Exeter [s.v.] "proceeded to reduce the strongholds to the west and north up to Dieppe and afterwards to invest Château Gaillard to the south, which surrendered to him on 23 September [1419]". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, as December 1419 was so close to 1420 I assumed the author of the encyclopedia entry where I found the info had made a slight mistake and that December 1419 referred to the French capture of the castle. The ODNB and the Cambridge Illustrated Atlas could both be correct, but this would make it a more significant error on the part of Kibler, unless he leaves out some details, which is quite possible. That pretty much underlines your earlier point; I have a feeling a French source might help here. Or it might not, but I can't be sure because of accessibility. I am wondering whether to withdraw this nomination; there's very little that can be confidently elaborated with regard to activity in the Hundred Years' War from the English-language sources. Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having access to quality sources means that you can verify for yourself claims made by secondary writers. The Cambridge History of Warfare isn't as far as these things go that reliable. Two authors covering a huge swathe of history like that ain't gonna compare with the specific academic monograph covering the Winter campaign of 1419 read alongside the printed versions of the primary sources used. So all you might need for this kind of thing is decent English sources. E.g. check the scholarly works on the 100 Years War and Henry V, look at what they say and check the footnotes to see how we know the castle was captured when. It might turn out that it hangs on an interpretation of a very difficult source or something. But if you don't won't know what is going on. Anyway, I was thinking you'd need the French sources for the architecture, for French local history matters, and so on. I wouldn't have thought you'd need them for English campaigns. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility I'll look into; I checked an Osprey book on the Hundred Years' War (admittedly not the most detailed volume on the subject), but it didn't have Château-Gaillard in the references. As far as the architecture is concerned, I'm confident that Allen Brown is enough. He explains the site in detail as an important study in the development of English castles; his ideas have mostly endured and he is still held in high regard. Liddiard then provides the less military side of the castle (ie: it's a symbol of power) and in his book summarises very well the newer ideas that castles were more than simply fortresses. Nev1 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once I disregarded the information from the encyclopaedia as useless, it was much easier to find information relating to the Hundred Years' War with the help of Ealdgyth as I stopped chasing the wrong facts. The new info agrees with the Atlas, but not the ODNB entry. There were no footnotes indicating how Château-Gaillard fell in five or six books on the Hundred Years' War (not all referenced in the article). And of course the moral of the story is to never trust what you read in an encyclopaedia ;-) Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport I've been to the castle and it is still an enormously impressive place, and this is a fine article, but one that I found a bit disappointing in places and I'm eager to see it improved some more so that I can support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs looking at a bit more - I recommend developing it into two paragraphs with the additional information of: a brief description of the shape and main features of the castle, the exact length of time taken to built it and an explanation of why it was slighted. The natural break seems to be after "unusually short time".
Better. I do have something to add, which is that "He went with" is a slightly pedestrian way to describe the progression of two monarchs across Europe - "joined by" or "accompanied by" would both be slightly better options.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again better, but why was that town so special - Normandy was full of towns. I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was the river that made it so important, can you expand on this at all?
"Richard ordered the construction of the castle" - when?
Hmm, looks like I got the chronology a bit out of synch there and Richard was ordering the construction of the castle before he owned the manor. I've rejigged the paragraph slightly. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"base from which he" - use Richard instead of "he"
I had a think about this, and I think it can stay in with some slight rephrasing - the despatch of the elderly Lord Chancellor to Rome on this mission does after all emphasise its importance to Richard. How about "One of the party, Richard's Lord ChancellorWilliam Longchamp, died during the journey."?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In English "Château-Gaillard" means "castle saucy"" - why was it so named?
It's not clear; there's a little speculation that it might be because of political intrigue of because the castle was ostentatious, but nothing worth including. The problem is that it's an interesting tidbit, but can't really be expanded on. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Philip ordered a group of his men to look for a weak point in the castle." - did they find one? The text is not clear on this point (after all, a tower might be regarded as a strong point, not a weak one).
"both in the Hundred Year's War." - this was 150 years later, so its a bit like comparing the Crimean War with Iraq. Give it a bit more context by stating the time difference or find another example closer to the event.
Those are the two most famous examples of civilians being allowed to starve to death outside a town's defences and the ones used in the source, so I've mentioned the gap in time. Saying it's like comparing the Crimean War with the Gulf War (either one) isn't the best example because of the huge advances in technology which weren't evident between 1194 and the Hundred Years' War (both were fought with swords and arrows and the most significant advancement was the advent of gunpowder and cannons were unpredictable and expensive at the time of the 100 Years' War), but point taken. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If that is what the sources use then fair enough, and it has been improved (although there were still surprising leaps in military technology during the medieval period).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this castle unaffected by the Hundred Years War between 1330 and 1419? It seems likely. If you have access to a library then I recommend the works of Jonathan Sumption, who has written three truly brilliant volumes of a history of the war up to 1399.
Early on in the Hundred Years' War, fighting was mostly in the west of France and around Calais, which the English secured under Edward III; under his son Richard II the English suffered losses and it wasn't until Henry V that Normandy was retaken. That's when Château-Gaillard came into the fighting, and although it held out a while it wasn't a whole lot of help as the rest of Normandy capitulated fairly easily. Nev1 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let this go for now, (although in fact there was extensive fighting in Normandy, Britanny, Poitou and Aquitaine during the first forty years of the war) but in a couple of weeks I'll be able to check my copies of Sumption and if they have anything to add I'll incorporate it into the article (if that is OK with you?).--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Joan of Arc was captured on 30 May 1430 and a month later Château-Gaillard was recaptured by the English; by then the war was already turning in their favour." - it is not clear from the text what this event has to do with the castle.
The intent was to add some context, but it's difficult linking it back into the fall of Château-Gaillard; is this better? I could just remove it. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article would improve with some restructuring. Many of the questions I had during the first half were actually answered in the second. If the construction section was made a second level heading, and the Innovations and layout moved beneath it, then a reader would be able to understand the shape of the castle, which would improve understanding of the history that follows.
The whole section could be moved earlier, although that would break up the historical narrative. Are there specific details that you think need to be mentioned earlier or is it the whole thing? The intent with the current layout is that casual readers will be interested in the history (Richard the Lionheart, the rain of blood, the siege, etc) but the layout will be less interesting. I thought that the history section could stand independently of the layout and innovations section, but if not moving the whole section earlier is an interesting option and sounds less laborious than moving individual sentences. Nev1 (talk) 17:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, and will think on it some more. As something of a military historian, I would naturally find it easier to understand the history if I know the technical specifications, but that is not the onyl viewpoint. I may have some additional suggestions here in the near future, but no action is required at the moment.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Oman 1991" - Oman certainly didn't write that in 1991 as he was long dead - give the actual date of publication, not the date that your copy was reprinted.
Oppose: 1c: use of Britannica, an unsigned tertiary source by non experts. Your explanation is singularly unconvincing as to why we should throw sourcing rules for the Biography of a major historical figure out the window simply because this is a fine arts article. Alexander_III_of_Macedon includes a number of biographical secondary sources you might want to consult.04:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To put that into a blockquote would conflict with the image on the left. I find that blockquotes break the flow and generally try to avoid them (the article's one blockquote is a translation and not an excerpt from a text). Unless it's a requirement, I'd prefer to leave things as they are. —Anonymous DissidentTalk13:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't regard my comments last time as resolved; the only sustained and comprehensive analysis of the painting used is Hagen, with Wood's shorter analysis, in a book all on Altdorfer, also used. We have other FAs on paintings included in the Hagens' books, which are good popular works with articles in similar format on "greatest hits" of painting. Las Meninas does not use the Hagens at all, & they are I think used for 1/65 notes in Rokeby Venus, because these articles had better and fuller references available. This doesn't seem to the case in English for the Battle of Alexander, that anyone has been able to discover. It may just be that an FA standard of comprehensiveness cannot be reached without use of the abundant German literature. Two books that are widely available & have some analysis of the painting that does not really add anything to what is here (which is why I did not mention them before), but might increase the class of referencing used are:
Snyder, James; Northern Renaissance Art, 1985, Harry N. Abrams, ISBN0136235964
- both very standard books. There is too much reliance on non-specialist references here - the last two in the article, both on art-historical points, come from: "Davis, Kathleen (2008). Periodization and sovereignty: how ideas of feudalism and secularization govern the politics of time. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN0812240839", which doesn't sound like an art-history book to me. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll look into both. Meanwhile, I have a text from Larry Silver (Art Bulletin) which can replace many of the lesser references to which you refer. Aside from the issue you have with the referencing, do you see any areas where you think comprehensiveness is lacking? You say "It may just be that an FA standard of comprehensiveness cannot be reached without use of the abundant German literature." but fail to point out what exactly you think is missing. This is a 43 KB article. —Anonymous DissidentTalk00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced some references from Clark. I think he has something quite valuable to add to the Reception section; I'll get to that later today. I'll try to get to a physical library for Snyder. —Anonymous DissidentTalk01:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Silver is promising. We don't have anything on the reception until Napoleon, nor from German 19th century artists, many of whom were very influenced by Altdorfer & the Danube School. There are no technical details, that might or might not be significant - condition, restoration, indications of changes in intentions etc - perhaps if there was anything really important it would be in the Munich summary catalogue. But I think some of the things the article does deal with would probably emerge rather differently with access to works that deal at length with this painting specifically. Part of the trouble is that because the work is very untypical of Altdorfer in many ways, but characteristic of him in others, it is much tricker to use general statements about his art here than it would be in dealing with a more typical work - a difficulty in using most of Wood. Obviously without having that material I can't say what might be different, but that has always been my experience. Excluding the sections on the historical battle & earlier depictions of it, the article is not so long. Johnbod (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the word 'stopper' used deliberately? if so we might want to use a hidden comment in the source wikitext as people may change it. Is there too much historical background e.g. on Alexander, which isn't necessary to understand the painting? The quotation that includes the word proleptically, does sound pretentious even if it has some truth. From a non-expert who had not heard of this painting before, the description of it reads pretty clearly, good work so far Tom B (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stopper is used deliberately. I'm not sure it's needed, but I'll add an invisible note since you've asked. Knowing the history isn't necessary, but it gives the reader a good idea about the heroic status of Alexander, who he was, why he matters, and why he was painted. The history also gives the readers a base with which to compare Altdorfer's depiction of the scene. I don't think how pretentious a quote sounds matters; it's the content and meaning that is important. Thanks for your comments. —Anonymous DissidentTalk12:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport on 2c; ref formatting, should be easy to fix:
Under Notes, some references use one digit in the second page number (37-8) while others use two (37-38); please use two consistently
Image review: most images are from the Yorck Project, which Commons have accepted as public domain. The rest are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport:
"Renowned for what Joseph M. Bryant ..."
Who is Bryant? What makes him an authority on Alexander? This also applies to Mark W. Roskil, Kathleen Davis, Rose-Marie Hagen, Kenneth Clark, and Pia F. Cuneo with respect to their comments on this painting. A qualifier (profession or title) preceding their first mention would help.
