Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EyeSerene (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 19 July 2012 (-1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
- Instructions
- Requesting a review
To request the first A-Class review of an article:
- Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
- If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1
to make way for the new nomination page. - Add
A-Class=current
to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (e.g. immediately after theclass=
orlist=
field). - From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
- List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
- Add
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}}
at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below. - Refresh the article's talk page's cache by following these steps. (This is so that the article's talk page "knows" that the A-class review page has actually been created. It can also be accomplished in the 2010 wikitext editor by opening the page in edit mode and then clicking "save" without changing anything, i.e. making a "null edit". )
- Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).
- Restrictions
- An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination or because it was demoted and is now ready for re-appraisal. There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.
- There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.
- An article may not be nominated for an A-Class review and be a Featured article candidate, undergoing a Peer Review, or have a Good article nomination at the same time.
- Commenting
The Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.
If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:
Comments
Reviewingby Username
Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:
Support / Oppose
Comments reviewingby Username
If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:
Comments
Reviewingby Username addressed / not addressed
This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.
- Requesting a review to be closed
A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.
- After A-Class
You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.
- Demotion
If an editor feels that any current A-class article no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal) please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.
A-Class review/reappraisal closure instructions for coordinators | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
edit | A-Class review | A-Class reappraisal | ||
Closure takes place after minimum of five and maximum of twenty-eight days | Pass • at least 3 comprehensive supports and • no outstanding criteria-based objections |
Fail • less than 3 comprehensive supports or • outstanding criteria-based objections or • no consensus |
Keep • clear consensus to keep or • no consensus |
Demote • clear consensus to demote |
Review subpage | • Add {{subst:archive top}} to top of page • Next line down, summarise result, e.g. Promoted or Not promoted, and sign with ~~~~ • Add {{subst:archive bottom}} to bottom of page | |||
{{WPMILHIST}} on article talk page | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass • Record class=A • Update partner project banners |
• Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=pass | • Change A-Class=current to A-Class=fail • Reassess article and record new class |
{{ArticleHistory}} on article talk page | Update (or add) Article History template: • actionX = WAR • actionXdate = ~~~~~ • actionXlink = title of review page • actionXresult = one of approved or fail or kept or demoted • actionXoldid = oldid from URL of article permanent link | |||
Archive | Move review link from A-Class review to appropriate section of current archive page | |||
Announcements | Remove review link from A-Class review list at {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} | |||
Showcase | • Add article name to list of A-Class articles • Increase article count |
• Remove article name from list of A-Class articles • Decrease article count | ||
Newsletter | Add article/nominator to next month's issue of The Bugle | |||
A-Class Medal tracking | • Add nominator(s) to A-Class Medal tracking page • On third successful ACR, complete A-Class Medal nomination |
|||
For detailed advice and instructions see the full Academy course |
Current reviews
- Please add new requests below this line
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Solachon
- Nominator(s): Constantine ✍
One of the few battles of the later Roman-Persian Wars about which details are known, and one particularly illustrative of why a general shouldn't charge into the fray like Alexander, but keep a distance and a cool head. The article is an old one, having been written in the main in 2010, but I was reluctant to nominate it before drawing up some battle maps. Some tweaks and minor additions have also taken place, the article went through GA in June, and I feel confident it is up to A-class standards. Constantine ✍ 18:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is pretty good, particularly given the shortage of sources on this era. My comments are:
- I'd suggest expanding and reorganising the lead so that it's a couple of paragraphs in length
- You provide some background on Prince Philippicus in the first sentence of the lead, but not Kardarigan.
- "The battle was part of a long war" - I think that the link behind the 'long war' is overly piped
- "Several factors led to this development: relations between the two powers had been progressively deteriorating over the previous years, following Byzantine contacts with the Göktürks for a joint effort against Persia and the Persian intervention in Yemen against Christian Axumite rule there." - this reads a bit awkwardly. I'd suggest splitting it into more than one sentence
- "Kardarigan had ordered the water supplies shed to the ground" - this wording is a bit awkward
- I'd suggest adding citations for the maps of the battle Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! On issue 2), there isn't much known about Kardarigan> He was certainly a nobleman of some sort, but what little is known of him is summarized in his own article. I've rewritten the lede to make two paragraphs, one with the general context and one with the course of the battle. I am open to further suggestions here. I've also rewritten the article for points 4) and 5). On point 6), how exactly would you like to see that? Do you want me to give a reference for the map source or for the descriptions? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments (other than the suggestion immediately above) have now been addressed; nice work with this article Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- I'd echo Nick-D's comments above on the article being good.
- "and periods of truce and negotiations succeeding periods of active warfare" - do you mean "interspersing"? A truce can only really follow a period of active fighting.
- "met the Byzantine force already deployed in battle order."- unclear if this means that Kardargan was in battle order, or the Byzantines.
- "("black hawk", a honorific title rather than a proper name[4])" - should the footnote be after the punctuation of the bracket?
- "In spring 586 Maurice rejected new Persian proposals of peace in exchange for gold" - could be read either that he rejected the proposals, in exchange for gold, or that the proposals were for peace for gold.
- "a mix of lancers and horse-archers," - worth wikilinking.
- " his attempt to capture the fortress of Chlomaron was foiled" - "foiled" has images of twirling moustaches and cunning plots to me!
- "However, the war continued..." There's a couple of "However..."s in this paragraph. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out the problems with the prose. The trouble spots have been rewritten, please have another look. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments:
- "advanced some 15 km east": I suggest adding a convert template here to display kilometres and miles;
- slightly repetitious: "reported the Persians' approach, he positioned his men on elevated ground facing the direction from which the Persian army approached" (approach and approached);
- there is a mix of US and British English, for example "centre" and "center";
- "With both wings having disintegrated, the Persian center was now subject to an attack" --> "With both wings having disintegrated, the Persian center was now subjected to an attack". AustralianRupert (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrections implemented! Thanks a lot! Constantine ✍ 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. I've added my support now. Well done. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments:
- "The Battle of Solachon was fought in 586 CE in northern Mesopotamia between the East Roman (Byzantine) forces, led by Philippicus, the brother-in-law of Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602), and the Sassanid Persians under Kardarigan." - That is huge. Do you need so much context in the first sentence? I'm thinking the bit about Maurice can be saved for later.
- "Kardarigan himself survived and held out with a part of his army on a hillock for several days against Byzantine attacks" - Is "Kardarigan himself survived and held out against Byzantine attacks with a part of his army on a hillock for several days." preferable?
- "ascended the Byzantine throne at Constantinople; " - Ascended or ascended to in British English?
- "from water poisoning when they drank too much water after their ordeal" - Where did they get this water? The river is blocked and they're not allowed in Dara, right?
- I did a copyedit (mostly non-breaking spaces). Be sure to double check it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions, they've been taken care of. I too leaned towards removing the reference to Maurice altogether from the lede, so I've done that. Otherwise I've rewritten the part about Kardarigan in the lede, fixed the Missing "to" and added where the Persians got the water from. Your edits were fine. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Supported above, looks nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- "from where he could": to
- "advanced against the Byzantines. Warned of the Persian approach, the latter were already deployed in battle order": Avoid "latter" if possible: advanced against the Byzantines, but they had been warned and were deployed in battle order
- "In 572 the then Byzantine ruler Justin II": Avoid "the then" if possible: In 572, Byzantine emperor Justin II
- "deterioration of relations between the two powers over the previous years": deterioration of relations between the two powers
- "which manifested itself in diplomatic and military moves in their periphery": which had been marked by diplomatic and military manoeuvring ouside their borders
- "allowed Philippicus' army to control the passage of the Arzamon river and meant that the Persian army under Kardarigan would have to advance across the waterless plain": It's almost always better to avoid this sense of "meant": allowed Philippicus' army to control the passage of the Arzamon river, forcing the Persian army under Kardarigan to advance across the waterless plain
- "just in time for, in the centre, the Persians had regrouped": Avoid "in time for" if the meaning isn't the usual one: just in time; in the centre ...
- - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good suggestions as usual, much appreciated. Implemented with a few changes (I prefer "periphery" to the too-generic "outside their borders"). I think you missed completing your first suggestion, though. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the first suggestion, "from where" is technically fine but out of fashion. I changed "from where he could control the various routes" to "controlling the various routes", and reworded another "from where". "for" as a conjunction is also technically fine but out of fashion; I changed "returned to order just in time, for in the centre, the Persians had regrouped" to: "returned to order just in time to stop the Persians, who had regrouped in the centre".
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits (but edits may take several days to show up on that page.) Great work as always, Constantine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Siege of Constantinople (717–718)
- Nominator(s): Constantine ✍
One of the most important conflicts in world history. I recently rewrote the article from scratch, using every major source I could locate, including translated and annotated versions of the main primary accounts. The article passed GA without major problems a couple of weeks ago, and over the past few days I made further additions as a couple of sources I didn't have access to became available. I am confident that the article is as comprehensive as it can get, and would like eventually to push it to FA level. I'd greatly appreciate any criticism and help in improving it further and making it accessible to the average reader. Constantine ✍ 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Images:
- File:Greekfire-madridskylitzes1.jpg and File:47-manasses-chronicle.jpg lack a US licence tag (You must also include a United States public domain tag...). The solution is a PD-old-100 tag (although PD-1923 would also suffice). The former also lacks a PD-art tag, exemplified by the latter.
- File:Terbelliou.jpg, the source work for one of your images, is rather dubious. Firstly it needs to distinguish between the underlying work and the photograph, and second there's no mention of where this seal actually comes from and, well, in the absence of evidence to the contrary common sense says there's a good chance the image was taken from somewhere else.
- (Also in a general comment I think paragraph breaks would help the flow of the lead).
- I've fixed the tags on the first two images, and rewritten the lede somewhat. I am going to check on the source for Tervel's seal, and if I don't find anything, I'll remove it. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed Tervel's seal as a possible copyright violation and nominated it for deletion at Commons. Images should be OK now. Constantine ✍ 11:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the tags on the first two images, and rewritten the lede somewhat. I am going to check on the source for Tervel's seal, and if I don't find anything, I'll remove it. Constantine ✍ 15:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Suggestions:
- "The siege is also credited with having halted Muslim advance into Europe" --> "The siege is also credited with having halted Muslim advances into Europe" or --> "The siege is also credited with having halted the Muslim advance into Europe" (emphasis add only to highlight suggested changes);
- in the lead, overlink of "Asia Minor";
- repetition: "The result, however, was a series of Arab victories that resulted" --> "The result, however, was a series of Arab victories that led to";
- in the Background, overlinke of "Justinian II";
- elsewhere, possible overlink of "jihad" and "Galata";
- "Arab sourced claim that altogether 150,000 Muslims perished during the campaign" --> "Arab sources claim..."?
- inconsistent presentation: endash here: "through – the Armeniac and Anatolic themes, whose governors he still believed to be his allies" but emdashes here: "—30,000 out of the original 80,000 that set out for Constantinople—departed for";
- repetition: "Among the Arabs, the 717–718 siege became the most famous among the expeditions against Byzantium" ("among" is the issue here);
- "The Arab failure was chiefly due to logistical reasons, operating too far from their bases in Syria" --> "The Arab failure was chiefly due to logistical reasons, as they were' operating too far from their bases in Syria";
- caption: "The Second Arab siege of Constantinople" --> "The Second Arab Siege of Constantinople" (if the event is a proper noun), or "The second Arab siege of Constantinople" (if the event is not a proper noun);
- in the References, are there places of publication for: El-Cheikh, Haldon, Hasluck, Hawting;
- in the References, the cite book template has an "|edition=" parameter that you could use for the Hawting entry;
- in the References, "New York, New York" --> "New York City, New York". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions, they've been implemented. Sharp eyes you've got! Constantine ✍ 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- "heavy winter": hard winter, as in cold?
- "decimate": Avoid this word, because it has two common but contradictory meanings: to reduce by a tenth, or to obliterate. Per M-W: "to cause great destruction or harm to <firebombs decimated the city> <an industry decimated by recession>" - Dank (push to talk) 11:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In early 716, they continued their advance into central Asia Minor, the Umayyad fleet under Umar ibn Hubaira set sail and cruised along the Cilician coast, while Maslamah ibn Abd al-Malik awaited developments with the main army in Syria.": How are the 3 clauses connected? - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm making a lot of wording tweaks; please check these.
- "a certain Sufyan": I went with "a general named Sufyan"; if you don't know if he was a general, "commander" would work. Search for "a certain" and replace by "a commander named", "an Egyptian named", "a man named", or whatever you happen to know.
- Done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Dank, thanks for the edits! I've checked them, and they were mostly OK. I also implemented your suggestions. Once again, thanks for your work! Constantine ✍ 06:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) Two tweaks to your edits, one per WP:SLASH. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support:
- Looks good. One (very) minor point below.
- The image captions have full-stops; I think the MOS would have them without, unless they're complete sentences. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right, I've removed them. Constantine ✍ 14:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Not promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories
Nominator(s): Georgejdorner: (talk)
I am nominating this list for A-Class review on behalf of George, who requests that it be assessed against the AL criteria (per these requests [1] and [2]). Note to co-ordinators: the credit for this list is all George's, I am only nominating it on his behalf as he was having trouble getting the html mark up to work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Rupert for his assistance. I have never before placed a list for A Class Review.
List is complete. References are both reliable and complete. Please read the Talk page concerning form of the citations.
Georgejdorner (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some of the first occurences such as Luftstreitkräfte are not wiki-linked depending on how you sort the list by clicking in the column header. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This looks pretty good, though I've got some comments and suggestion:
- The "victories" column appears unnecessary given that the only criterion for inclusion in the list is that the person was credited with exactly 10 victories
- Indeed, I have toyed with the idea of eliminating this column. It would speed up loading time.
- The text at the start of the article appears to be boiler plate material - I'd suggest adding a short introductory para which introduces this article, and another para (or two) which discusses how rare it was for pilots to achieve this many kills.
- The lead is on a template shared by all the World War I victory lists. After some years of editing and debate, Aerial victory standards of World War I was spun off into a separate article just to satisfy curiosity about how victories were accredited.
- That might be the case, but this article needs to stand on its own feet. The lack of introductory text is off putting. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a list, not an article.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The template is already part of a Featured List. However, I have added two major articles at the top of the page so readers can satisfy their curiosity about victory standards, or about WWI aviation in general. Also added a bit of text addressing your point.
- Sorry, but that doesn't address my comment at all: I think that the article needs an introductory paragraph explaining its scope (eg, "This is a list of all World War I aces who were credited credited with exactly ten victories..." and so on). Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That will look a bit odd on the other 8 lists where aces won some other number of victories. A note as you wish will appear on all lists because it is on a template.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that doesn't address my comment at all: I think that the article needs an introductory paragraph explaining its scope (eg, "This is a list of all World War I aces who were credited credited with exactly ten victories..." and so on). Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That might be the case, but this article needs to stand on its own feet. The lack of introductory text is off putting. Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is on a template shared by all the World War I victory lists. After some years of editing and debate, Aerial victory standards of World War I was spun off into a separate article just to satisfy curiosity about how victories were accredited.
- The number of Canadians seems surprisingly high, and the number of French pilots is rather low. Do any sources discuss why this might have been the case? (eg, did the French take their highest-performing pilots off combat duties, keep bad records or have awful aircraft?).
- The only explanation I have ever seen is an observation (usually by a boastful Canadian) that Canadians were grossly over-represented in aerial service, and consequently in the ace lists. On the other hand, the French used the strictest confirmation standards of any Allied air force while fighting under the same handicaps in confirmation that plagued the British, etc. But so what? This is a list, not an analytical article.
- Any statistical analysis of the data in this article would be useful (if only something like "40 percent of the aces who were credited with 10 kills during the war were British, etc").
- Given that the RAAF wasn't formed until after WW1, Adrian Cole shouldn't be listed as having been a member of it here (though it is technically correct, of course, as he did serve with the RAAF after the war)
- Are all these pilots really universally credited with exactly ten kills? It seems surprising that the number of kills aren't disputed for any of them. Did any have 'half' shares of kills as part of their total.
