Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasksAcademyAssessmentA-Class
reviewContestAwardsMembers

Summary of Military history WikiProject open tasks watch · edit · full list News and announcements The August newsletter is now available. Editors are advised that Featured Articles promoted before 2016 are in need of review, if you had an article promoted to Featured status on or before 2016 please check and update your article before they are listed at FAR/C. Current discussions No major discussions are open at the moment Featured article candidates Jozo Tomasevich • Battle of Saipan • Siege of Baghdad • British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War • German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war Featured article review Byzantine Empire • Battle of Red Cliffs • Edward I of England • Northrop YF-23 • Middle Ages • Thomas C. Hindman Featured list candidates List of Eureka Stockade defenders Featured list removal candidates List of deaths at the Berlin Wall Featured picture candidates Thorsten Nordenfelt A-Class review Henry Biard • Fort Corcoran • Sihanouk Trail • Boot Monument • Miyoshi Nagayoshi • Ernest J. King • Tim Hughes (soldier) • Lockheed YF-22 • SPARS Peer reviews Muckrach Castle • Military logistics • Military dictatorship • Henry Clay Work • Galatian War • Charles the Bold • 1939 Liechtenstein putsch • Sher Shah Suri • Rwandan genocide Good article nominees Ava–Hanthawaddy War (1401–1403) • Suleiman I of Candar • Aérospatiale SA 330 Puma • Mehmed of Dulkadir • 1864 Washington Arsenal explosion • Roswell incident • Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Mohammad Shah Qajar • Gubir shootdown • Gotha WD.7 • Constantine II (emperor) • Battle of Lewisburg • Eleanor of Castile • Charles Upham • Soldiers' and Sailors' Arch • Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip • Northrop B-2 Spirit • Battle of Ekiokpagha • Simon Stuart (general) • Ernie Pike • Duncan MacDougall (British Army officer) • 170th Rifle Division (Soviet Union) • Alfred Sully • Dabney Coleman • Benin Air Force • Battle of Mosul (2016–2017) • Crusading movement • Battle of Thorgo • Jarrett Robertson • Michael Robinson (RAF officer) • Rumpler 6B • Tel al-Sultan attack • Charles Keating IV • Soviet cruiser Vladivostok • Sack of Delhi (1757) Good article reassessments Tsugaru clan • 130th Engineer Brigade (United States) Articles that need... work on referencing and citation (148,013) • only work on referencing and citation (43,207) • work on coverage and accuracy (123,215) • only work on coverage and accuracy (19,790) • work on structure (31,836) • only work on structure (360) • work on grammar (8,171) • only work on grammar (46) • work on supporting materials (32,845) • only work on supporting materials (1,337) • assessment (1) • assessment as lists (2) • project tags fixed (15) • assessment checklists added (0) • assessment checklists completed (0) • task forces added (7) • attention to task force coverage (656)

Missing/broken ref final sweep

Following Headbomb's now archived post, I figured I'd repost the remaining GAs that still have broken harv refs. We're actually rather close to getting through these so if some folks could each do one or two more we should be good: Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GAs