Kenneth Clark is one of the most famous art historians of the last century, Hagen a well-known popular one. I for one oppose and dislike explaining every name who crops up, if they are the expected type of expert for the subject - we ought instead to weed out any who are not art historians/historians - not that I'm saying there are any such here - or just reduce the naming in the text. This article suffers slightly from "over-attributing" very standard views or facts to individuals as though they were some original personal insight. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Johnbod that perhaps non-"true blue" art historians/historians should be excluded, sometimes certain reknowned figures might give interesting and extraordinary insight (imagine if sci-fi author Arthur C. Clarke gives critical comment on a painting of a science fiction scene). That said, I still believe that clarifying the subject's field of expertise does good, especially for the general readers (to get a feel of why this commentator's opinion is to be regarded). Not doing so, in my view, seems to be creating a walled garden atmosphere for the article (either you know who the art experts are, or you do not). Jappalang (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people of not the "expected" profession, such as authors, are quoted, then yes they should be linked or given a descriptor (like Schlegel here). But if the subject is history, or biology, and people are quoted without a descriptor, the reader should be able to assume they are a historian or biologist, whether "true-blue" or not, without having to be told each time. And really people should only be mentioned, as opposed to cited, where their thoughts are at least partly original, or especially well-expressed - of course knowing where this is the case can require a good knowledge of the literature. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Darius and his army routed."
I thought "rout" is a transitive verb? In this case, either "Alex routed the Persians", or "the Persians were routed", right?
While an exciting read, is the Historical setting section not a bit too long? It is about the same length as the linked main article.
I'm just not sure where to thin it out. I'm sure that some reviewers will object that something so long isn't required, but I think it helps to establish who Alexander was and gives the reader an historically accurate narrative with which to compare Altdorfer's depiction. If you examine the topic of every paragraph, I think you'll find that the account is actually quite concise and without extraneous detail. —Anonymous DissidentTalk14:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article reads well and is nicely written, a concern that I have is who is this person - Helen of Egypt? any more information about her - better name, dates, other works, when did she paint, or a reference would help...Modernist (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment - She was actually called Helena of Egypt described as the daughter of Timon of Egypt, she painted the Battle of Issus. I added 2 refs...Modernist (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article traces the career of an officer who, if perhaps not quite as vital to the history of the Royal Australian Air Force itself as its "father", Air MarshalSir Richard Williams, probably outshone him in terms of the impact he had on Australia's military and society in general, and was certainly at the top for achievements in rank and office being the RAAF's first appointee to the (de facto) role of Chief of the Defence Force, and its first Air Chief Marshal. Currently GA, as well as A-class on the MilHist and Aviation projects, I believe it's now ready for the bronze star... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made a quick reading for grammar. On the whole, there are no glaring issues, but there are a few sentences that need to be looked at. I really only made it through the section on the 1930's, and I hope to get the rest done soon.
Scherger quickly took to the art of flying open-cockpit biplanes,[1] and gained a reputation as a skilful if occasionally reckless pilot, being berated early in his career by his flight commander for "inverted and very low flying". (Comma splice in the first part of the sentence. Also, the" if occasionally reckless" part needs to be surrounded by commas or hyphenated as a compound adjective.
He had married Thelma Harrick on 1 June 1929; they had a daughter, Jill. (This sentence seems unnecessarily concise). How about "He Married Thelma Harrick ..., and they had a daughter named Jill." or something of the like.
Faced with the frightened woman and the enraged husband crying that he would "shoot the bitch", Scherger knocked the man down with a poker; the officer was placed under arrest while his wife was given shelter off the base, and subsequently resigned his commission. (The last phrase seems like a comma splice) Mrathel (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Mrathel, but re. the other two points could I plead ignorance and ask you to explain a bit more about what "comma splice" is and/or the problem with it and/or a suggested alternative? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your confusion, as comma splice is totally the wrong term. These clauses have unnecessary commas:) In the first sentence, there is no need for the comma after biplanes as the subject does not change between the two clauses. If you simplify the sentence, u can say "Scherger took to the art of fly biplanes and gained a reputation...", which is correct while "Scherger took to the art of flying biplanes, and gained a reputation..." is not. The third sentence is more tricky but has the same issue, as there is no subject in the final clause even though it is separated by a comma and a conjunction. Mrathel (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get you. Okay, grammatically I agree re. the first one, I think I probably included the comma as much for the sake of the citation than anything, but I can push that along. Wouldn't have thought we really needed the hyphens (emdashes I suppose) around "if occasionally reckless" but will do it if you insist... ;-) Re. the third, I'm not entirely happy with the sentence anyway so more than happy to take suggestions while I think of yet another way to rephrase it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two commas removed - actually I've decided I don't mind that last sentence after all now (perhaps it was losing the comma!)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
I have a concern with the use of information from the archives. That's pretty much primary sources, and it should be used with extreme care, to only cite the most uncontroversial of facts. Anything more risks getting into WP:OR territory if you attempt to interpret the source.
I agree, so apart from some newspaper clippings and letters that are in there, I'm really only employing his file for the bare facts of promotions and postings. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where do they get their information though? Are they relying on accurate information or is it out of date? What's their reputation for accuracy? Ealdgyth - Talk17:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seriously now, per this they're ultimately a subsidiary of Telstra, Australia's major telco, and they claim their maps come from UBD, which is about as reliable as street directories get in this part of the world... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – an excellent article that meets all of the criteria. I do, however, have a few comments, but they are not enough to withhold my support:
"the officer was placed under arrest while his wife was given shelter off the base and subsequently resigned his commission" - I think this sentence needs to be tweaked slightly, as the final clause about his resignation somewhat seems to be referring to the wife.
Rejigged a bit.
Is it known why he taught Richard Casey to fly?
Something to do I guess. Seriously, no more than what's there. I didn't find it that fascinating myself, but since I wanted to use the picture I figured I may as well mention it in the text.
Is it known why, exactly, Scherger was awarded his CBE and CB?
Only the CB has a (basic) recommendation - tks for reminding me, I found it while making the expansion then forgot to use it...
The presentation of access dates in the cites are inconsistent.
Template issues but worked around them anyway.
In regards to the pain-in-the-butt "Honours and awards" box, there is no mention in Scherger's service record of him being awarded the Australian Defence Medal, which was actually established in 2006, and I could not spot any mention that he was awarded a "MALAYA" clasp to the General Service Medal.
Heh, re. the first point, somebody got confused with the UK Defence Medal; re. the second, page 3 of the personnel file does mention Malaya.
"Promoted to". This occurs again in the lead; can you check the rest of the article for the omission?
"Promoted <rank>" as opposed to "promoted to <rank>" is pretty common military terminology in my experience, though I welcome feedback from any military editors who disagree.
It's for everyone, not just military readers. "Promoted colonel" interferes, from my unfamiliar stance, with promoted him as a colonel (PR?). The readers can do without this grammatical jargon. Tony(talk)02:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's curious that omitting the "to" doesn't seem a major issue for other non-military readers in similar articles, but I see that I've used "to" elsewhere in this one as well, so will go with the latter for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the Northwestern Area"? If the military jargon is without "the", it's still uncomfortable for normal humans, but we could bend if it really would look strange to you.
As a regional command, forgoing the definite article is standard terminology. I suppose I could make it clearer by saying "North West Area Command", but preferred to avoid the qualifier after "commander" appearing immediately before.
Can you pipe to just "Darwin, Northern Territory" to reduce the blue dilution of all of those important links in the vicinity?
No prob.
-> "served in a variety of senior posts including"
Fair enough.
"at the age of 79"? You're leaving little grammatical words out ... is this a change in your style?
Not really, but editors in other articles of mine have sometimes removed the little words as they see fit and it hasn't bothered me too much either way...
"Melbourne" hardly needed as a link, is it? They know it's in Australia from the context, and the article on Melbourne is kind of huge and irrelevant to the topic we want to drive them down right now ...?
See where you're coming from but this seems a bit inconsistent when you've felt the need to add "Australia" to the infobox even though it seems fairly clear that he and Victoria are Australian - WDYT?
I grant you the Melbourne article is not particulary germane to this article, although I'd have thought some non-Australian readers might like to at least know where it is on the map, but if this is part of a campaign to get fewer blue links in articles it may be bigger than this review alone. I say that purely because my level of linking in this article is pretty consistent with many FACs before and, while that doesn't automatically mean it's correct, neither does it mean a cleaver should be taken to the thing before I understand just where you're coming from. For instance, if the link to Melbourne goes, why not the one to Darwin as well, and not simply the one to Northern Territory? If the argument is that Darwin is more 'important' to the Scherger story than Melbourne, well no the town isn't in itself, the fact that it was bombed is - and bombing of Darwin is already linked. By the same standard, I think we can assume that Washington DC and Adelaide can lose their links, while Nadzab and Morotai should retain theirs, but what of Singapore and Kuala Lumper? I ask out of genuine interest, since my own linking policy is to err somewhat on the side of what people mightn't need and simply needn't bother clicking, rather than what they might need and can't click. What I have noted is that I've linked some equipment types next to names of equipment, e.g. SE5 and fighter where the latter isn't necessary if one follows the former, so will take care of those at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS "He was very pro-Australian, and why not?" (quote) ... the last phrase sure does show the cultural cringe, which is a good reason to leave it in. Tony(talk)13:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any new comments for the past day or two, just an update that everything raised has been actioned or otherwise acknowledged as far as I'm aware... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin_42.jpg isn't one I originally uploaded from the Australian War Memorial but I can probably remove the watermark and upload a new copy in the next day or so. Re. history of Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967_Retouched.jpg, doesn't the original version, Adelaide_Airport_Tarmac_1967.jpg that was already on Commons, provide satisfactory info? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because of a lack of formatting for many of the citations, sections of questionable importance, and sections without citations. Although the article is generally good, it could do with improvement. Some areas of improvement:
Many (about 20) lack formatting; some are merely hyperlinks, others provide inadequate information which renders them useless.
The sections on "Coat of Arms", "Boy Scouts supporter" and "Limousine" seem unimportant.
Further, two of these sections ("Coat of Arms" and "Limousine") are not referenced.
"Administration, Cabinet, and Supreme Court appointments 1933–1945" requires a better layout.
Citations are needed generally in other areas (end of the "Fourth term").
The speech should be {{PD-USGov}}, of course, since FDR had been a federal employee for at least a minute or so by the time he delivered it. However, ideally there would be a source for this. Obviously the authorship is clear enough, but it would be better to have a provenance. Chick Bowen06:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The table takes up the entirety of the left side, squeezing the text onto the right and leaving a huge margin. As well, the image above pushes the text further down. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed some unsourced material several weeks ago, but haven't had time to get further into it. Let me take a closer look today, and I'll report back. I see a lot of sources, so it's possible that this might be more of an exercise in matching passage to source, rather than hunting for new sources - but there are a lot of unsourced passages. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have nominated this article because I feel it has significant structural weaknesses and does not meet certain criteria of WP:WIAFA. I noticed that there was a prior FAR, however I do not feel that it touched upon any of the critical weaknesses of the text. So here I am.