- Almost every ace's victory score is disputable. There were no fractionated victory awards during World War I; the rule was either a victory or none. Both of these points should have been clear to you if you had read Aerial victory standards of World War I.
- If the figures for the various aces are of differing reliability, this should be noted in the article as it's obviously highly relevant. I haven't read that other article, and readers of this list shouldn't have to do so to learn that information (which could be easily summarised here in a paragraph). Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Community consensus is that the discussion of overclaiming of aerial victories should be covered at Confirmation and overclaiming of aerial victories during World War II. I am very much at odds with this, but defer to consensus.
- Added short para concerning accuracy of list.
- I might well be missing something, but I can't see that change. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The scores presented in the list cannot be definitive, but are based on itemized lists that are the best available sources of information. Loss of records by mischance and the passage of time complicates reconstructing the actual count for given aces."Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I might well be missing something, but I can't see that change. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the figures for the various aces are of differing reliability, this should be noted in the article as it's obviously highly relevant. I haven't read that other article, and readers of this list shouldn't have to do so to learn that information (which could be easily summarised here in a paragraph). Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost every ace's victory score is disputable. There were no fractionated victory awards during World War I; the rule was either a victory or none. Both of these points should have been clear to you if you had read Aerial victory standards of World War I.
- I'd suggest including translations of the foreign-language air corps names somewhere in the article.
- Should the pilots for whom we currently don't have articles be red linked? (eg, are they assumed to be notable?)Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All notable aces on this list have at least a stub. Unlinked names are of those aces who won no honors for their feats.
Georgejdorner (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I'm moving to oppose due to the referencing issue discussed below, and my concerns with the article's lack of an introduction and material which clearly explains the limitations of the data being presented here. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsOppose - until the reference situation is straightened out.- George's suggestion to include translations for the foreign-language unit names is a good one; it might be easiest to work that into the lead so it doesn't mess with the table sorting.
- Suggestion is not mine, but Nick-D's.
- I agree that the kill count column is redundant and should probably go, though I understand if you want to keep it so it remains in identical format to the other lists in the series.
- You don't need both 10 and 13 digit ISBNs
- Last I heard, the ISBN system was still in transition for 10 to 13 digit ISBNs. I include both to expedite retrieval of the books.
- ISBN-13 was created in 2007 and superseded ISBN-10, and sites like Worldcat handle both. There's no need to include the old 10-digit system.
- I was not aware that the supersession was complete. The last I heard, the change-over from one to another was still in progress.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ISBN-13 was created in 2007 and superseded ISBN-10, and sites like Worldcat handle both. There's no need to include the old 10-digit system.
- Last I heard, the ISBN system was still in transition for 10 to 13 digit ISBNs. I include both to expedite retrieval of the books.
- Since you also have the full bibliographical entries below, does it make sense to use the full title in the footnotes?
- What style are you using for the references? As far as I know (and my experience is limited to Chicago, APA, and MLA), the author's name should always come first.
- References also need publisher locations.
- If you had read the Talk page notes as recommended, you would have read the rationale for the form of the citations. The same half dozen people write most of the serious research while in various groupings, and give the resulting books similar titles. A quick browse through the bibliography will show you that. A quick glance at the cites at an unrevised List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories will show you the mind-numbing baffling result. Therefore, in the spirit of BE BOLD, I came up with a more intelligible form of citation (in this context) that multi-refs a couple of hundred cites to just ten. If I seem to over-reach with a complete book title included in the cites, it is a quest for clarity.
- If the problem is that the same authors wrote several books used in the article, see here for a good way to handle it (specifically the books written by Scheina). As for the ref titles, you can use {{sfn}}, which links each footnote to the corresponding reference entry to avoid confusion. See its implementation here, for instance. In this case, the best way to differentiate the citations from the same author is to use the "Last name, Short Title, page number" format (see here for an example). You can also use the year of publication instead of the short title, since as far as I can tell, none of the books written by the authors in question overlap. The footnotes should also at least have the page ranges. I'm afraid I can't support an article that does not adhere to any kind of style guide for citations and references. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting referral you left me, but cases are not comparable. Whether you realize it or not, your argument is this article must revert to single ref cites. This means approximately 80 cites at the bottom for this, the shortest of the victory lists. A quick glance at the cites at an unrevised List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories will show you the mind-numbing baffling result of single cites done to your preference. The List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories will require about 400 single ref cites. I don't quite understand why you prefer confusion to clarity.
- If page range is acceptable instead of specific individual pages cited ace by ace, the present multi-refs can be reconfigured.
- Did you happen to count the number of footnotes in any of those articles? There are 161 in the South American article, 81 in Von der Tann, and 59 in Prinzregent Luitpold. How are those not comparable situations? But no, individual page citations is not a requirement of my argument (though it is the preferred solution). And even if it were, 80 citations is not an unreasonable number. See Albert Speer, which has 170 footnotes, or Nikita Khruschev, which has 270; both are FAs. As in these articles, the citations can be arranged in several columns to avoid excessive length and whitespace. In any case, using the SFN template conveniently highlights the citation when you click on the number in the text, and when you click the linked name, it highlights the corresponding ref in the reference section. I don't know how much more clear you can get. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the citations are repetitions of
- Franks, et al, 1993
- Franks, et al, 1990
- Franks, et al, 1997
- Franks, Bailey, 1992
- Franks 2005
- with the entries repeated numerous times with differing page numbers, how clear is that? And would you consider 400 cites to be reasonable for a list? Especially when they can be reduced to about a dozen?
- However, what I find most frustrating is that you apparently ignore every bit of information I have supplied to illustrate the present situation. Instead of familiarizing yourself with the unusual circumstances I am presenting, you are apparently dug into a defense of using the present citation system for any and all circumstances, no matter what. In so doing, you are acting out of incomplete understanding.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you use the {{sfn}} template, that isn't a problem. It links the citation directly to the correct source and is abundantly clear. Look at the numerous examples I have given you to see how it works. For the purposes of verifying material, citations should be as specific as possible. When the reference is a book, this means page numbers, at least at A-class and higher. If that means 400 citations (though I imagine that's an overstatement, since surely each person doesn't have a whole page to themselves), that is not at all unreasonable. As I pointed out above, there are numerous FAs with more than a couple hundred citations; it's not as unusual as you think. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, almost every listing does indeed have its own page number, as the info was garnered from the same few encyclopedias of bios on WWI aces (which were written by varying lineups of the same few authors). If you had looked at the incomplete list of 260 cites at List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories, you would have found only 16 possible multi-refs. It appears that a standard cite method will result in about 350 cites total for a list of 406 aces. I can reduce that to about 12-15 cites. List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories was twice its present size before I edited it, with most of the extra bytes consumed by citations. The smaller list will load much more easily into browsers.
- Page size is not a problem - this list is only 12kb, which is quite small. Even the list of 5 aces is around 100kb, which can be reduced significantly if short cites were adopted. Regardless, there are numerous FAs and FLs significantly larger than that. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Using my method of citation, the list of five victory aces can be halved. Add the one-third of the cites presently missing, and the size will probably balloon despite removal of Notes column.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is only 12kb - even if it doubles, it's still quite small. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Back when all WWI victories were contained in the same list, previous administrators told me the list should be broken down due to browser loading problems. Even now, the largest of the resulting lists is at over 100,000 bytes and counting, using the prescribed methods of citation.
- WP:SIZE recommends a maximum size of 50kb.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is only 12kb - even if it doubles, it's still quite small. Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Using my method of citation, the list of five victory aces can be halved. Add the one-third of the cites presently missing, and the size will probably balloon despite removal of Notes column.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Page size is not a problem - this list is only 12kb, which is quite small. Even the list of 5 aces is around 100kb, which can be reduced significantly if short cites were adopted. Regardless, there are numerous FAs and FLs significantly larger than that. Parsecboy (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, almost every listing does indeed have its own page number, as the info was garnered from the same few encyclopedias of bios on WWI aces (which were written by varying lineups of the same few authors). If you had looked at the incomplete list of 260 cites at List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories, you would have found only 16 possible multi-refs. It appears that a standard cite method will result in about 350 cites total for a list of 406 aces. I can reduce that to about 12-15 cites. List of World War I aces credited with 10 victories was twice its present size before I edited it, with most of the extra bytes consumed by citations. The smaller list will load much more easily into browsers.