Done

1. Alexander Godley
2. Bali Strait Incident
3. Battle of Haman
4. Battle of Huoyi
5. Battle of Masan
6. Battle of Nam River
7. Battle of P'ohang-dong
8. Battle of the Plains of Abraham
9. Black Dahlia
10. Black September
11. Bobbili Fort
12. Boulogne agreement
13. Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628
14. Capitulation of Saldanha Bay
15. Caracalla
16. Christian Streit White
17. Cipher Bureau (Poland)
18. Croatian War of Independence
19. Crusades
20. Emeric, King of Hungary
21. Ernest Lucas Guest
22. Expansion of Macedonia under Philip II
23. First Battle of Naktong Bulge
24. Frank McGee (ice hockey)
25. Frank Worsley
26. Franklin D. Roosevelt
27. Franz Kurowski
28. Franz Kurowski
29. HMS Hermione (1782)
30. Hans-Ulrich Rudel
31. Home Army
32. Homs
33. House of Lancaster
34. Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin
35. Indonesian National Revolution
36. Isaac Parsons (American military officer)
37. James Caudy
38. Michael I Komnenos Doukas
39. Mise of Amiens
40. Monarch-class coastal defense ship
41. Mulan (1998 film)
42. Myth of the clean Wehrmacht
43. Operation Storm
44. Operation Summer '95
45. Oswald Boelcke
46. Paddy Finucane
47. Philip III of Navarre
48. Pons, Count of Tripoli
49. Prince Marko
50. Raid on Batavia (1806)
51. Richard Garnons Williams
52. Robert White (Virginia physician)
53. Rommel myth
54. Roza Shanina
55. SS Black Osprey
56. Saab JAS 39 Gripen
57. Sajmište concentration camp
58. Second Battle of Naktong Bulge
59. Siege of Damascus (1148)
60. Siege of Melos
61. Siege of Pondicherry (1793)
62. Skanderbeg's Italian expedition
63. Stanisław Koniecpolski
64. Stephen Tomašević of Bosnia
65. Teuruarii IV
66. The Great Naktong Offensive
67. The Holocaust in Albania
68. Third Anglo-Maratha War
69. Treblinka extermination camp
70. USS Cincinnati (CL-6)
71. USS Kentucky (BB-66)
72. USS Lunga Point
73. USS Salamaua
74. USS Texas (BB-35)
75. USS Tucker (DD-374)
76. Uprising of Ivaylo
77. Walls of Constantinople
78. Wings (1927 film)
79. World War II

Remaining

1. Battle of Osijek
2. History of cannon
3. History of the United States Navy
4. Humphrey Atherton
5. Huolongjing
6. Napoleon

Just looking at Monarch-class coastal defense ship and I think I need Sturmvogel 66's help. You added a ref to Sieche p250 in April this year, I see there's several publications it might be. Could you add the right one to the References section? Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I've struck it from the list - Dumelow (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, you can use Petscan to run a query to list articles with template:good article and the MILHIST banner on the talk page that are also in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. It throws up 103 articles. Some may be false positives that have already been discounted but some will be from the bottom end of the alphabet that User:Headbomb didn't get to before. If you remove the good article requirement you can get a list of 3,800 MILHIST articles in the error category - Dumelow (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dumelow: - From a quick spot checks in there, it looks like the 103 is a mix of both. The false positives should be easy-ish to sort out manually, though. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I've had a quick sweep through and think there are 39 which were not already covered or false positives and added these to the list above - Dumelow (talk) 08:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Best method(s) to determine if a Bronze Star Medal was awarded with combat V device or not

While reviewing and editing our article about LTC Daniel Gade (USA Ret.), I have wanted to confirm my working assumption that the Bronze Star Medal Gade received was for reasons other than valor or heroism in combat. But I cannot ascertain a reliable method to determine if a Bronze Star was awarded for valor in combat or not. What method(s) do you all recommend? Many thanks - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure but it sounds like the information may be available through a freedom of information request - Dumelow (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What about trying to contact the family? - wolf 02:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The article says he was decorated "for valor". However, the footnote in the article does not support this (as I'm sure you have noticed), it only supports the Purple Heart award. For the present, this phrase should be removed. If you can access the Bronze Star citation, of course it will say if the award was for valor, but even the award certificate will expressly state if it was awarded for valor or for meritorious service. The description of the circumstances under which he received one of his Purple Hearts make me more sanguine than you that the award was for valor. Bronze Stars without the V tend to be awarded to desk jockeys who did a really good job in a combat zone, and that doesn't seem to match his experience. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Excellent suggestions! @Lineagegeek: I want to be sanguine about "with valor" too (I've met Mr. Gade and he seems to be a man of great integrity), but thought I should err on the side of caution. I'll do some more digging. ;o) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Death toll from V-1s in London

Could one of you folks well-versed in WWII take a look at this? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

New article

Hi. Can I add Norways Chief of Defence, Eirik Kristoffersen to this project? I recently created the page, and are open for improvements and input. The main issue is the ribbon section not looking good, as I tried to copy the template in the Norwegian version. I will probably try to fix this tomorrow.--Znuddel (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild has already tagged it as part of the project. They're a good egg. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 22:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nearly 11 hours after it was created. Shocking. Standards are slipping. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, November 2020