The main issues as I see them are 1c and 1d. There appears to be a heavy "pro-military" view pervasive through the text. Most strikingly, it shows in the choice of images—US armed forces pics of smiling families and happy kids complete with inane captions reads like a US Army brochure. The references do not appear to meet the "high quality" requirements: I could find little in the way of evidence that Aletheia Publications, for example, meets the criteria, and a great deal of references (Ender, Cottrell, Eakin, Jordan, Price, Tyler, Smith, Williams) are from one or more Aletheia publications. They do not appear to have a web presence, but they are definitely a small press and [16] suggests they are relatively recent and only have five employees.
Examples of in-text POV language or issues with tone:
"...In researching her book, Wertsch identified common themes from interviews of over 80 offspring of military households. While this book does not purport to be a scientific study, subsequent research has validated many of her findings..." There is no citation for this; the next citation comes for a blockquote and is a dead link.
Weasel phrasings: "While some may not like the origins of the term, most are comfortable with it", sourced to [17], which shows that the citations to Wertsch may not be the most neutral either.
Among the more minor issues are dead links (as mentioned above) and [citation needed] tags in the body. I'm concerned the external links section might need auditing as well. I'm a bit pressed for time, so I haven't fully checked the images; at the very least lots of them need cleanup, which will help in checking that they are all actually legitimate free use images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I agree with the 1(c) and 1(d) concerns discussed above. My comments are:
While the article states that the term 'military brat' is applied to the children of service personnel in several English-speaking countries, the article contains no comparisons of the experiences of American children with those from other countries. This means that the article isn't comprehensive and criterion 1(b) isn't met.
Some of the referencing seems a bit dubious; for instance, the statement that "But most assimilate quickly and well as they have to do so with each move" is referenced to something which, according to the text in the footnote, states that a very high proportion of these kids feel isolated, and the statement that "In 1991, Mary Edwards Wertsch "launched the movement for military brat cultural identity"" is referenced to an Amazon.com product page and the two paras devoted to her book feel a bit spammy and aren't properly referenced to independent sources (the second para is a direct quote from the book's introduction praising it!).
Some text isn't referenced at all
The article strongly implies that all military families live on base and that there are no significant non-military or non-school influences on the children. I doubt that this is correct for the US military.
The reason why this is on the (US Subculture) is because there has been no research done on brats from other countries. The only "research" was for Grace Clifton to take US research and speculate whether or not it would be true for British brats as well.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice the ref for the use of Brat in the UK seems to imply a different usage of the term Brat (ie. British Regiment Attached Traveller, as oppose to a buzzword for child). I'd like to see a few more refs for the line "The term is used in several English-speaking countries, especially Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom" in the lede. I grew up in a military environment with all the postings abroad and fatherly absences that accompany it, and I'm afraid to say I've never heard the term used in the UK. Ranger Steve (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the British Regiment Attached Traveller is one of the many explanations as to the use of term Brat being tied to military children and is used to reference military Children. Grace Clifton, the only person whom I found to do any research on British brats (and his research was only hypothetical at the time) uses that acronym explicitly for military brats. One of the more reputable Brat organizations takes it for fact that British Regimented Attached Traveller is the origin for the term, but based upon my research, I think that is highly unlikely.[18]---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re ref other militaries esp UK. the OED has this to say on the meaning "military brat n. N. Amer. colloq. a child with a parent, or parents, in the armed forces; esp. one who exhibits behavioural problems associated with the unsettled and itinerant nature of military life. " I personally think if there is a British term for the same thing it is unlikely to have the word "brat" which is uncommon in British use except as "spoiled brat". GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the history of this article I notice there have been numerous debates and effort on its title and world view before, so I'm sorry to tread old ground. I'm obviously going to be a little guided by the fact I've not experienced this term before, but it seems to me that there are very few refs to back up its use outside of the US (or at least its use in some other countries). Would it not be more appropriate therefore, to just make that very clear from the outset? A year ago I deleted an extremely annoying opening sentence on an article, but it seems to me that it might be an appropriate opener here. If all the research has been done in the US and none outside of it, then we have to go with what the sources tell us. Personally, unless some other sources can be found, I'd be tempted to delete (US subculture) in the title as well, and just explain that it's a US phenomena in the first sentence.
At the moment, by trying to claim some sort of usage in other countries, I agree that it fails criterion 1(b) and 1(c). It might also fail 1(d), purely because it is trying to present a worldy topic where there may not be one. I'd also say it fails 2(b). Where is the section on the history of the term? I would also very much like to see the opening sentence referenced, as I can't see a ref for it in the main text.
I'm also concerned by the spin off effect this article will have in its current form. If this is a US centric ideal then it seems wrong to apply it to other countries so easily, as this article does. Backdating a term that (as far as this article makes out) has only existed since the 60's, to apply to people in other nations another 40 years before that seems dubious and maybe WP:SYNTH to me. There is no indication in the list as to whether or not their parents being in the military had any bearing on their development, or that the term Military Brat has ever been used to describe these people (Yep, I'm thinking of people like Christopher Lee specifically). Ranger Steve (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term is most definitely used in those countries, just because you may not have heard it does not negate the fact that it is used for self identification among non-American brats. Here are just a few sources. Note, some of these may not be "reliable" in the sense of [{WP:RS]], but they do show self identification. Americans do seem to have embraced the term more than other countries, but that does not negate the fact that it is used elsewhere.
As for the term being coined in the 1960's. That is simply not accurate. Morton Ender, the main researcher on the subject, indicated he has traced the use of the term "brat" to define a child of a military person dates back to the US Civil War. While he admits to not knowing the origins of the term, the origin story he believes to be the most compelling is that the term came about from the camp followers. Soldier A: "Whose that kid?" Soldier B: "Oh he's my brat." At that time it probably didn't have the same positive connotations, but this is the origin story I find most compelling. Debbie Adams, an author for the magazine Military Brat, mentions two of the origin stories. One from the Civil War and the other from it originating in Britian during the 18th century.[37]
While it may be true that the specific term "military brat" is probably more recent than the civil war, that is more likely the result of linguistic reclamation of the older term "brat." As for applying it to people who predate the term? Was Malcolm X really an "African American?" How about any of these List of African-American abolitionists? The term African American was not used back then, but has evolved to be the term used to describe Blacks/Negroes/Colored People/etc. I personally called myself an "Army brat" (and cringed) all my life despite my dad being in the Air Force. The specific term "Military brat" only became widespread after I graduated from High School. My dad who graduated from HS in the early 60's grew up his whole life knowing that he too was a "brat".---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!23:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info Ballonman, must say I find it interesting that this is used by people in the UK at all, but as this link you provided states, it seems to the influence of the web that is seeing it used in more countries. Don’t worry, I don't mean to imply that just because I haven’t heard of the term means that it doesn’t exist, only that that’s why I’m commenting on the issue.
I must admit though, I ’m having trouble with this article. I realise that there are very few studies on “Military Brats” in countries other than the US, but I would frankly be absolutely astounded if there wasn’t any research into the social effects of growing up in a military family in Britain. I can say this with confidence because I remember covering it to a minor extent in my Sociology GCSE, and I know people whose job it is to help military families with many of the issues described in this article. The thing is, we just don’t refer to children as Military Brats. Yes, some may self identify themselves as brats, but there is a difference between self identification and a recognised term to identify a group. I’ve heard plenty of phrases – service families, forces families, forces kids, etc… but not Military Brats. Saying that there has been no research done on brats from other countries is not something I can believe I’m afraid. It just goes under a different name.
So, is the problem here that the article is about a social phenomenon but limited to one country’s name for it (and thus limited in the research it can make use of)? Perhaps this article should be renamed Military Brat, and just say something like “In the US, Military Brat is a term used to describe Children of Armed Forces personnel…. Slim the rest of it down and transfer the rest to the new article and then expand that with international coverage. Just a thought.
On the subject of this article as it stands now, as I’ve said, you’re dealing with someone who has no familiarity with the term here (despite apparently being a Military Brat myself, although it is not something I would label myself as), so I can only go with what this article tells me. As I’ve said above it would benefit from a history section especially given that, at the moment, there is no mention of any use of the term pre 1970’s (guess I should have said 1970 instead of 1960 above). This is why we’re here of course, as I would personally expect more information on the history of the term from a featured article.
As for extending the name to other nationalities, while the term African American might be relatively new, it is a widely recognised term internationally. It is also considered respectful. Military Brat, as discussed, is a US centric term to describe a socio factor, and may well be considered derogatory in other countries. Listing a number of British (and other nationalities) people who just happen to have had a parent in the armed forces as ‘Military Brats” is like listing President Ulysses S. Grant as a Victorian man. Besides which I’m sure it won’t be difficult to find a reference saying “Malcom X was an African American….”, but I’m still waiting to see one for any of the people in the list saying they are “Military Brats”. I’m sorry but I find the comparison a bit tenuous. As you say yourself below: “any cross cultural exploration would be original research”. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have little doubt that the use in other countries has increased due to the use in US, but it is used and when the article goes without the US Subculture it gets tagged repeatedly with Globalization and US Centric, and all sorts of other tags.
As for research, I can't respond to your personal experience. I can only respond to what researchers have stated. Morton Ender, the premier authority on the subject, has stated in several of his publications that he laments the fact that no significant research on the children of military personell have been conducted outside of the US. Clifton, a Brit, similarly regrets the fact that there hasn't been actual research into the subject. His reserch provided the only research into non-US brats that I could find, but his research is mere speculation on how British Brats would compare to the research performed by Ender/Wertsch. His reseach is not supported by actual studies, but rather lays the foundation for which such research might be conducted. He blatantly states that there is "no significant literature" on British Brats. My guess is that what you've read would be insignificant speculation or extrapolation, not true research on Brats. Ann Cotrell, who is an authority on Third Culture Kids, has also mentioend the lack of research on non-US brats. When she talks about Military Brats she has gone out of her way to indicate that what she says about Military Brats is true only for US Brats because of this dearth in research elsewhere. She has explicitly stated that brats in other countries do not fit the same criteria as US brats because most countries do not relocate families (particularly overseas) to the same degree as the US military and that the role of the US military is different from that in many countries. When she talks about other types of Third Culture Kids, she will talk about the similarities/differences between nations, but goes out of her way to indicate that there is no research on non-US brats to make these comparisons.
The use of African American was just one of many that could have been made. When new demographic populations are identified, it is not uncommon to look through history to see if certain demographic themes can be identfied. The fact is that "Military Brat" is a term used by sociologist to describe the segment of community that are children of military personell and it contains no inherent bias/negative connotations. (Even Clifton uses the term Military Brat in his British sociological research to describe the segment of the population that has military parentage.)
I would not be opposed to a history section, if we had something other than original research on the history. Like I said, my dad grew up pre-1965 with the term "brat" and I grew up as an "army brat" (despite my dad being in the air force) I personally never heard the term military brat as a child---but I was firmly aware that I was a brat. According to Ender, the term, "Brat", has been traced back to be used in conjunction with military children back to the civil war. Also, note the book "Psychiatry and the Army Brat" which was published in 1970. Unless that book was coining a new term, I think it is safe to say that the term was in common use back then. Mary Wersch's book may have been published in 1991, but it dealt primarily with baby boomer era brats and before---who proudly referred to themselves as brats. Some of the interviews discussed how/when people became aware of the term and how the might not have liked it at first, but came to embrace it... again we are talking about kids who grew up in the 40s/50s/60s.