- If you use the {{sfn}} template, that isn't a problem. It links the citation directly to the correct source and is abundantly clear. Look at the numerous examples I have given you to see how it works. For the purposes of verifying material, citations should be as specific as possible. When the reference is a book, this means page numbers, at least at A-class and higher. If that means 400 citations (though I imagine that's an overstatement, since surely each person doesn't have a whole page to themselves), that is not at all unreasonable. As I pointed out above, there are numerous FAs with more than a couple hundred citations; it's not as unusual as you think. Parsecboy (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you happen to count the number of footnotes in any of those articles? There are 161 in the South American article, 81 in Von der Tann, and 59 in Prinzregent Luitpold. How are those not comparable situations? But no, individual page citations is not a requirement of my argument (though it is the preferred solution). And even if it were, 80 citations is not an unreasonable number. See Albert Speer, which has 170 footnotes, or Nikita Khruschev, which has 270; both are FAs. As in these articles, the citations can be arranged in several columns to avoid excessive length and whitespace. In any case, using the SFN template conveniently highlights the citation when you click on the number in the text, and when you click the linked name, it highlights the corresponding ref in the reference section. I don't know how much more clear you can get. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the problem is that the same authors wrote several books used in the article, see here for a good way to handle it (specifically the books written by Scheina). As for the ref titles, you can use {{sfn}}, which links each footnote to the corresponding reference entry to avoid confusion. See its implementation here, for instance. In this case, the best way to differentiate the citations from the same author is to use the "Last name, Short Title, page number" format (see here for an example). You can also use the year of publication instead of the short title, since as far as I can tell, none of the books written by the authors in question overlap. The footnotes should also at least have the page ranges. I'm afraid I can't support an article that does not adhere to any kind of style guide for citations and references. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The bibliography at the bottom is on a template shared by a number of lists.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you had read the Talk page notes as recommended, you would have read the rationale for the form of the citations. The same half dozen people write most of the serious research while in various groupings, and give the resulting books similar titles. A quick browse through the bibliography will show you that. A quick glance at the cites at an unrevised List of World War I aces credited with 15–19 victories will show you the mind-numbing baffling result. Therefore, in the spirit of BE BOLD, I came up with a more intelligible form of citation (in this context) that multi-refs a couple of hundred cites to just ten. If I seem to over-reach with a complete book title included in the cites, it is a quest for clarity.
- George's suggestion to include translations for the foreign-language unit names is a good one; it might be easiest to work that into the lead so it doesn't mess with the table sorting.
- That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Parsecboy's comment that a specific reference for each person on the list, including the relevant page number, is needed; this is a standard aspect of A class lists. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can see the consensus shaping up to "Be timid".
- I have come up with a unique solution to an unusual situation. My multirefs will lead the reader to the source as surely and easily as one giving page numbers; any reader can use alphabetical order to find an entry. However, the consensus seems to be that there are no such situations as the one I outlined above, that a creative approach to problems is to be reflexively denied without understanding the situation, that all lists are actually comparable to articles, and that all entries must be standard cut-and-dried products to be top quality. Sadly unoriginal and misguided, but unbeatable. Oh, well, time to go do something useful rather than fiddle about with assessment.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me ask you a question: do you think an academic publisher would accept footnotes that basically say "it's somewhere in this 200-page book, you know how to use an index"? Why do you think Wikipedia should have lower standards? Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- University essays that don't provide page numbers are also likely to be penalized. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, my cites refer the reader to an alphabetic listing in the text of an aviation history encyclopedia, not to an index. This is as easy and sure a method to find source info as page numbers. And, as I keep noting, it grossly reduces the number of cites at article's end.
- And this is not a university paper; it's Wikipedia. Georgejdorner (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is only my interpretation, but as per WP:NOTPAPER we don't need to feel too constrained by size issues to begin with, and as pointed out by Parsecboy at 12kb the article is no where near any level that the size would start to be considered a problem; if we accept that size isn't a pressing issue, and nor is the number of cites on the article, why use a fairly uncommon citation system that people are going to be less familiar with, and potentially be presented with a harder, more time-consuming exercise at making use of? For instance, if I was to call one of these books up as an E-book, most of the time I can just type in two or three keystrokes to enter the page number and it would automatically fly straight down to the relevant section - This method takes an indisputably longer time in this scenario, especially when you consider that a pilot's name may have been mentioned under another pilot's bibliography, and thus the search term would drag through those results on the way down to the real main page; entering the page name is cleaner and easier to use, and simply in more common use, I don't see why not to use it. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Back when all WWI victories were contained in the same list, previous administrators told me the list should be broken down due to browser loading problems. Even now, the largest of the resulting lists is at over 100,000 bytes and counting, using the prescribed methods of citation. By using my method of citation, that could be cut in half.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is only my interpretation, but as per WP:NOTPAPER we don't need to feel too constrained by size issues to begin with, and as pointed out by Parsecboy at 12kb the article is no where near any level that the size would start to be considered a problem; if we accept that size isn't a pressing issue, and nor is the number of cites on the article, why use a fairly uncommon citation system that people are going to be less familiar with, and potentially be presented with a harder, more time-consuming exercise at making use of? For instance, if I was to call one of these books up as an E-book, most of the time I can just type in two or three keystrokes to enter the page number and it would automatically fly straight down to the relevant section - This method takes an indisputably longer time in this scenario, especially when you consider that a pilot's name may have been mentioned under another pilot's bibliography, and thus the search term would drag through those results on the way down to the real main page; entering the page name is cleaner and easier to use, and simply in more common use, I don't see why not to use it. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- University essays that don't provide page numbers are also likely to be penalized. Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me ask you a question: do you think an academic publisher would accept footnotes that basically say "it's somewhere in this 200-page book, you know how to use an index"? Why do you think Wikipedia should have lower standards? Parsecboy (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Parsecboy's comment that a specific reference for each person on the list, including the relevant page number, is needed; this is a standard aspect of A class lists. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments/suggestions: G'day George, I'm inclined to agree with Nick and Parsecboy regarding the page numbers as they both have considerable experience at the A-class and Featured levels, and - cards on the table - my personal preference would be to supply page numbers. On the other hand you raise an interesting point about limiting the number of individual citations. I can see some benefit in this (although as I said, it wouldn't be my personal preference). I suppose it probably comes down to how easy it would be for the reader to locate the information using your system. If it would be relatively easy, then it is probably okay. Having said that, I wouldn't mind seeing what some of the Featured list regulars think about the citation issue (it might pay to ask a couple of their regulars to join in here). If they are happy with it, then it could probably be okay; if not, though, I don't think we should be adopting something at A-class that isn't accepted at FL/FAC as that is just setting articles/lists up for failure at a later date. Anyway, it was not my intention to re-open the citation debate. Apologies. Here is my review:
- within the References # 2 and 4 appear to be the same, so they should be consolidated like the others;
- Multi-reffed.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- within the References # 2 and 4 should be formated consistently (e.g. italics for the title as per the other References);
- Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- inconsistent presentation: "Page 10" v "p.7"; "page 74" v "p. 70". this should be consistent;
- Corrected.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a broken ISBN link for "Sopwith Pup Aces of World War 1", which should be rectified;
- The ISBN works in both Google Advanced Book Search and Amazon Book Search. I am baffled as to why it does not work in WP.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the styles in the Bibliography and Further reading section are inconsistent;
- Remedied. ISBN not available for Fighter Aces.
- in relation to the introduction, I would suggest removing the templates. These make it quite difficult for users to add related content without changing all the articles that use the template. I understand that you wish to maintain some consistency across these articles, but I think that could be counterproductive as it means that the introduction doesn't really focus on this list at all. (I am echoing Nick's comments here). For instance, I suggest adding some sort of summary of this list, for example "During World War I there were XYZ number of aces credited with 10 aerial victories. Of these, X came from blah, while there were Y and Z from blah..."