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D & Hawkeye7 look at two aspects of 20th Century warfare Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Unknown Soldiers

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

MilHistBot automatic rating

I think the new auto-rating function is a great labor saving device but I can't figure out why MilHistBot rated my article (old version) as C-class due to insufficient referencing and citations? (All info is cited inline, except the lead.) (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe - My guess would be the lines before the block quotes such as "Mapam politician Yisrael Bar-Yehuda strongly rejected a suggestion to permit excusing conduct under duress or in self-defense:". I know MILHISTBOT looks for paragraphs without citations at the end, and it might be flagging that as a paragraph, even though it's just part of the block quote formatting, and the citation is found at the end of the block quote. It looks like a B-class to me, so I'll be manually upgrading it to B. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for re-rating! (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the bot to handle quotations. I can also run it in a debugging mode where it explains its reasoning. Hog Farm is correct about the fact that out MilHistBot looks for paragraphs that end without a citation, but it does handle block quotations. The problem is more obscure. It comes down to this sentence: "The Jewish Ghetto Police was perceived as "the most hated Jewish organ during the Holocaust", according to Rivka Brot." What's wrong with it? There is a newline between "Jewish" and "organ". It doesn't appear in the displayed text, but the bot took it for the end of the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for checking. In fact, in Wikipedia formatting two newlines are necessary to start a new paragraph. But maybe programming that into your bot would lead to bad results, I don't know. (t · c) buidhe 01:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Notice

FYI; there is an RM at Talk:Naval Facilities Engineering Command that could use a few extra sets of eyes. Cheers - wolf 12:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Paul Kagame

I have nominated Paul Kagame for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

List of revolutions and rebellions

Hey everyone, an IP user on the Talk:List of revolutions and rebellions page thinks it's better to separete both revolutions and rebellions which are (let's say) both significant different from each other. It also has 193,641 bytes which is a lot but since this is an important list it's better to ask futher comments here before spliting it. You're all invited into the chat. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned project category

Hi, there is an orphaned project Category:Military science articles by quality which contains 1 log page, that is probably left over from a renaming of a task force. Just wanted to bring it to your attention, thanks! Funandtrvl (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, thanks for the note! I've redirected the old log page to the new one and cleaned up the category. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Channel Dash

May I ask interested editors to join the discussion at Talk:Channel Dash#Retrograde edit? This originated as a subsidiary point under Talk:Channel Dash#Infobox military operation. The edit in question is [1]
Thanks,ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Capture of Wytschaete

Can a kind soul sort out the Commons category template as I can't work out how to make it work. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264, which Commons category did you want to link to? - Dumelow (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure, 3rd Battle of Ypres? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I've linked it, but I am not sure it is the most elegant solution (as not all the images in the category relate to the Capture of Wytschaete). Can the relevant images be readily identified and added to a Commons subcategory that can then be linked directly? - Dumelow (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No. 238 Squadron RAF

Can anyone assist with the sourcing issue noted at Talk:No. 238 Squadron RAF#Missing sources, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Manned Orbiting Laboratory needs more FAC reviewers

G'day everyone, Hawkeye7's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manned Orbiting Laboratory/archive1 needs some additional reviewers. I acknowledge that astronautical articles aren't always considered mainstream Milhist fodder, but reviewing it is no different from reviewing an article in an area you aren't familiar with. If you can spare some time, I'm sure it will be greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional reviewers needed for 55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division

G'day all, a couple more reviewers are needed for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division/archive2, which covers the interwar and WWII version of this formation. It also needs a source review. If you can spare a bit of time to take a look, it would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Lend a hand?

G'day all, if you have a few spare minutes, given it is mid-month it would be good to knock over the human checks of Milhistbot's October assessment work here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for October. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Support with Maps

Long, long ago - there was a forum or a portal where one could request assistance in creating maps, diagrams etc. Does that still exist? If yes - how do I reach those guys (I need a military map created for an article)? Any advice would be appreciated. Farawayman (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:GL/MAP and WP:GL/ILL (Hohum ^@) 00:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly what I was looking for! Thx Hohum. Farawayman (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Ribbon issue

Ref. Eirik Kristoffersen#Awards and decorations: Can somebody try to fix the Brigadeveteranforbundet Badge of Honour ribbon?