As for your notion of moving the article and trimming it, please review the extensive discussions on the subject. That is a very bad idea which I firmly oppose. Trying to "trim" it to fit what works for brats of other countries would be 100% original research. The subject has been discussed, but there are very few things that you can state universally about military brats. I also oppose "trimming" for the sake of making it "global" or less US specific, you don't get rid of information because of a lack of information elsewhere. That makes no sense whatsoever.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!23:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above I'm afraid I just can't believe that there has been no research into the children of forces families in any country other than the US. I wonder if the researchers you mention above are perhaps too fixated with the brat tag. Here are some articles from a very quick google search using just one alternative name for a child with parents in the services:
It strikes me that this article is all about the social and psychological effects of growing up in a forces family. Whatever name is used, that is a global phenomena, but this article is tied to one country's name for it. Thus it fails to provide a worldly view, even though I imagine there is loads of research into the subject. As for the lists of famous brats, "Military Brat' is, as you have identified yourself, a term used almost exclusively by American sociologists to talk about a name that has only been seriously studied in the US. Although Clifton uses the term, he would appear to be using it with a different meaning. A more recent study has now considered it derogatory in the UK, so it clearly does contain negative connotations. Once again, there are no references to suggest that the other nationalities in the list have ever self identified themselves as brats, or been called brats. It seems to me to be original research to take one country's cultural identities and apply them to another without any references. You agree with this position below, the same applies here. Ranger Steve (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I think you may have misunderstood my suggestion for moving the article. I wouldn't trim it at all. First I would move it, in its entirety, to something like Children of Armed Forces personnel. Then I'd expand that article to make use of research from other countries that doesn't use the term Military Brat (such as above) to provide a more worldly view of the cultural phenomena of growing up in a military family. The article Military brat (US subculture) would exist as a redirect, and the article Military brat could take a condensed version of the research currently contained here, with a similar opening to the one it has at the moment. There's no question of trimming it, just moving it to a more appropriate title and expanding it. This is a global phenomena, and the references to expand it do exist. Regards Ranger Steve (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide some sources. I've provided three sources, who have explicitly stated that research on non-US brats is non-existent. I do believe that Ender (the premier expert on Military Brats) and Cotrell (one of the leading researchers on Third Culture Kids) are smart enough to know to look for research using other terms than just military brat. These are highly respected individuals within their fields. (I don't include Clifton not because Clifton isn't qualified/respected, but rather because I am not as familiar with him. Both Cotrell and Ender are routinely cited as authorities by others.) EDIT: The source that I just noticed above is just within the past month... so it is new and might be worth incorporating into the article.
As for providing a more "worldly view of the cultural phenomena of growing up in a military family." Can you define it? How often do military families move? In the US quite frequently, in other countries not that often. How about moving to foreign countries? Unless engaged in a military action most militaries do not have bases in foreign countries, but the US (and formerly USSR) it is quite common. Do families accompany military personell, in the US generally yes, in other countries not that often (especially overseas). What about the risk of war? Some countries the military is more of a police force where in seeing action is unlikely, in other countries you are essentially guaranteed to see combat regardless of your job. Is the military voluntary or is mandatory service required? Experiences in an all volunteer force are different from ones where everybody has to serve a term. To what degree do families live on military bases? This differs from country to country. How about the role of women? Are woment allowed in the military? How about combat roles? What about (country specific) racial minorities? What is a "wordly view of the cultural phenomena of growing up in a military family?" Can you provide ANY sources to substantiate your position? The answer will be no. When I researched the subject, the authors of various studies routinely indicated that their research was on U.S. brats, not on children from other countries. In short, I would oppose the creation of any a generic article that used the sources I've read. Heck, I'd cite Clifton to support that opposition!
As for Clifton using the term Brat in a different meaning, bullshit. That tells me that you didn't look up the source. The article is explicitly a summarization of Ender and Wertsch's research and how Clifton thinks military brats from England would compare to the American version. The article summarizes findings from Ender/Wertsch as they apply to US brats, then Clifton explains why he thinks the finding would apply to brats from England. Clifton attributes the acronymn "British Regimented Attached Traveller" as the origins of the term Brat, but he is definitely talking about children of military personell.
As for your "study" please provide the reference that show that brat, when used in the military brat context. I have no doubt that the word 'brat' by itself is considered derogatory. It is considered derogatory in the US as well, unless used in this context. I've provided sources above that show that the term is used to self identify military brats from other countries (such as England) and that when it is so used it is not derogatory.
As for Children of Armed Forces personnel please provide sources to support that name change. The article shows sociologist and academics who use the term "Military Brat" in academic research/studies. The term "Military Brat" is the appropriate term, changing it as you suggest would amount to original research and personal bias.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just took a closer look at the sources you provided:
The research study that is not yet available, but reported on in November 2009 looks like it probably has some interesting things to say that could possibly be added to the article. I am interested in seeing what it says, because it appears to be a piece of significant literature to which didn't exist prior to last month. The fact that there are negative stereotypes to the term military brat does not negate the fact that it is A) used and B) accepted. The fact that the authors use it supports the notion that it is used in England in this context. The fact that it has negative stereotypes does not mean that it isn't accepted. The authors may view them as negatives, but part of the reason why Military Brats use it is because it becomes a badge of honor. There is a Disney movie, Tiger Cubs, where the lead character is adamant that she is not a "Military Brat." She is extremely vocal about that fact because she isn't a brat, by the end of the movie she has come to grips with the term and embraces it herself. In other words, I am extremely interested in the full report not just a sound byte. But of course, this article is about the US subculture, not British brats. This source MIGHT make the foundation for changing the name of the "List of"s but it does not affect this article, I am also a little concerned about the scholarship of that "study." (see below.)
The BBC articles are not significant pieces, but rather fluff pieces that really don't say much if anything.
The fact that articles don't use the term does not mean the term is not used or accepted. Do non-military families have trouble using the term? Yes. One of the researchers, and I believe she is cited in the article, actually said that she was uncomfortable using it, but it was the term the studied community used and embraced. It is part of linguistic reclamation.
You provided four organizations with the note, 'I also think that some organisations might dispute the researchers claims of no study of the phenomena of forces kids outside the US.' Only one of those organizations actually has a link to a study, the one released LAST month. In the US, research didn't really begin until the 1990's on brats. There were a few published pieces, but not much. Most of what was used prior to the 1990's, was conjecture and opinion pieces based upon individual experiences. With the exception of the new report that was announced a month ago, none of the links you provided had any mention of any research or studies performed on children of British military. At least I couldn't find any.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<Outdent> On a slightly different topic, I have to question the report that was released on November 4 2009. If you look at the footnotes supporting the statistics used, the footnotes indicate that the survey was conducted from October 30 to November 4, 2009. This is a huge red flag regarding the reliability and objectivity of the report. Now it may be a misprint, but if they just finished the survey, how can they provide results to said survey the same day? Like I said, I am interested in seeing the report and have no doubt that this will be an oft cited report, but this makes me question the reports scholarship. (It is definitely self published.) Also, about the research, note that one of the principle reasons behind the report is a cry to do more research on this community. I am also curious as to how they used the US research. Did they use US research in lieu of actually studying British Brats or did they use it as a jumping off point to do valid comparisons? Based on what little I've learned over the years about how the British army works, I suspect the former and not the later. There are several things that *I* associate more with US military experiences than with British military experiences. For example, it is my understanding that British Military families are not nearly as mobile as their US counterparts, but this article cites that as a defining characteristic. This is contrary to what (little) I know about the British military. If that is the case, then I have serious problems with this "study" as most of the research done in the US is exclusive to US brats. Most researchers want there to be research performed on British brats, not extrapolating US research onto the experiences of others.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow. Ignoring the insults and aggressive attitude, you have clearly misjudged what this FAR and my comments above are about. I have just demonstrated that research into military forces children exists in countries other than the US. And not just research, but organisations tasked to work with these kids as well. So what if they haven’t published a paper in an academic journal? Does the fact they are working to alleviate the problems suffered by some forces children not prove that this phenomena exists outside of the US? The 2 BBC articles aren’t good enough for you? Please read them more carefully. The British government has been studying the effects of this for at least the last ten years. I don’t think that that’s insignificant speculation or extrapolation. Please understand the point I’m making here. I’m going to lay it out really carefully so that it is clear, because you don’t seem to have understood it from what I’ve said above.
The concept of a Military Brat is not limited to the US alone. It exists anywhere where children have parents who work in the forces. However, in different countries these children are referred to differently.
That this is an international phenomenon keeps getting brought up here, but also that the name is not recognised outside of the US. Yes, some people may self identify as brats, but there is no official use of the term outside of the US. In other countries it can be considered derogatory, as I have shown. Here’s the quote from the Independent link above:
"Some face bullying at school, dismissed as "military brats" once it is known they have a parent in the forces. "One of the main problems of being labelled a 'military brat' is the stereotypical image of a child from a military background – one of authoritative parenting, buzz haircuts, withdrawn emotions and relocating frequently," the authors say."
And the OED:
"military brat n. N. Amer. colloq. a child with a parent, or parents, in the armed forces; esp. one who exhibits behavioural problems associated with the unsettled and itinerant nature of military life."
These are hardly positive references to the term are they? Anyway, as it has been shown that the cultural phenomenon exists in other countries, isn’t it worth expanding the article to incorporate this? Yes. Is it appropriate to use the title Military brat (US subculture) in such an article? No.
Consider this idea: So far there isn’t a catchy name for forces kids in Britain or other western countries, but lets just assume that there was. Lets call it Forces Kids for the sake of argument. If an article were written on it, would that be a good idea? Or would it be worth merging it with articles on exactly the same phenomena in different countries? There is no reference for Children of Armed Forces personnel, it’s a generic name to describe an international cultural phenomena. Much the same as Military use of children.
This is Wikipedia, not a research institute. All of the refs I provided show evidence of the phenomena, and could easily be incorporated into this article (note article – not a research paper). Speaking strictly personally here, one problem I find with this article is that it reads too much like a research paper into the psychological and sociological effects of being a ‘brat’ and not much else. It isn’t about the term Military brat at all (if it was I doubt we’d be here). If it was, there would be a history section, there might be a section on attempts to deal with the issue (which is where all four of those organisations would come in, Think of something like: In Britain several charities and organisations have been set up that work to deal with the issues faced by military families and children… On several occasions in the past the British government has studied the effects of growing up in a military family on a child’s education …etc…etc…) At the very very least there would be a section about the concept outside of the US. But hey, that’s just my opinion.
As for your second paragraph above, Britain still has a lot of bases around the empire you know. Besides which, the differences between military forces and their effect on children is exactly what Wikipedia should be tackling (WIAFA 1b). Admittedly we can’t describe the effect of growing up in a military family in Iceland lets say, because there is no research and no other Reliable Sources to use, but as we already have one country that does, we can start. And what about historically? I’m sure there’s plenty of RSs about the huge number of children who grew up without a dad because they went to fight in two world wars. Is that not relevant? As for Clifton, quite right I didn’t pay to download the article. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to exactly how he defines that “The term is used in several English-speaking countries, especially Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom”, the line it is referencing. From what you say, he merely compares the effects from two countries. Or is it perhaps a throwaway line he uses in the paper’s introduction to set the scene but without providing any data? Regardless, I’ve already demonstrated that the same phenomenon exists in this country, whatever it’s called, so it doesn’t matter.