- The templates are a consensus move by prior editors. Also, the suggestion that I rewrite nine introductions to nine lists as a long shot to possibly get one list approved...not an appealing prospect. Especially when all the dropin editors start wrangling.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- regarding further development, or how to handle the introduction, you might get some ideas by looking at related Featured Lists. For example, this might be relevant: List of German World War II jet aces, or some of these: Category:FL-Class military history articles. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This introduction is linked to Aerial victory standards of World War I which is the sole source for aerial victory standards in ANY war. The FL you mention, List of German World War II jet aces, gives the reader no idea of how the Germans determined aerial victories in World War II. Somehow, this ignorance is the acceptable course.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- additional point: the licences on the image (File:Arthur Roy Brown from imperial war museum.jpg), might need tweaking. Is it possible to provide a link to the file in the IWM collection? I did a quick search on the IWM collection, but couldn't find the image. Also, wouldn't it need a UK licence, rather than a Canadian licence if it was taken while Brown was serving in a UK force? Sorry, I'm not really sure about these points. It might pay to ask User:Grandiose, as they might have a better understanding of this issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I imported the picture of Brown from his linked bio. If the original editor there got it wrong, then I got it wrong, and will have to find a replacement. I should hate to do that, as I think Brown is the pick of this particular list.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- George, to clarify, I'm not saying that you need to replace the image, but that its licencing might just need to be tweaked. For instance, if an Imperial War Museum catalogue number could be found for it, I'm confident that it would be okay. It could then be established if it needs a UK or a Canadian licence. I would do it myself, but I've spent the past couple of hours trying to find the image on the IWM's catalogue and I can't find it. Is any one else able to help in this regard? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found this website which also states that the image comes from the IWM. As such, I've added that link to the source location. Its not a one hundred percent solution, but its probably the best I can do. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- George, to clarify, I'm not saying that you need to replace the image, but that its licencing might just need to be tweaked. For instance, if an Imperial War Museum catalogue number could be found for it, I'm confident that it would be okay. It could then be established if it needs a UK or a Canadian licence. I would do it myself, but I've spent the past couple of hours trying to find the image on the IWM's catalogue and I can't find it. Is any one else able to help in this regard? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I imported the picture of Brown from his linked bio. If the original editor there got it wrong, then I got it wrong, and will have to find a replacement. I should hate to do that, as I think Brown is the pick of this particular list.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- within the References # 2 and 4 appear to be the same, so they should be consolidated like the others;
Oppose on the page number issue alone. This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your judgment, George, only that you have a misunderstanding of our A-class process. Among other goals, we're trying to introduce editors here to the understandings, compromises and standards that have been worked out at FAC and elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 12:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just may know more about the assessment process than you assume, Dank. I do note that the assessment process ignores one of the main attributes of hypertext. There is no attempt to evaluate the value of the links in nominated articles. The assessors' concept seems to be that slapping electronic pages into hyperspace suffices, and linkage be damned. There is nothing above that shows me that any assessor bothered to follow links from this list; indeed, there is a suggestion that I should duplicate Aerial victory standards of World War I to spare the reader from clicking a link.
- In the past, I have pointed out contradictions in the assessment process and been assured that if I changed my writing style, that the contradictions would magically disappear from the assessment process. With that level of "reasoning", is it any wonder I quit submitting articles for assessment?
- I admit the need for rigor in assessment and high standards. Unfortunately, it seems to have been replaced by rigidity instead. The quality of the coding in a list or article seems more important than the quality of the information. Form trumps function in the assessment process.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SMS Prinzregent Luitpold
Yet another German dreadnought (I know, but there are only two left after this); this one managed to emerge from Jutland completely undamaged. This article passed a GA review back in January 2011, and has been sitting in the queue for ACR since then. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets and exceeds Milhist's quality standards, in preparation for an eventual run at FAC. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments based on HRS volume 7. Feel free to add the info MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Christened by Princess Theresa of Bavaria; p. 54
- Speech by Ludwig III of Bavaria; p. 54.
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (If no edits are showing, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Prinzregent Luitpold was assigned to the III Battle Squadron and later the IV Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet for the majority of her career, including World War I." - Would something like "Prinzregent Luitpold was initially assigned to the III Battle Squadron of the High Seas Fleet, but later transferred to the IV Battle Squadron, where she spent the majority of her career, including World War I." work?- I like your "initially" suggestion; for the rest, your version is fine, but generally, Wikipedians seem to be happy with the way Nate puts it here ... and if it's okay, then it's tighter than your version. YMMV. - Dank (push to talk)
- Leave it up to Parsecboy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your "initially" suggestion; for the rest, your version is fine, but generally, Wikipedians seem to be happy with the way Nate puts it here ... and if it's okay, then it's tighter than your version. YMMV. - Dank (push to talk)
- Be careful with overlinking/duplicate linking. I'm still on the lede and I've removed three
In early September 1917, following the German conquest of the Russian port of Riga, the German navy decided to eliminate the Russian naval forces that still held the Gulf of Riga. - Any way to avoid Riga ... Riga?- I don't follow ... one's a city, one's a gulf. How do we avoid mentioning one or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, yeah. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow ... one's a city, one's a gulf. How do we avoid mentioning one or the other? - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The accident caused no serious damage, however. " - Reads awkward, any way to fit it in with the preceding sentence?
- Not many prose issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images:
- File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-53, Großlinienschiff "SMS Prinzregent Luitpold".jpg should be cropped to remove the archive data.
File:SMS Prinzregent Luitpold.png - Needs author and date- File:Jutland1916.jpg - Source is dead. Have another?
- File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-074-34, Besetzung der Insel Ösel, Truppenanlandung.jpg - Fine (no action required)
- File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg - Fine (no action required)
- Once again, nothing all too bad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be fixed. That Jutland map has been a pain - this isn't the first time the link went dead. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will check tomorrow. I'd suggest webcitation.org — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know if this is an issue with the server, but I'm getting a 404 error with the new version of File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-53, Großlinienschiff "SMS Prinzregent Luitpold".jpg. File:Jutland1916.jpg should link to the web page and not directly to the file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a server issue - I re-uploaded the image, see if that works for you. Why should the direct link not be used? Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That fixed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind the second one. I seem to recall seeing that we're supposed to link to the page it's on and not the file, but I can't find that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That fixed it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a server issue - I re-uploaded the image, see if that works for you. Why should the direct link not be used? Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know if this is an issue with the server, but I'm getting a 404 error with the new version of File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-53, Großlinienschiff "SMS Prinzregent Luitpold".jpg. File:Jutland1916.jpg should link to the web page and not directly to the file. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Will check tomorrow. I'd suggest webcitation.org — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be fixed. That Jutland map has been a pain - this isn't the first time the link went dead. Parsecboy (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks up to A-class standards to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: looks quite good overall. These are my suggestions/comments:
- "After arriving in Kiel, Prinzregent Luitpold went into drydock for periodic" --> "After arriving in Kiel, Prinzregent Luitpold went into a drydock for periodic..."?
- the duplicate link tool reports a few examples of potential overlink: I Scouting Group, Roadstead, Pre-dreadnought;
- would it be possible to work in mention of the size of the ship's crew into the body of the article? Currently it seems to only be mentioned in the infobox. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "drydock" in this case functions as an abstract noun, instead of referring to a specific drydock at a specific shipyard, so the indefinite article isn't needed here. I've cleaned up the links and added a line on the crew to the design section. Thanks, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Thanks for making those other changes. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "drydock" in this case functions as an abstract noun, instead of referring to a specific drydock at a specific shipyard, so the indefinite article isn't needed here. I've cleaned up the links and added a line on the crew to the design section. Thanks, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oerip Soemohardjo
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk)
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it is a good look at a fairly important, yet surprisingly undercovered, figure in Indonesian military history. After a long and successful career working for the Dutch, Oerip led the Indonesian Armed Forces as interim-commander for not even a month, before being replaced by Sudirman, who hadn't been born yet when Oerip graduated from the academy. Oerip continued on as chief of staff until he grew fed up with what he perceived as the government's lack of trust in the military leadership. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- Done.