It works fine in the Norwegian article, and was showing on the English article before I tried to edit the code. --Znuddel (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I think it's because that ribbon image is a PNG rather than an SVG, but you can get around it by using "name=" rather than "ribbon=" to call up the file - Dumelow (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice, thanks. --Znuddel (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

John Fitzgerald (United States Coast Guard)

Notable or not? Ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

G'day Bearian. A colonel equivalent who has only commanded a coast guard cutter with a crew of 70-odd? And mostly written by CaptFitz1987 which may indicate a COI of some sort. Certainly not presumptively notable under WP:SOLDIER, so he would have to rely on meeting the WP:GNG, and a quick Google search doesn't indicate the requisite significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Worth a PROD and AfD if that is rejected. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Not notable. Mztourist (talk) 06:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bearian: Any discussion of officer in the United States Coast Guard needs to keep in mind that the coast guard has far fewer admirals than other branches (two, to be exact, according to United_States_Coast_Guard#Commissioned_officers) and that the coast guard is a "bisexual" organization as it were because it operates under the jurisprudence of the United States Department of Homeland Security unless expressly mobilized for war, in which case it operates under the United States Department of Defense. Some consideration then needs to be given to the WP:GNG and to the Biography aspects as opposed to looking at a Coast Guard article exclusively thorough MILHIST prisms. I had in fact made a similar argument some years prior at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig B. Lloyd, but I suspect that most of what I wrote there could be said to apply here as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Task forces (periods and conflicts) - missing crucial period

Hello fellow MilHist Wikipedians. I notice that there is an omission of a 'Task forces (periods and conflicts)' what must be a critical period of time, namely between World War I and World War II. Is there any reason for this omission? Bearing in mind that significant development of many critical technologies took place between the two world wars (from 1918 to 1939), I humbly suggest that a new task force be created. (Ironically, as I type this, the Interwar period article has no task forces!). May I suggest a name for this new task force? Namely: Inter-war. Apologies if this has been discussed before, I was not able to easily find any archived discussion. Best regards. --78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a random observation while I am browsing; if this task force is created, you will definitely want to name it something more specific than "inter-war." Almost every period in history can be described as "inter-war" for one country or another, so the scope of an inprecise task force will be huge. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments duly noted and agreed, thanks. So would Inter-World-Wars be a better naming suggestion? Best regards. --78.32.143.113 (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The other name for the period is "interbellum", or "Between the wars", the period could also be referred to as "1919-1938". But the usage will be in the background of Wikipedia by milhist editors and fellow travellers who know what the term means. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

+1 for "interbellum". - wolf 16:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Once you have settled on a name, this will need to go through the task force incubator process at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Incubator; the instructions are detailed on that page, but it is essentially designed to make sure there is enough interest and scope for a group or task force before its creation. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 16:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Interbellum, one word, one meaning, no hyphens, no nonsense; synonyms allowed.Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer "interwar" because this is English wikipedia not latin. Our relevant article on the topic is Interwar period, no disambiguation needed. (t · c) buidhe 21:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
  • "English" has thousands of words imported from other languages; interbellum is not recondite. Keith-264 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    • in my experience, 'Interbellum' is sometimes used to describe the period and it is certainly well enough ingrained in the English language that I'd imagine most people know what it means, or could figure it out-- for instance, we commonly refer to the Antebellum South. With that being said, I do think that the time in-between World Wars is more often called the interwar period, see for instance this ngram, which I think I've put together correctly. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Just an observation, but the task forces really aren't foci of effort anymore, if they ever were. They are almost a way of internally categorising material within scope of the project. I also agree that what is considered the Interbellum period really is quite subject to different points of view, and would need to be tightly defined by date. If you were going ahead with an incubator concept I would suggest 28 June 1919 (the signing of the Treaty of Versailles) to 31 August 1939 (the day Hitler gave the final order for the invasion of Poland). However, we don't need to have a seamless chronology of period task forces, so I am not at all convinced this is needed or even desirable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
        • I agree with PM above about the usefulness of taskforces. When I saw this post I had virtually the same reaction and in all honesty the creation of such a task force might be more of a hassle than actually resulting in an increase of content. The fact that every task force's talk page (as far as I'm aware) goes to the main MilHist page is telling in itself. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Caps question