Anyway, I’ve had enough of this. I’m well aware of the troubles of communicating in text, how it can be difficult to work out the tone and slant being used in a reply and so on. You’ve clearly misjudged my attitude, but don’t worry, you own has been made perfectly clear. I strongly recommend you have a coffee or something and sit back and read what I’ve written above again, but try to imagine it more softly, perhaps like Morgan Freeman or something. Perhaps then you’ll realise that I’ve been politely making suggestions to help improve the article by solving some of the issues that it clearly suffers from (otherwise we wouldn’t be here, would we?) Heck, I’ve got so interested in it I might have even helped. But I think I’ve wasted enough time here now, so lets just summarise:
I support taking this article to FARC, as it fails several WIAFA requirements. Namely 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d and 2a. I’m also dismayed to note that despite your interest in the article, you have so far made no edits to incorporate the concerns raised here. With no hope of improvements soon, I strongly support FARC.
I have zero problem with expanding the "Military Brat". In fact, I fully encourage it and would love to see the effects of growing up in other countries expanded upon. Especially if reliable sources can be found. Nor would I have a problem changing that article name to something else with a discussion of the term "Military Brat" therein.
What I do have a problem with is the notion that we have to gut an FA which is comprehensive for the subject being discussed. The phenomena of military brats is different for every country/culture. One of the problems that has repeatedly come up in the past is that there is very little that can be said about military brats that is universal for all countries... and that research has been dearth in other countries. Clifton/Ender/Cottrell all support the notion that research has been lacking in other countries. The study you provided, I'm sure will get a fair amount of air time, but I suspect it is questionable for the reasons I cited above.
As for the OED, dictionaries (even the OED) are not perfect. I suspect that the person who wrote the entry did not understand the term or its current usage. The article cites numerous authorities on the use of the term and nowhere have any of them had negative connotations to the term. The quote from the person who authored the survey you addressed above is the first one which raises any question on the use of the term---and does make a case for renaming the parent article on "Military Brats". (I should point out that there are almost 7000 people on the British Military Brat facebook page would would probably agree that the OED is wrong.) But that is a different topic than this one.
This article is not about non-US brats, it is about US brats, and thus is comprehensive for that subgroup. What you are proposing is tantamount to taking an article on the American Bald Eagle saying, no we don't need this article lets generalize it to discuss the concept of "Eagles." Frankly, that's a bad idea---the better idea is to expand the article on Eagles. We can have both, we are not constrained by size or pages. If we have a good article that focuses on the US Subculture, why get rid of it?
As for Clifton, no she doesn't cite any studies/research. Her essay is basically a compilation of research into US military brats, where in she basically speculates on how/why the research done in America would or would not apply to their English counterparts. Clifton, who was apparently a graduate student at the time (her PhD was written in 2007) basically presents the findings of Morton Ender/Wertsch and says, "I think this applies/does not apply to British kids because...." She then explicitly states that there is no "significant literature" on the subject. It does appear as if she has done more research on the subject since then and I would be interested in knowing if she was involved with the study you linked to above.
As for bases around the Kingdom, I can only go on what I've been told here and elsewhere. What I'd been told previously (when somebody was arguing that the article didn't apply to British brats) was that in England families tended to stay in one place. That they didn't move around and rarely accompanied the military member overseas. Again, I do not know if that is true or not, and based upon your comments above, I suspect it isn't.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping in to this for a moment, it was I who objected to the internationalisation of the article, based on the fact that the term is pretty unique to the US and there was a dearth of available sources. On reflection I'm also unconvinced that what is available adequately captures the extent of the topic. Previously the debate has been around the term Military Brat rather than the sociological phenomenon around the families of servicemen. If we're discussing extending the article to be around something like that then it may be possible, although I have a feeling that the topic becomes a lot more complex. As an article describing the US term then there are weaknesses, as identified. The article is lacking in certain aspects of discussion of the term and is dominated by the sociological elements.
If there is a change in focus then I think there are clear weaknesses in what can be said. I'm unconvinced that there is one single social profile, given the very different cultures in the US services.
I have a few friends in the Welfare and Families services so will try to find out what there is. They're generally all trained social workers so have exposure to the research. Whether much of it meets the needs of WP:V might be an issue.
fwiw I'm a little uncomfortable with your representation of what was said about British military culture, in my experience there is a lot less wholesale family mobility in the Royal Marines, Royal Navy, Royal Air Farce and some elements of the Army. That varies according to rank range, with Officers much more likely to have home location stability and specialisation or branch, with Inf more likely to move around as a formed unit. What we're seeing is a lot of the Corps now having SNCOs and Officers living in the vicinity of the Depot and weekending when posted away, that brings it's own tensions that are different from uprooting every two years.
My main objection is that by trying to infer UK behaviour from US research there was a significant risk of portraying UK military family culture as similar to US military family culture. It's a very different thing.
Essentially we get down to making a decision about the purpose of the article, is it about the term or the social phenomenon?
I think you've described the issue quite well ALR, at the moment the article reads too much like an investigation into the social phenomena. But if it's about the social side, then it needs to be balanced with research from other sources (even if outside the States) to meet comprehensiveness requirements. I'm concerned that at the moment by not doing that, it already tends to infer UK (and other countries) behaviour based on primarily US research (see my comments below). I think an article can cover both country's aspects if it uses all the available literature. Yes they will be different, but that's what the article should be explaining. It might not be extensive enough to meet a FA, but that's life for a wikipedian! Ranger Steve (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The focus on "this" ariticle is pretty clear, it is about the social phenomenon in the US (eg the dab.) Frankly, I don't care if it remains an FA or not... I'm not involved enough anymore with WP to put the effort into it. But I do care about diluting a perfectly good article to try to "internationalize" it. Which is what would have to happen if we tried to make this a generic article about military brats (or children of military personel) as a whole. The experiences of US/British/Australian/Canadian/etc militaries is entirely different, I appreciate ALR's discussion on some of those differences from a first hand perspective.
As for inferring behavior to UK brats and other countries, I have to disagree. The article is fairly clear that this is about the US phenomenon. The title itself indicates that it is about US brats and there are several places where the article explicitly reiterates that: They've been researched as "third culture kids" but they are almost exclusively from the U.S or the U.S. Armed Forces sponsored research on the long-term impact of growing up as a military dependent or but a studied segment of U.S. culture. It talks about the US Pledge of Allegiance, God Bless America, The US Code of Military Justice, Directive 5120.36 , Executive Order 9981, DoDDS or DDESS, the terms U.S./America/United States are used over 30 times. The only references to non-US brats are explicit statements that the research is not about non-US brats. For example, Outside of the U.S. there is no significant literature on the effects of growing up as a military dependent and it is in the United States in particular that this term is ascribed to a collectively identifiable demographic. Between the title, the repeated use of U.S./America/United States, and explicit statements that this is about the phenomenon in the US, I don't know what else we could do state this is about the US subculture. None of the images or quotes are from or about British children. Right now, I could see a short paragraph or sentence being added based upon the November study, but I honestly don't see what else could be done to indicate that this is about the US phenomenon. Can you provide specific reasons why you think the article makes those inferences?---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 21:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)EDIT: I did make two changes based upon your comments below (where the article mentioned For example, in the United States and primarily from America... I made them more explicitly about US brats.)---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t want to appear condescending by pointing out prose issues, but that’s what lets it down. As I’ve said below I don’t feel it distinguishes between the term (used in various countries apparently) and the demographic (in the US) sufficiently. The lead explains that the term is used in various countries and in the US is applied to a demographic, but doesn’t state that the focus of this article is on that demographic enough. It needs to be clearer to avoid misunderstandings. The next paragraph opens with the term again. Are we talking about the term or the demographic? It isn’t instantly clear. Although US identifiers are used in the article, only once is “US” or “American” used before “Military Brat” to distinguish that that’s the demographic group being described in following sentences rather than people just collectively identified by the term (and that’s the change you made yesterday). There are 16 headers or sub headers in this article, but in only 4 instances is the term US or American used in the opening paragraph for that header. Another 4 use a phrase that implies American origins (Truman or DoDDS etc…). But that’s only half of the headings, and most lead paragraphs should be an opening into the contents and themes of that section. The whole section on Military Culture for instance takes some time to clarify that it is talking about US military; even then it could be argued it doesn’t really even clarify that.
Surely you must be able to accept that there’s something wrong given the number of people who have commented on this issue in the past? There have been various comments, with a real mix of opinions drawn from reading the article. Some feel that it’s condescending and derogatory to US culture, some feel that it’s too self-worshipping. Some get annoyed that this paints too many countries with the same brush, while others say it is too US centric. This is because the article is too ambiguous. It is very hard to clarify exactly what group is being described here. Using US more in the right places will help. Don’t underestimate the power of opening the article with “In the U.S. a military brat is …” either, which makes it clear from the very start (I don’t feel the title does that fwiw).
On a related note, briefly commenting on the comments in the archive that echo vandalism like this, I suspect it’s because the article comes across as too authoritative. There are too few terms like “Research has suggested…” or “It has been shown that some…” to put this research into perspective. There are a few “may”s and “can”s but that’s insufficient. Studying several hundred participants cannot allow inferences to be made about a demographic of millions so strongly. They only suggest possibilities. Statements like “The military family knows that the service person may be killed in the line of duty, but may accept that risk because they are taught that the military mission is worth dying for. The mission is one in which the brat shares by extension through his military parent” is referenced but still extremely strongly opinionated. It should open more like “In his 2002 paper, Williams suggested….”
Again this is all linked to the prose and structure of the article. I’m sorry to have to say it so bluntly, but there are a lot of people who don’t think this is a “perfectly good article”. I’ve tried my best to rationalise the various issues as I see them (and which are echoed by other comments over the last 2 years) and suggest ways to restructure or make the article more comprehensive. But seeing as no-one seems interested in improving the article that seems to have been a waste of time. Ranger Steve (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
There are no works concerning this topic in Germany while these children face similar problems. The same may be tru for other countries leading to the focus of the article.
Alatheia seems to be a small company, but size is no guarantee for quality.
The photo captions do point out the stress placed on these children while missing one of their parents and the joy of reunion. That's typical for them, crying children are a bit hard to photograph and it isn't obvious that this is something typical for children of soldiers. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that is why this is (US Subculture) and not just the generic term. There has been no research performed on German brats, which has been lamented by US researchers, so any cross cultural exploration would be original research. But this goes back to the original discussion concerning the name. There has been a fair amount research on the US brats, thus the focus on this article.