- Given that Indonesia does not have freedom of panorama, pictures showing 3D works (including buildings) need to account for copyright of both photo and work
- I'm a little confused on this one, because the copyright at the time of the construction of Oerip's house would have been Dutch (Dutch East Indies, after all) and thus {{FoP-Nederland}} would apply; however, it's situated in Indonesia, which may affect the tag (not the status, though). For the museum/former military base, I think I should tag as PD-ID and note that I have been unable to find out who the architect was. Worst-case scenario, I follow the Hirtle chart and just upload it to Wikipedia (as both buildings were built well before 1990, images of them would be PD in the US). What do you think is the best course of action? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused over this. There doesn't seem to be a PD-Indonesia-unknown template or anything of the like for a work by an unknown author, and {{PD-IDOld-Art29}} can't be used without a lifespan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you upload it to Wikipedia, you'll need to account for the building copyright somehow. According to this, works by unknown authors are copyrighted by the state, which means you could use the government template. I don't know how the colony vs country issue affects copyright, though - the copyright act says state claims copyright on historical/cultural works, do you think these would count? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would expect those to be defined a bit more strictly.
So would that be {{PD-IDGov}}? I could use that with an explanatory note.— Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, I got it. It's {{PD-IDOld-Art29}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would expect those to be defined a bit more strictly.
- File:Oerip_Soemohardjo_5_November_1947_KR.JPG: what is IPPHOS? Also, the US tag says it was PD before URAA, but the Indonesian tag suggests otherwise - do you know why? That question also applies to File:Sudirman.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As outlined at Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights, at the time of the URAA Indonesia's copyright law was 25 years post publication for photographs; as such, these images were PD at the time. The law was changed in 2002, after the URAA, and copyright on images extended to 50 years post publication. Should I edit the template directly? IPPHOS is the Indonesia Press Photo Service, which really should have an article but doesn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think mentioning that either on the template itself or the documentation would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added information to the PD-URAA templates and have requested either a special template or addendum to PD-IDOld-Art29 here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems creating a special purpose template would be met with resistance. I think the addendum I've affixed at the end of the PD-1996 tag clarifies it enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- K, I think I've given proper explanation. Please feel free to give further feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. - Dank (push to talk)
- Most of the lead is nicely done, but I do have a few comments.
- "This is an Indonesian name; it does not have a family name. The name Soemohardjo is a patronymic, and the person should be referred by the given name, Oerip. ... General Oerip Soemohardjo ([uˈrɪp sumoˈhardʒo]; Perfected Spelling: Urip Sumoharjo, also known by the intermediate spelling Urip Sumohardjo, born Mohammad Sidik; 22 February 1893 – 17 November 1948) ...": We haven't gotten past the subject of the first sentence yet, and already some readers will have given up. How about this? "General Oerip Soemohardjo or Urip Sumoharjo (born 22 February 1893 – 17 November 1948) ...". Then the second paragraph can start "Born Mohammad Sidik on ...", or if that name didn't get significant use, you can put that off to the first section.
- I think it should be noted why Oerip is sometimes written Urip, although I agree the Soewandi Spelling (no article yet) isn't really needed. An annoying thing about Indonesian is that there are three main spelling systems, and older subjects can be known under all three
- "known as the first Chief of Staff": Some will read this to mean that he wasn't the first Chief of Staff, he was just assumed to be that. "the first Chief of Staff"
- Done.
- "In his second year, his mother died and Oerip left ...": His mother died during his second year, and Oerip left
- Done
- "newly-formed": newly formed, per WP:HYPHEN
- Done
- "Oerip remained as chief of staff. Together the two oversaw ...": Oerip remained as chief of staff, and together the two oversaw
- Done
- "disgusted by the political leadership's lack of trust in the army and ongoing political manoeuvrings ...": insert "by" before "ongoing"
- Done
- "death ... He has received ...": I see your point, but I'd go with "He received". The award-giving isn't really an ongoing process, is it? - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. He could, theoretically, get more awards, but I don't see much of a chance of that.
- Thanks for taking a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk)
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Oerip_Soemohardjo#KNIL. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing.
- "convinced his commander to strike an ordinance forbidding non-Dutch officers from joining the football team, as well as the local railroads to allow desegregated cars; by 1917 he had received equal status with Dutch officers.": How can a commander of a military unit strike strike a civil ordinance, or tell the local railroads what to do? What does "equal status" mean?
- I've stricken the bit about the railroad as, double-checking the sources, it appears to have been more of a trolley. A note on the second point: I've added "legal" to make this clearer, but perhaps a footnote would be in order. The Dutch East Indies had three classifications for its residents: natives, foreign orientals, and Europeans (including the Japanese, after a treaty). Natives could have their legal status equalised with Europeans after working closely with the government (a fairly important piece of character development in Salah Asuhan is based on this); this was mostly de jure, as natives would still face discrimination.
- "First Lieutenant": lowercase
- Done
- "he also worked to prevent conflicts between different Dayak tribes, as well as convince the tribes to abandon headhunting.": he also worked to prevent conflicts and headhunting among Dayak tribes
- Done
- "After two years, in which time his father pressured him to marry quickly,": I don't think this adds a lot.
- Nixed that, added "Initially known to avoid women and under pressure to marry quickly to the next sentence.
- "While training local recruits in stead of the Dutch commander – who had yet to arrive – Oerip was promoted to captain.": While training local recruits in place of the Dutch commander who had yet to arrive, Oerip was promoted to captain. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "promoted to Major": lowercase
- "he was stationed in Purworejo,": period/full stop
- "In mid 1938, after a disagreement with the local regent": comma after. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all, thanks for looking at this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "To protect their land, they surrounded both their property and their home with a high bamboo fence; however, Oerip occasionally received former KNIL leaders such as Abdul Haris Nasution and Sunarmo, who brought news of happenings outside the village.": The "however" doesn't work because these two elements aren't in opposition (unless he rarely received visitors other than the ones listed, in which case, say that).
- Done.
- "The couple continued work, under heavy Japanese surveillance and with interference from a pro-Japanese civil employee": I don't understand what "interference" means here.
- From the source: he convinced most of their employees to quit and took an interest in Nasution and Sunarmo coming to the villa (kept his eye on them, essentially). I didn't think it was worth an in-line mention. Worth a footnote?
- "a mainly police organisation": mainly a police organisation
- Done.
- "The political leadership, consisting of President Sukarno and Vice-President Mohammad Hatta, agreed to a compromise, where the BKR was formally a police-style organisation, but most of its members had been in the Defenders of the Homeland (Pembela Tanah Air, or PETA) and the Heihō – both military units.": What's the compromise?
- It had military members (appease one group) but a police mission statement (the other group). How's this?
- "Oerip was declared its Chief of Staff and interim leader; Oerip left immediately for Jakarta.": Oerip was declared its Chief of Staff and interim leader, and left immediately for Jakarta. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great; check my edits please. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They look fine, except for a small tense issue which I've fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much, my edit was a typo. - Dank (push to talk) 11:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They look fine, except for a small tense issue which I've fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great; check my edits please. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is an Indonesian name; it does not have a family name. The name Soemohardjo is a patronymic, and the person should be referred by the given name, Oerip.": Would it be possible to move this to a note, and replace this at the top with something shorter, just enough to keep editors from making the mistake of calling him "Soemohardjo"? Something like: "This man is referred to by his Indonesian given name, Oerip.[a]"
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This article is in very good shape, and I have only some limited comments:
- "to do military training" - 'to undertake military training' would probably work better
- Agree
- "Upon the recommendation of a passing doctor" - who did the doctor recommend this to? (eg, was it Oerip or the Army?)
- Changed to "went". Source says the doctor went with him as far as Terakan, so it may have been a recommendation made to Oerip.
- What does 'Maréchaussée te Voet' translate to in English?