So I came across these two:

• Western Front (World War I)
• Italian front (World War I)

I'd like to know which is more correct or preferred. Dawnseeker2000 21:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Capital FKeith-264 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yet it belongs to Category: Italian Front (World War I) (with a capital "F") and in virtually every source listed in the refs, the "F" is also capitalized. FYI - wolf 00:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Annnd now the Category is proposed for a move a lower-case as well. Wonder where all this will end...? - wolf 15:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's wrong; most of the sources I checked use lowercase in "Italian front" (e.g. Keegan, Clodfelter, Cassar). Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Page was moved 2019-06-24 fyi - wolf 00:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Overzealous decapper. There was a (mostly) justified project to decap campaign in article titles last year, but this just smacks of mission creep to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, should be Front, afaik. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree, but... if only it were that easy. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 151#Campaign article titles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 152#Campaign vs campaign. - wolf 01:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Per the consensus above I've WP:Boldy moved it to a capitalized F along with Mines on the Italian Front (World War I) and update the articles appropriately. Aza24 (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Seeing that, I think I will move it back. The question is whether sources consistently cap this, and I noted before that they do not. Not even close. Compare Western Front. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I love that the opinion of one editor outweighs that of five, but whatever. Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I just showed the data. The "opinions" embodied in the guidelines represent the cumulative experience and opinions of all editors over many years, and are not to be overridden by a project discussion's WP:local consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a case to be made for consistency even though, according to Dicklyon's evidence, it is not the common name. Maybe a RM is in order. (t · c) buidhe 06:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC is needed. I would suggest here, but apparently subject-specific WikiProjects are irrelevant, so perhaps at MOS:CAPS to address the whole milterm guideline. (jmho) - wolf 13:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not the case. Determinations made at MOS are strictly local consensus, and we can and do override them here, where more people are engaged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Old FAs needing checking for whether a FAR is needed

G'day all, starting this thread to draw attention to WP:URFA/2020 where that went through FAC or FAR before 2016 are listed. I have already started advising principal editors of Milhist articles on this list, but there are some where the principal editors are no longer active. I will list these here as I work my way through the list, in case some project members who have knowledge of these subjects can take a look and form a view about the state of the article and whether it still meets the FA criteria, needs a little work, or needs a lot of work. Please note what your assessment is under the article subsections as I list them. It would be good to have multiple eyes on each article to ensure our views on each one are robust. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding a note: at WP:URFA/2020, the aim is not perfection :) We just need to know which articles are in bad enough shape that they may need to be submitted to FAR. That is slightly different than "would pass FAC today". We can allow for minor issues as long as you wouldn't have to hang your head in shame if the article ran on the mainpage. If you feel an article has minor issues only, they can be noted on talk. If you feel an article is good enough to avoid FAR, you can say it is Satisfactory (which doesn't mean perfect). If there are serious deficiencies, they should be noted on article talk and diffed at URFA/2020 indicating that a FAR may be needed. From what I have observed, few MILHIST articles have fallen into as much disrepair as have those in other content areas. But quite a few articles have been chunked up with unnecessary images and MOS:SANDWICH, which we can fix and move on. Please have a careful look at the start of instructions I have put at WP:URFA/2020, to get an idea of the focus. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SG, I'm sure project members will keep that in mind. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Eastern Solomons

• I did a c/e and checked the image licenses, and this looks satisfactory to me, I'd like a second opinion though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Well, we know I hate collapsed navigational templates :) But ... anything that any two of you deem "Satisfactory", I am likely to add a third "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020 so we can move those off the list. This one meets my standard for not needing a FAR, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• I'd have some minor comments overall at a FAC, but I think this is in good enough shape that it shouldn't be sent through FAR. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed. This article is good shape. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal

• Another component of the 18-article Guadalcanal featured topic. Looks in good shape to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands

• Has an annoying unreferenced last sentence. Otherwise in good shape. See little benefit is a FAR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Couple minor issues, but nothing warranting a FAR here. Could be easily fixed through normal editing. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)