Mary Wertsch is considered to be the original push for study into the subject, most of the academic research that I saw was to validate/contradict her initial research. Morton Ender has emerged as the primal authority on the subject of Military Brats from an academic perspective. His book, which collects academic research, is definitely a high quality source, as are many of the journals. Alatheia, as Wandalstouring mentions may be a small company, but that doesn't discredit the company and using its sources might be a bigger concern if the article relied upon it. Comprehensivenees/breadth seem to focus on the fact that this article on the US Subculture of Military Brats doesn't include discusion on non-US brats, which is a different subject.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!15:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like relying on the promotional fluff on a dust jacket for evidence of a sources' authoritativeness. As for Alatheia, yes, size doesn't disqualify them... the fact that they don't have much of a reputation, however, does concern me. The fact that I can't verify how long they've even been in existence does bother me, as does my suspicion that their editorial staff may be just one person. Show me that these authors are reliable and experts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)01:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The company is small and I beyond this book, *I* am not familiar with the editor (which doesn't mean she isn't respected or good.) The authors, however, (namely Eakin and Ender who are used in the article) who contributed to the book are definitely reliable and experts. Ender is the premier researcher on Military Brats, after Wertsch Ender is probably the biggest name in MB research. The other source that uses Eakin was "ACCORDING TO MY PASSPORT, I'M COMING HOME"(PDF). (666 KiB), which is a document of the US State Department. Eakin is more known for works dealing with Third Culture Kids.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend delisting this article. I am not confident most of the Alatheia publications meet high-quality source requirements. Issues with weasel wording, unreliable citations and original research not addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk)16:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve just noticed that this article has in fact passed into FARC (dunno how I missed that!), so with that in mind I’ll elaborate on my concerns further here, comparing them to the main criteria of WP:WIAFA. I currently recommend delisting the article, based on my reasons below.
1a. Well Written.
I find that some of the text is disjointed and not necessarily related to other statements in the same section. In sub section “Values and patriotism” for example, the fourth paragraph is an isolated sentence that seems awkwardly placed amongst the other ‘rituals’ being described. A similar issue can be seen in “Reunited and reaching out” - the first sentence is totally isolated and may leave the reader thinking “… so what?” The second paragraph only answers the question “why?”
The prose is not always engaging or brilliant. Consider the first line of “War in the 21st century”. There are several ways to rewrite that without repeating the same words. In the second sentence, despite the fact this is now a comparison, no reference is made to past figures. The first paragraph of “Growing up military” also contains awkward sentence structure and confusing grammar. Had the children lived in another country and then come home? It should be “His study revealed that 97% had lived in at least one foreign country”
There are numerous other grammatical errors (eg. the entire last paragraph of “War in the 21st Century” is full of them, and I note several others as I read through sections).
These are minor quibbles, but most of them are things that would hold up a GAN. I believe the article needs a thorough copy edit to rectify the issues; most of the text is okay, but I’m afraid that personally, I find very few examples of brilliant or professional standard prose.
1b. Comprehensive and 1d. Neutral
This is the big issue I suppose, that concerns all of my issues raised above and the use of this term outside of the US. First I think it is important to consider what this article is about. An early assumption might be that it is about the term “Military brat”. But there is no section on the (interesting) history of the term, it’s use outside of the US, or its criticisms. The section on “Linguistic reclamation” is the only part that deals with the words themselves. The rest of the article is about the sociological and psychological effects of being a military kid, and the life at home and at school for such children. Lamentably it lacks a section dealing with attempts to integrate and work with this demographic, something I believe it would benefit from.
Although the title specifies that this is a US subculture, the article frequently implies a more worldly perspective. In the lead we have the statement “The term is used in several English-speaking countries, especially Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom; but it is in the United States in particular that this term is ascribed to a collectively identifiable demographic (with extensive psychological research done on the group by U.S. Defense Department).” This is referenced to a single study that, it would appear, does not cite any research to back up the assertion and regardless, is only making comparisons between the US and the UK. Added to which the researcher was apparently a graduate student, so I’m really not sure his/her opinion is a high enough class of resource. This assertion in the lead is then totally ignored in the body of the text, where one would expect it to be expanded upon.
Although the claim is made that the article is US centric, the big problem is that the prose and tone of the main text fails to make that distinction. By implying that the term “Military Brat” is used in several English speaking countries, any subsequent uses of the phrase in the article appear to be describing the phenomena in all of those countries as well. This is compounded by specific references to the US in some cases. For example, in “Values and Patriotism” 2nd paragraph: “It has been claimed by Samuel Britten on the basis of anecdotal evidence that life on military bases is associated with comparatively greater patriotic sentiments. For example, in the United States…”, or the 3rd paragraph of “School life”: “Military brats, primarily from the United States, are the most mobile of the Third Culture Kids, moving on average every three years.” I imagine this is why the article gets so much negative feedback and vandalism decrying its (seemingly) opinionated stance on other country’s military forces. I realise it doesn’t intend to, but the prose lets it down here.
The issue is then compounded by the fact that further study in other countries does exist, and references to the fact can be found in several reliable sources. The biggest problem is that in these examples the term Military brat is not used, although the demographic being studied is the same. This is a very serious oversight, as it clearly demonstrates that the assertion in the lede is questionable. Although there may be a claim that some UK residents self identify themselves as brats, the demographic’s name is not the same. It also demonstrates that there is a cultural comparison to be made with several aspects of the text in this article - particularly the “School life” section. There is also scope for making more comparisons in the whole “Modern brats” section. I believe these comparisons would be necessary to meet criterion 1b.
As ALR suggests above, the focus of this article needs to be decided. At the moment it appears to be focussed on the sociological aspects rather than the term itself. But the sociological aspects are studied in different countries, so that should be incorporated. If it focuses on the name then it needs to be more detailed on the history etc… So either way it currently fails comprehensiveness.
1c. Well researched
I’m concerned that the article places too much emphasis on research papers and not enough on other reliable sources. For instance, a search of the footnotes reveals only one link to the popular press (in this case USA today - it is perhaps interesting that this article does not make use of the term Military brat at all, but extensively describes the demographic). If this is a common phrase in the US, then I would expect to see evidence of it’s use.
Perhaps something on the popularisation of the term by films etc… would help as well. The Great Santini was nominated for 2 Oscars after all.
2a. A Lead
As mentioned, elements in the lead aren’t in the main body and vica versa. In fact the current lead could be used as an intro section, and a new lead written.
2b. Appropriate Structure
As I’ve explained I feel it’s too much like a research paper. Added to which, headings like “reunited and reaching out” are hardly encyclopaedic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I noticed that a number of individuals involved in the current Eastern European mailing list Arbcom were also involved in the of the FAC for Soviet invasion of Poland.
1. (a) Lots of passive text, additive terms (“also”) and word to avoid (“many”, “some”, “several”, “despite”. “actually”, …). There is an overuse of blockquote text, no shortage of double wiki-linking and a generally improper use of brackets. and text placed in quotes for emphasis not quotation. A heavy copy-edit is needed.
I did a heavy copy edit to address all this. Most of it survived the back and forth of reversions. As far as the block quotes go, some superfluous ones had been added on after the FAC and I removed them, but please restore the Subtelny block quote that you have removed. That is a crucial quote because it expresses the Belarusian and Ukrainian experience, which is needed in the article. I've no idea if you have a point of view yourself, but in order for the POV to be balanced that block quote must remain. By the way, block quotes are within policy and are not removable for the purposes of a Featured Article Review just because they are block quotes. qp10qp (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. (b) There is little to no information on the opposing forces and their composition. Expansion of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and German Invasion of Poland would be helpful.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. (d) POV issues.
Ex: ”despite their change of overlord, Ukrainian nationalists continued to aim for an independent, undivided Ukrainian state”
2. (b) The Aftermath section is disproportionately long, compared to the remainder of the article.
It's in three sections, though, isn't it? I can't see a problem. The aftermath of the invasion is an important aspect of it. qp10qp (talk)
2. (c) Citations structure is inconsistent. Citation of a number of primary documents (WP:PSTS). Likewise, I question whether the employment of a number of non-English sources is appropriate or necessary given there appears to be no shortage of English sources.
Again, I think you are overlooking how many of the non-English sources are doubled up with English sources. Sometimes there is another reference tag alongside. But sources may overlap in the sense that what references one sentence may also reference some that follow or went before in the passage, or even a whole paragraph. For example, the cite to Sanford on the Fourth Partition of Poland is tagged to that term but applies to the rest of the information about it. So the information does not depend on the Polish source given at the end of the sentence before. There is no stylish way to umbilically reference every word of an article. As for foreign language sources, they should not be favoured over English language ones but they are permissible, and most of the sources for the article are in English. I think if you read the English language sources cited you will find little that they do not cover. qp10qp (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Too many images and most contain descriptions that are far too long. No alt text. Sections are led with left justified images.
Removed some images due to bunching. I'm not sure if the choice of images is what the principle editors are looking for, so please review. Basic alt text added. No more left justification section starts.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of other issues may be valid, but the POV issue is being over-considered. The example given is completely accurate; we should not censor or tone down historical fact. The only change needed in the example given might be to 'despite the change of regime' or 'government'. Buckshot06(prof) 15:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some WTA and the overlord issue; I am not a native speaker (and the text went through several native speakers copyedits prior to becoming FA). More of course are always welcome.
What's wrong with lead?
I count three uses of (reliable) primary sources; PSTS allows the use of primary sources (it only discourages them). I think they are used correctly here; although if they can be improved by adding secondary sources to them that of course should be done. Same holds for non-English sources: they are acceptable, but if somebody can improve them by adding English sources, please do. Do note that some facts, sometimes, are simply not mentioned in English sources and one has to reply on non-English historiography or other scholarly literature.
Aftermath is about as long as the military campaign section and slightly longer than background. The invasion had very important consequences; I don't see the lenght of the aftermath as an issue.
I never could figure out the FA image rules. I hope somebody can take few minutes and fix the image issues. I don't recall a rule about caption's lenght, though...?
(Polish) Represje 1939-41 Aresztowani na Kresach Wschodnich (Repressions 1939–41. Arrested on the Eastern Borderlands.) Ośrodek Karta. Retrieved 15 November 2006.
(Polish) Śledztwo w sprawie zabójstwa w dniu 22 września 1939 r. w okolicach miejscowości Sopoćkinie generała brygady Wojska Polskiego Józefa Olszyny-Wilczyńskiego i jego adiutanta kapitana Mieczysława Strzemskiego przez żołnierzy b. Związku Radzieckiego. (S 6/02/Zk) - dead link reliable?
(Polish) Szack. Encyklopedia Interia. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
(Russian) Отчёт Украинского и Белорусского фронтов Красной Армии Мельтюхов, с. 367. Retrieved 17 July 2007 - dead link
(Polish) obozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich (Prison camps for Polish soldiers). Encyklopedia PWN. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
(Polish) Edukacja Humanistyczna w wojsku. 1/2005. Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego. (Humanist Education in the Army.) 1/2005. Publishing House of the Polish Army). Retrieved 28 November 2006. - dead link
The online encyclopedia entries (ex: Encyklopedia Interia), are short on substance. I'm not sure 3 line entries are appropriate as sources, but that's just my view.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why a foreign language ref and not an english one? Both the Olszyna-Wilczyński Józef Konstanty and obozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich PWN refs are rather slim on material but are used in broader form citations.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened some of the captions and removed the most obvious double wiki links. The rest of the wiki links that may appear as "doubles" are not - for example there is a difference between Ukraine, Western Ukraine, Ukrainian SSR and Ukrainians. So having each of these linked separately to different articles is not an instance of double wikilinks.
Can you point to any other POV problems? Gave it a quick read over and don't see any.
Also, I re read the lead couple of times and did a slight copy edit. I don't see what else is wrong with it.