- Added
- Do we know why Oerip traveled to Europe in the 1920s and 30s? (was this for sightseeing, or professional education?)
- Sightseeing (she goes on about it for several pages...)
- Did the early Indonesian Army really include "paratrooper divisions"? 'paratrooper units' seems more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both; the paratrooper thing was a brain fart on my part. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support My comments have now been addressed - I learned a lot about this man, as well as the Colonial Dutch and revolutionary Indonesian Armies from it. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Be sure to check out his boss too (A-class sooner or later too) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: looks quite good. I only have a few minor points:
- the duplicate link checker tool suggests that the word "Sumatra" is overlinked;
- Removed.
- "While stationed there Oerip was promoted to first lieutenant but still faced discrimination as a native..." (not sure about the word "still" here. This implies that it has been mentioned before. I might have missed it, but I didn't see that in the text). If you were to add something to the sentence where you mention that he was the only native, then the "still" later on would work;
- Nixed "still". There were other natives, but not many were officers.
- "After the Japanese occupied the Indies in early 1942, Oerip was put in a mixed prisoner of war camp in Cimahi" --> was he involved in any fighting against the Japanese before being sent to the camp?
- Not in sources. Based on what I've read, resistance in Java was pretty poor.
- this could possibly be a little tighter: "Division commanders from Sumatra, who had voted unanimously for Sudirman, swayed the vote in Sudirman's favour..." --> "Division commanders from Sumatra, who had voted unanimously, swayed the vote in Sudirman's favour..."
- Fair enough
- inconsistent capitalisation: "...in charge of the entire Army" v. "uniting the army";
- Fixed several occasions.
- "Oerip received numerous awards from the national government posthumously, including the Bintang Sakti (1959), Bintang Mahaputra (1960),[2] Bintang Republik Indonesia Adipurna (1967),[81] and Bintang Kartika Eka Pakci Utama (1968)". Are these very important awards? If possible, I suggest adding a link to an appropriate article to provide the reader with some context. If there is none available, I wonder if a Note could be added briefly explaining whether these awards are high awards or not;
- Currently linked to Orders, decorations, and medals of Indonesia, which is a terrible article. I'll see what I can dig up for a footnote.
- Added. Think it should be split? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think so, but either way would be fine. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in Note e: "The regent was refused entry to an gala celebrating the..." (I don't think "an" works here. Probably best to change it to "a gala". My understanding is that an is used when it comes before a vowel sound). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops.
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, happy to help in any small way. As always your work is of good quality and interesting to read. Thanks for your contribution to the project. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HMS Furious (47)
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)
I've tweaked this article in light of the successful FACs of the two class articles and believe that it now meets the criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images: the licensing for File:HMS Furious-15.jpg is odd; I would say the file is merely in the public domain due to it being a US federal work. Other than that, all fine. (I assume, Sturm, that "HMS Furious/Aircraft Carrier 1917–1948: Part II: 1925–1948" identifies File:Furious1941.jpg as a work of the British government?) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at HMS Furious (47)#Norwegian Campaign.
We made edits to or around "untenable" and "charthouse" in a recent FAC, but I don't remember what the fixes were; please fix that before this one goes to FAC.- Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I just ran across those edits; now fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Continuing.
- "816 Squadron, following 40 minutes behind, was": Per WP:ORDINAL, don't begin a sentence with a numeral. There are a couple of easy fixes here.
- "north east": north-east (in BrEng, on Wikipedia)
- "a single Heinkel He 111 of II./KG 26": Many readers won't recognize that as a unit; give the readers who don't click at least a clue.
- "limited to only 20 knots": limited to 20 knots. The "only" would work if the number were really surprising or dramatic; it isn't, here.
- "all crewmen being killed": killing all crewmen
- "She returned to Scapa Flow once all the Gladiators had been flown off. The ship only carried ...": The ship returned to Scapa Flow once all the Gladiators had been flown off, carrying only ...
- "almost 50 aircraft, spare parts and munitions": almost 50 aircraft with spare parts and munitions.
- "for sugar for rationed Britain": for sugar for Britain. (or, you can say a bit about food-rationing)
- "No noteworthy results were obtained and several aircraft were lost.": Quotes should be attributed in the text. This might be better as a paraphrase rather than a quote. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "near-missed by two others by a German air raid": Generally, you can only get away with one "by" since that preposition indicates who's performing the action. "near-missed by two others during a German air raid" would work.
- "The ship loaded another batch of 40 Hurricane IIs, plus nine Fulmars from 'X' Flight of 800 Squadron in Liverpool and arrived back in Gibraltar on 18 May.": See the comma problem?
- " Furious returned to the Clyde for her biggest load of aircraft yet, 64 Hurricanes which meant that she only had room ...": Same comma problem. Also, "meant" can almost always be reworded for clarity; "leaving" would be better here.
- "42 Hurricanes had been left": See WP:NUMERAL. "Of the 42 Hurricanes left ..."
- "Nine of Furious's aircraft had taken off when the tenth aircraft crashed into Furious's island while taking off.": When you see repetition (taken off, taking off, Furious's, Furious's), that's a clue that there may be a way to tighten it up without loss of meaning, and there is, here; you could do that with about half as many words. Give it a shot.
- "Furious exchanged 816 Squadron for 818 from Ark Royal before she departed for home." Which one is "she"?
- "Kirkenes, Norway and Petsamo, Finland in", "Seidisfjord, Iceland under": commas
- "re-fuelled": refuelled (in BritEng)
- "One small ship, MV Trotter, was sunk, several oil storage tanks set afire and several wooden jetties were torpedoed.": Spot the nonparallelism.
- "working up": Let's link that at first occurrence.
- "She loaded 32 Spitfires and launched them on 29 August before returning to Gibraltar upon which the ship was assigned to Force H.": "upon which" doesn't work for me.
- "Furious embarked twelve Supermarine Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron, another twelve Seafire IICs of 807 Squadron and nine Albacores ...": You use "12" instead of "twelve" above. I see that you might be following WP:NUMERAL's advice to write them out because "nine" is written out; the problem is that we don't get to "nine" until late in the sentence, so it looks wrong, for a while. Go with "12", and then either "9" or "nine".
- "Furious's Seafires strafed the Vichy French airfield at Tafraoui and destroyed three aircraft on the ground and shot down one Dewoitine D.520 fighter": Okay, this is a little tougher. "X and Y and Z" with no commas doesn't work, more often than not, and adding a comma isn't usually the best way to fix it. If you're counting the fighter that was shot down as a result of the strafing, then I'd go with: Furious's Seafires strafed the Vichy French airfield at Tafraoui, destroying three aircraft on the ground and shooting down one Dewoitine D.520 fighter
- "despite three Albacores shot down and a further pair damaged by the French fighters and another shot down by anti-aircraft fire.": "despite ... another shot down" is too informal. Go with: despite the loss of an Albacore from anti-aircraft fire and the loss of three and damage to two more against the French fighters
- "The carrier had aboard the Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron": The carrier had the Seafire IBs of 801 Squadron aboard
- "make another attempt": made another attempt
- "on 17 July (Operation Mascot)": on 17 July, in Operation Mascot
- "one armour-piercing bomb penetrated Tirpitz's armoured deck, but failed to detonate and another 500-pound (230 kg) bomb did only superficial damage.": Most style guides recommend a comma between independent clauses, but I haven't been inserting them because it's common to leave them out between short independent clauses, even at FAC, and tedious to insert them all. But that comma isn't optional when there's another comma in the vicinity, so let's move the comma: one armour-piercing bomb penetrated Tirpitz's armoured deck but failed to detonate, and another 500-pound (230 kg) bomb did only superficial damage.
- "eleven": Go with either eleven and twelve or 11 and 12. - Dank (push to talk) 15:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (Edits may take several days to show up on that page.) I finished up, and also de-italicized "pom-pom" per Parsec's question below. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I merged the Courageous class aircraft carrier range stats into the article. Kirk (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- In the First World War section, you and I know what "all three ships" refers to, but most won't - this needs clarification.