"Despite" occurs once in the article where I believe it is used correctly: Despite a tactical Polish victory on 28 September at the Battle of Szack, the outcome of the larger conflict was never in doubt
Also, I've looked through the FAC criteria and image policy and I see nothing about how many images are "too many". In fact, compared to some other FAs this article does not appear to have that many images at all.radek (talk) 17:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*2. (a) Lead in need of general copy-edit. I've given it a copy edit and removed material that unduly elaborated on the basic gist of it. It's now an appropriate length again, I think. qp10qp (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been addressing most of the concerns this evening, which has taken ages, but I've been flatly reverted. Sigh. Giving up for the moment. qp10qp (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Qp10qp I have reverted you because unfortunately you have also changed the meaning of some parts article. Such changes should be discussed first. Loosmark (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the meanings need changing to remove accumulations of POV since the FAC. That's part of the point of the exercise. In the process of reverting you have also restored all the unwieldiness, re-lengthened, re-added block quotes, restored bad grammar and wordiness, and reinstated POV. For example you have changed back the section title "Byelorussia and Ukraine" to "Territories of Second Polish Republic annexed by Soviet Union", which is both more POV and bad English. qp10qp (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference relating to Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiege need to be improved. There are multiple sections in the pdf report composed by different authors. The page numbers and relevant author of each reference should be inputted rather than only referencing the document as a whole. I can't do it myself because I do not speak Polish--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have some concern with the number of times the Sanford reference is used. The spread of pp. 20-24 is used over 20 times, I suspect that greater focus is possible here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a hard time believing that each citation covers the 20-24 page spread. If some only utilize for instance 21 than that should be the page cited. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I disagree, because these pages need to be read as a whole. I'm not aware of a policy that says a range of four pages is too large. The point of citations is for readers to check information: to do so in context they need to read more than one page, and I suspect this is what people do, to save them repeatedly checking the same reference as they read through an article. By the way, on eight occasions that citation is reinforced by another one from a different source.qp10qp (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, Wikipedia already requires more minute referencing of information than in academia. To expect us to go even further and break up a four-page range into separate single page citations strikes me as actually unhelpful. The way academics check a source is to go to the page number and read several pages or more around it to get the whole picture. This actually saves time, because they don't have to then look everything up anew as they come to re-uses of the same source. The distribution of references around the article, most of which I decided myself when helping prepare the article for its FAC, is, I hope, reasonably sophisticated. Although the article is densely referenced, and everything is sourced, there's no attempt to place tags every few words in the article out of pedantry. It's assumed that when reading a source a reader will see what it covers in a whole passage. Single-page citation is of course used for specific figures, quotations, terms, etc. qp10qp (talk) 00:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I believe that referencing a single page is better than five, I think page ranges are perfectly acceptable - both in academia and on Wikipedia. Further refinements are welcome, but I think they are above and beyond even FA requirements. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take no issue with concepts but figures are another story, They should be page specific. If someone is willing to send me a pdf scan of the four pages I am even willing to do it myself, but it needs to be done--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Labattblueboy, you are starting to add more things. You've put a load of citation requests on the article today. Could you give some idea when you are going to stop, because it's dispiriting to address your concerns, have no acknowlegement of it, only to find a whole lot more (hours) of work requested. qp10qp (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that qp10qp addressed a lot of issues soon after this FAR was listed. For the record, while I accept there may be a small part of the article that got POVed due to some POV pushing since FAing I've missed (and if this is the case, please be specific which part is it), I think the article uses very good sources (again, thanks to some very careful proofreading and verifying by qp10qp back when). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
qp10qp made progress but there is still a lot left to do, and a large number of outstanding issues. I have attempted to do some of the work myself, but I am unable to do any of the foreign language sourcing and verification because I do not speak Russian, German or Polish. The level of support to return the article to FA doesn't seem to be there.--Labattblueboy (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1(a) Lots of work remaining in a a number of sections, including WTA, passive text and other general grammar issues. 1(b) There is no information regarding the opposing troops. Not their manpower and equipment dispositions, defensive/offensive plans. The military campaign section appears to be a bit short in my view. 1(c)Outstanding citation tags, lots of primary sources, foreign language citation issues (ex: citations for Dom wydawniczy Wojska Polskiego contain no page numbers), Sanford citation for p. 20-24, is overused and could be more specific, particularly regarding figures. 3 alt text not present on all images, Jeńcy1.jpg sourcing remains unresolved. --Labattblueboy (talk) 06:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dom Wydawniczy is a 156 page report that has been converted into a pdf. IMO each citation requires page #s, how else does one verify the sourcing? I also noticed the Roberts citations require page #s. The 3 Avalon project citations, the Telegram: His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin - Dept of State 8/25/39, the Soviet Note of April 25, 1943, È.Â. Ñòàëèí 30 íîÿáðÿ 1939 ãîäà Òîì 14, ñòð. 343-345, Report On The Foreign Policy Of The Government are all primary - I think that qualifies as numerous.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Polish nationalist POV being put forward in this article
I oppose to the nomination of this article as featured, because this article is written comletely from Polish nationalist POV.
1) Nowhere in this article background is given for the occupation of Western Belarus by Poland in 1921. In 1921 according to Riga treaty made between (sic!!!!) Poland and Soviet Russia, without Belarus participating, Poland annexed the territory of Western Belarus "in compensation" for Soviet Polish War.
2) Nowhere in this article information is given about Polonization, colonization of native Belarusian population by Poland. Namely about eradication of Belarusian language, about closure of Belarusian schools, newspapers, about arrests of Belarusian senators in Polish Sejm, about establishment of concentration camps in Belarus by Poles, about Jewish pogroms by Poles in Belarus, about falsifications of population census and denial of ciizenship to non-Poles.
3) I haven't found in this article any information about which side (Polish, Soviet) was supported by local population.
4) Belarusian POV, as well as Lithuanian and Ukrainian POV's would be reunification of their territories with what was occupied by Poland in 1921.
5) In background no information is given about prior participation of Poland together with Nazi Germany in occupation of Czechoslovakia and making of non-agreession agreement with Germany, proposing help to Nazi in war with Russia, and not making non-agression agreement with Soviet Union.
IMO, none of this is applicable. It might be for the article on the Polish–Soviet War, but not in this case. To be honest, I think the article provides a rather good backgrounder on the subject, but as I said that's just my opinion. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist (but hold off any action until at least 2009-12-25 as editorial response promised): Quality of research (Primaries, Tertiaries, Unverifiable material due to lack of essential bibliographic data, Citation from inappropriately low quality sources when HQRS are available and listed in the references). Some awkward language. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
^ a b c "Kampania wrześniowa 1939 [September Campaign 1939]" (in Polish). PWN Encyklopedia. Retrieved 16 July 2007.
Plus title capitalisation: ^ "bozy jenieckie żołnierzy polskich [Prison camps for Polish soldiers]" (in Polish). Encyklopedia PWN. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
^ a b "Szack". Encyklopedia Interia. Retrieved 28 November 2006.
Osmańczyk, Edmund Jan (2003). Mango, Anthony. ed. Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements. 1 (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN0415939216.
^ "The German Ambassador in the Soviet Union, (Schulenburg) to the German Foreign Office No. 317". Avalon project. Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 2009-06-11.
^ "The German Ambassador in the Soviet Union, (Schulenburg) to the German Foreign Office No. 371". Avalon project. Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 2009-06-11.
^ "The German Ambassador in the Soviet Union, (Schulenburg) to the German Foreign Office No. 372". Avalon project. Lillian Goldman Law Library. Retrieved 2009-06-11.
^ "Telegram: His Majesty's Ambassador in Berlin - Dept of State 8/25/39". Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved 2009-06-11.
^ "Soviet Note of April 25, 1943". 25 April 1943. Retrieved 19 December 2005.
Degras, Jane Tabrisky (1953). Soviet Documents on Foreign Policy. Volume I: 1917–1941. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henderson (1939). Documents concerning German-Polish relations and the outbreak of hostilities between Great Britain and Germany on September 3, 1939. Great Britain Foreign Office.
House, Edward; Seymour, Charles (1921). What Really Happened at Paris. Scribner.
Osmańczyk, Edmund Jan (2003). Mango, Anthony. ed. Encyclopedia of the United Nations and international agreements. 1 (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN0415939216.
Bad Name Formatting, title not Ital, no publisher, no publication location: ^ M.I.Mel'tyuhov. Stalin's lost chance. The Soviet Union and the struggle for Europe 1939–1941, p.132. Мельтюхов М.И. Упущенный шанс Сталина. Советский Союз и борьба за Европу: 1939–1941 (Документы, факты, суждения). — М.: Вече, 2000.
In this context a low grade work: Kenéz, Peter (2006). A History of the Soviet Union from the Beginning to the End (2nd ed. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-052186437-4.
Non academic publisher: Levin, Dov (1995). The lesser of two evils: Eastern European Jewry under Soviet rule, 1939-1941. Jewish Publication Society. ISBN9780827605183.
Why are generalist histories being relied upon? Weinberg, Gerhard (1994). A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0521443172.
Kutrzeba, S (1950). "The Struggle for the Frontiers, 1919-1923". in Reddaway, William Fiddian. The Cambridge history of Poland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 512–543.
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list, with proper references and I think it meets all the other criteria required for review. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead could be expanded a touch. You have only two major sections to the list so writing a paragraph summarising the recipients in the lead (i.e. how many, where, why etc) shouldn't be too hard.
"received the Medal of Honor. José Nísperos was the first person of Asian descent to receive the Medal," - receive the medal is a little repetitive here.
Trinidad's date of action is 1915 but your intro to this section says fighting continued until 1913... I'm confused. The heading mentions peacetime but the lead to this table doesn't make it clear.
Not 100% on my alt text but should they all reflect that the people in the images are Asian American?
Done- I removed the reference to asian from the ones that contained it. Given the context of the article it is not necesary and the article title emphasizes that they are of asian decent. --Kumioko (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sortable table - link each link every time. Check platoon. There could be others.
Sorry, I don't believe this one has been covered off on yet. There are still spaces between the emdashes in the Korean War section. To fix it, you need to remove the non breaking space mark up code. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there is some inconsistency in how you deal with numbers greater than 10. In the lead you use numbers (e.g. "31 have been awarded", but elsewhere you use letters (e.g. in World War II "twenty-four Asian American awardees, twenty-one...".
Is there a preference to how these should be handled. I believe I read something were numbers less than ten were spelled out but numbers larger than ten were displayed as numbers. I can't seem to find that at the moment though. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add a comma after "September 17, 2009" as the numbers 2009 and 31 next to each other would look slightly awkward if the inline citation were not there.
The World War II section mentions: "Of the Asian American recipients during World War II, only two were officers." Forgive me for not being knowledgeable, but at what rank does a military personnel become an officer? This might need to be clarified.
Done. Rather than add a huge chunk of text that only loosely related to the topic and was information I added this as a note. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation is nice, but it still doesn't tell me which two persons are officers because I know nothing about rank hierarchy. Arsonal (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written, although I did notice a disambig link when I ran the dab checker, can you locate that and remove it if at all possible? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a project to develop the Battle of the Nile and associated articles. This is a listing of the ships engaged, their commanders and the casualties each one suffered in the battle as best as can be determined by the sources. Please note that the ships are ordered by the position they took in the battle line and thus the tables are not intended to be sortable. Any comments and suggestions welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead reads nicely, but I am not sure that it is clear what is included in the list (scope) after reading it. Could you add something to the effect that it is a list of participating ships and casualities.
Better. Not sure what the MOS says about italics, but fine for me.
Could you make the columns sortable?
As explained above, the table are arranged in the order of battle as per the title. This means that the ships are listed in the sequence they were deployed in during the battle. Making them sortable would dilute this effect. The lists are quite short in any case and I can't really see any benefit in making them sortable: what details would need sorting?
It is good that the tables are arranged in the order of battle and I would not want to change it. What I suggest is to make them automagically sortable as per Help:Sorting which does not require much work for the editor and gives an added advantage for the reader (to see which ship suffered most/second most/... casualties and so on). Basically all columns except for "Notes" could be made sortable. The present order could be left as default order so nothing is lost.
I've had a go, but the header lines seem to disrupt the sorting.
Possibly this could help, but I am not an expert in advanced sorting tables either. Alternatively headers like "Rear-Admiral Nelson's fleet", "Vice-Admiral Brueys' fleet" and "Line of battle" (Why two headers for the French fleet?) could be removed from the table and put in a short text just before the respective tables. Same for the colspans at the bottom of the table.
Did you consider marking ships that were destroyed somehow (by color for instance)? If it is useful you could also mark varying degrees of damage.
I could mark the destroyed ships, although note that the "Notes" column already does this by giving details on degrees of damage / causes of destruction. I'm loathe to highlight the ships based on the level of damage as this factor is relative and can vary quite widely - two heavily damaged ships can be damaged in completely different ways.
Agreed about not marking damaged ships. I would mark the destroyed ships, since it is faster for the reader to see that only French ships were destroyed.
On reflection, I'm quite reluctant to do this. There were four French ships destroyed, but each was destroyed in very different circumstances, and grouping them together in this context seems quite forced. In addition, three French ships were destroyed by their captors three weeks after the battle as the damage they suffered was too severe for them to sail ever again. Three more ships were so badly damaged that they were unable to serve as frontline warships and were eventually scrapped. Thus highlighting the ships that were destroyed seems a bit like using a roller to paint a portrait: it irons out a lot of the detail (which is already included in the lead and the notes column).
Good point. Done.
If there is only one number in the "Casualties" column of the French fleet, does it refer to those wounded (or killed or total)? You might want to add "0" like for the British list.
If there is one number, it is because the Killed/Wounded/Total boxes have been bypassed and so this is a total casualties figure (note how the boxes have been merged). The reason why the figure is not broken down further is that I have not been able to locate sources giving a more precise total. I'm not sure what you mean by the 0?
If it is the total number, wouldn't it be more natural to put it into the "Total" column (and question marks in the "Killed/Wounded" columns)? (The numbers which are now centered appear as if they belong to the "Wounded" column, that's why I suggested to add "0" to the "killed" column...)
I can do this perhaps, although it looks pretty messy. What should I do about the "Heavy" and "Light" entries?
I don't have any really good suggestion. (A footnote saying that these numbers are for total casualties?) Maybe another reviewer is more creative than me?
I am not sure if "Heavy" and "Light" are proper words to combine with "Casualties" (rather with losses)!?
They are standard terms in military history texts.
OK, am not familiar with such texts.
Why did you choose to give precise numbers of casualties for the British fleet and a range for the French fleet? (even though note A says that there are various numbers in literature).
Because precise numbers exist for the British fleet (as given in the table) but they don't for the French. The footnote just gives a bit more detail into the range of figures available for both sides.
I think I got it. Because William Laird Clowes is the only one who gives numbers for every ship. Correct?
Correct, although William James gives totals for most of the British ships which are identical to Clowes' figures (he just doesn't present it in a table).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your comments. I will work on the first one you raised, and have given answers above explaining problems with enacting the others. Please let me know if you have any further suggestions. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. 5. (and probably "6. as well) is done. I'd like to see "4." addressed since it is confusing (at least to me) without further explanation. Don't feel strongly about "3.", but "2." would be a good feature to have in my opinion. bamse (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"3." and "1." done. With "4." let's wait for other reviewers. If it is not confusing for them, it can be considered done. Just one more quick question: Why are the French ships rated according to the Rating system of the Royal Navy? Was there no French rating system at the time?bamse (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain whether the French had a formal rating system (although a possibly informal one is often hinted at in histories). Here it is used for comparative purposes. I could delink the rate column on that table if that would help? On a wider note, thankyou very much for your interest and comments, they have been very helpful. On the outstanding issues I'd like to wait for more input from a broader consensus before I do anything at this stage. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caption needs no full stop as it's not a complete sentence.
Quite right, done.
Is it worth linking British fleet to something appropriate? Is there something appropriate (Royal Navy)? Same with French... probably not or you would have done it already...!
Royal Navy and French Navy would be the links, but that would mean linking a title, which I am quite reluctant to do as it is frowned on and doesn't look very tidy.
It's early for me today, but what do you mean by linking a title? I was implying you could link those two in the prose ("a British fleet and a French fleet"), not the section headings... The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. Done
Pedant's corner - is three month campaign hyphenated, e.g. should it be three-month campaign?
Honestly I think it can go either way. I'll do it for you.
"13 ships of the line and four frigates" here you could safely use "thirteen" so we don't mix smallish numbers and words.
Thankyou - I've always preferred this format, but I've lost count of how many times I've been asked to strictly adhere to the rule of 1-9 in words and anything else in numerals.
Discovered at 2pm on 1 August, then "rapid approach of nightfall" - I would have thought nightfall wasn't until around 10pm then?
Clarified (hopefully)
"Despite the death of the admiral," - worth reinforcing which admiral we're talking about?
Named
"as can best be established:" - personally I would say "as best as can be established" but that's just an opinion...
Good call, changed
Any link for "mizen mast" as I've never heard of it!
It's not a big deal. I wondered if we had something specifically about a "mizen mast". I think the sailing mast link is okay but a little too general. Never mind! The Rambling Man (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Culloden's notes, first sentence ends in a full stop, second doesn't. Not quite sure of the rules here, but it looked a bit odd...
I thought it was a sentence fragment (never sure how they work), but I have added it now.
I think your symbol for KIA should be listed in a key because it's not 100% accessible for those who find it harder to see links...
Done
Mostert's years shouldn't be spaced.
I can't find where you mean, can you be a little more specific?
Would you also be able to comment on some of the points raised by Bamse above? We are interested in some addition thoughts on the issues from other users before any changes are implemented. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per bamse's comments: I don't think this necessarily needs to be sortable at all, and as you've pointed out, colspan's tend to throw it all out anyway. I hadn't noticed "Heavy" and "Light" and I do have a bit of an issue with that because it's not quantitative and I can't see what that means anywhere. I don't have a big problem with a single figure meaning overall casualties as long as you note it. You haven't referenced the casualties in the Orient, by the way... The Rambling Man (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this - I have added the word "casualties" to the heavy and light entries in the table to better explain it and sourced the Orient casualties - is this better?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks good Jackyd. I've made a few prose adjustments, and I've put some comments below:
I've tried a new first line: the old one seemed a bit long and contained a lot of info for one sentence, so I've tried breaking it into 2. I think it reads better this way, but I realise you might not agree!
I agree with the suggestion that it might be an idea to highlight French vessels destroyed in the action. I understand your points above, but I think it'll make the list instantly clearer at first glance, whereas at the moment you really need to read to find the lost ships. Using the style applied on lists of VC winners might be an idea, and the key at the top could explain that highlighted vessels are the ones lost during the engagement, not later on. Although all the vessels were lost in different circumstances, the end result is the same (just like the death of VC winners).
In the 3rd para of the lead - "The almost total destruction of the French fleet reversed the strategic situation in the Mediterranean, giving the Royal Navy control of the sea which it would not relinquish until 1815." This leaves me wanting more info - what happened in 1815? Was it Waterloo that lost the RN the Med? I wonder if a note might help, or if there's a appropriate blue link to an article or article's subsection?
Nothing so exciting I'm afraid, 1815 was the year the war ended, thus ending the need for dominance. In fact the Royal Navy remained strong in the Med until 1945, but thats getting off topic somewhat. I'll rephrase the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the French table, Genereux is decribed as "Escaped with Villeneuve on 2 August". I don't know if there's a formality to describing the senior officer, but I'd have thought it would be more logical to say "Escaped with Guillaume Tell"
I've now done everything, including adding the colour coding. I'm still not convinced by that, it seems like a broad brush approach to something that is actually quite complex, but since there have been several requests for it I've added it in. Thanks very much for your comments and interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intro reads rather long and involved given there's a full article on how the battle went. Perhaps it should concentrate more on where the ships came from to form the fleets? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead currently says that the French had 13 ships of the line and four frigates. However it says nothing about the number of British ships (although they are named in the table). It should say that there were 14 British ships of line and one sloop.
Four French ships were too badly damaged to join him and were beached by their crews, Villeneuve eventually escaped with just two ships of the line and two frigates. On 3 August the last two French ships in the bay were defeated, one surrendering and the other set on fire by its crew. These two sentences are confusing. They convey a wrong impression that the two ships that were defeated on 3 August were the same ships of line that had escaped on the previous days. I think the first sentences should clearly state that they escaped to Malta, while the second should clarify which ships were defeated.
I have clarified this in the text (although the escaping ships did not all go to Malta). Thanks for your interest and comments - do you have any other points to add?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From 1907 to 1909 a fleet of 18 United States Navy circumnavigated the globe. They were known as the Great White Fleet because during that era US warships were painted white during peacetime. This illustration appeared in the New York Herald on February 22, 1909, the day of their return to home port at Hampton Roads, Virginia. Restored version of File:Great White Fleet return.jpg.
Support What color were the ships painted during times of war? And how long did it take the sailors to paint them all (and how much money!)? upstateNYer07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly good quality recording for it's time of a notable song (heck, I knew what this was digging through archive.org's old music and I'm hardly a music buff). Restored version of this file, removing some static and cutting dead time at the end.
No, this is not how the original recording sounds. The high pitched "sparkly" sounds in the background never appeared in the original recording. This was part of added background noise (probably due to a dirty disc). During the disc restoration process someone used dehiss to remove this noise, but it either wasn't applied correctly or it was applied too much. As a result, some of the background noise was removed partially but not entirely, giving rise to the metallic-sounding pings in the background. I would recommend the original file over the cleaned up one. Looking at the original file with Adobe Audition, I see that it definitely was intended to be a finished product rather than an empty slate. ThemFromSpace03:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
WikiProject peer reviews
This inactive or historical peer review page has had its instructions updated for posterity's sake. That's because there is now a Wikipedia Peer Review that peer reviews can be listed at, and the old instructions were out of date and may cause problems (or disappointment as not many people may see your review). If this page ever becomes active again, see here for a way to keep reviews up to date.
To change how your project's peer reviews are managed, see here.
Done
.jpg){kind=link}
![[46]](http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h51000/h51396.jpg){kind=link}