- Later in that same paragraph - "The other two ships" - I'm assuming this is still referring to Glorious and Courageous? Use their names to avoid confusion.
- In the conversion section, the line "was converted to an aircraft carrier" might strike some readers as odd (e.g., wasn't she carrying aircraft during the war?). I'd suggest you make clear the distinction between her wartime configuration and a proper aircraft carrier with a full flight deck.
- How does it read now?
- Works for me.
- How does it read now?
- Here's a question: did the 3-foot increase in draft submerge the belt armor?
- No. There was so little of it that it was 23 ft high above the waterline at normal load.
- Why is "pom pom" italicized in the armament section?
- Slang
- Shouldn't the wartime air groups be included in that section?
- There was a moderate amount of stability in her peacetime air groups, so it was easier to summarize. The wartime air groups changed frequently and it was easier to integrate them into the text. Should I rename that section to peacetime air group or some such? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if it might make more sense to just merge that section into the pre-war section then. If not, perhaps you could add a note explaining that since the wartime groups changed frequently, they were integrated into service section.
- I've moved it into the Pre-war service section and broken it up, although I'm not sure how well the text flows. See how it reads now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if it might make more sense to just merge that section into the pre-war section then. If not, perhaps you could add a note explaining that since the wartime groups changed frequently, they were integrated into service section.
- There was a moderate amount of stability in her peacetime air groups, so it was easier to summarize. The wartime air groups changed frequently and it was easier to integrate them into the text. Should I rename that section to peacetime air group or some such? Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all for now - the article looks to be in pretty good shape, and I look forward to supporting once these issues have been addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: looks quite good overall, I just have a couple of minor points:
- the duplicate link checker reveals a number of potentially-overlinked terms: Admiral, Light cruiser, sister ship, North Sea, Sea trial, Nautical mile, Anti-aircraft warfare, Floatplane, Scapa Flow, 816 Naval Air Squadron, 818 Naval Air Squadron, Blackburn Skua, HMS Argus (I49), Liverpool, Iceland, HMS Victorious (R38);
- Wow, just about all of these were legitimate over links; this might be my personal record for them.
- unless I've missed it, a number of the details that are presented in the infobox are not discussed in the article. For instance laid up, launched and commissioning dates and the size of the ship's complement. Shouldn't these be discussed/mentioned briefly in the text of the article?
- Verily; I don't know how I missed adding them.
- in the infobox, in the "Badge" field it appears that there is an out of place full stop: "On a Black Field an eagle’s head White, langued Red. armed Gold". AustralianRupert (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor comments:
- "on his third attempt, in Pup N6452, the rotary engine choked " - this leaves unclear the significance of the rotary engine; were there other engines on the plane that weren't rotary? Or can only rotary engines choke? If neither, I'd be inclined to remove the rotary word.
- Deleted it, although I have a vague memory that choking was a real problem with rotary engines of the period.
- " possibly indicating some sort of raid" - you could probably safely condense "some sort of raid" to "a raid"
- Agreed.
- ""cwt" is the abbreviation for hundredweight, 20 cwt referring to the weight of the gun." - it looked odd having the sentence start with a lower case c. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, although you're the first person to catch that even though a number of my FA-class ship articles have used that exact construction without anyone noticing. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Not promoted. Closed because progress appears unlikely to be made within the timeframe of the ACR, but without prejudice to a new review when the primary author has time to devote to it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eighth Army Ranger Company
I am nominating this article for A-Class review. —Ed!(talk) 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments at this stage:
- An interesting unit.
- "Conceived as a counter force for North Korean (NK) commandos..." Would it still be accurate if you said "Intended to combat the North Korean (NK)..."? I'm trying to think of a way to avoid having to say "counter force" early in the lead.
- Reworded
- "as only 10 Rangers walked away from the battle unharmed." We'd all know what this means, but some pedant is bound to say that this means that some Rangers could have driven away etc.!
- "Organization" section. Because this started with "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit..." I found it a bit odd - the next section then revisits the origins. I wondered if this section might live better somewhere after "origins"?
- "a unique initial organization of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men" - unique to who? (e.g. US Army, US ranger units, any military in the world?)
- "The unit was designated the 8213th Army Unit from a program developed by U.S. Army scientists in World War II..." I'm not sure the bit that goes "from a program" is right. "by a program"? "using a program"?
- "All U.S. Army Ranger units had been disbanded..." Due to the ordering, this is repeating what was said a couple of paras back.
- "felt recreating Ranger units was essential to begin a counteroffensive" - as in the recreation was the counteroffensive, or do you mean "essential to beginning a counteroffensive"?
- "North Korean operatives were known to be hiding in the area, which the Army treated as an opposing force in the Ranger training." does this mean that they used fictional NK operatives as an opposing force, or that they used the real NK operatives as an actual opposing force?
- "An estimated platoon of Chinese made the first attack." I knew what this meant, but "an estimated platoon" felt really odd; "an estimated platoon-sized force"?
- " several pre-sighted artillery concentrations" - worth wikilinking or footnoting what this means.
- "who was killed instantly by a mortar" - "mortar shell"? (again, someone will point out that mortars rarely kill anyone...)
- "Analysis" How substantial was Chae's thesis? In the UK, an MA wouldn't be a serious contribution to academic debate. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one - "Veritas Part 1 2010, p. 37" - shouldn't we be citing the author of the article rather than just the publication? (Piasecki wrote the article concerned I think). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- One dab link [3]:
- Land navigation
- Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- External links all check out [4] (no action required).
- Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [5] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
- Images are all PD and seem appropriate for article.
- Prose is awkward here: "It was best known for its defense of Hill 205 during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River from overwhelming Chinese attack, an action which shattered the company as all but 10 of the 51 Rangers on the hill became casualties." Consider instead → "It was best known for its defense of Hill 205 from overwhelming Chinese attack during the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, an action which shattered the company as all but 10 of the 51 Rangers on the hill became casualties."
- Repetitive language here: "Subsequent analysis by military historians has analyzed the economy of force...", consider instead → "Subsequent analysis by military historians has focused on the economy of force..."
- Is the capitalisation correct here: "G-3 Operations miscellaneous division"? It seems like a proper noun to me which should probably be capitalised like this: "G-3 Operations Miscellaneous Division".
- "3 officers and 73 enlisted men" → "three officers and 73 enlisted men..." per WP:MOSNUM.
- The "Organisation" section seems repeatitively worded and verbose, and you use a number of sentences and paragraphs which could probably merged. For instance you write:
- "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit, the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare. The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created with an initial organization unique to U.S. Army units of 3 officers and 73 enlisted men. The unit was organized based on the Table of Organization and Equipment documents of Ranger units in World War II. The Eighth Army Ranger Company was organized as a company of two platoons."
- Consider instead: "The Eighth Army Ranger Company was created as a "test" unit, the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare. It was created with an initial organization unique to U.S. Army units of three officers and 73 enlisted men and was organized as a company of two platoons based on the Table of Organization and Equipment documents of Ranger units in World War II."
- This is awkward to me: "The Rangers' first assignment was to probe north with the division's reconnaissance elements to Poun in search of pockets of guerrillas which had been isolated during the UN breakout from Pusan." Consider instead → "The Rangers' first assignment was to probe north to Poun with the division's reconnaissance elements in search of pockets of guerrillas which had been isolated during the UN breakout from Pusan."
- This could be improved: "The troops rapidly moved 175 miles (282 km) to Kaesong and eliminated the last resistance of the North Koreans south of the 38th Parallel...", consider: "The troops rapidly moved 175 miles (282 km) to Kaesong where they eliminated the last North Korean resistance south of the 38th Parallel..."
- I question the terminology here: "ahead of the main division force...", might this be more correct as "ahead of the divisional main body"? An advance is usually conducted with a series of screens, guards, the main body and flank and rear elements (suggestion only).
- This seems redundant: "During the day on 23 November...", perhaps consider "On 23 November..." (suggestion only).
- I question the terminology used here: "...the company moved out on time in the center flank...", be definition a flank is not a central position (it is a position on a side, either left or right, or can be described using a cardinal point). Could you pls clarify what you mean here?
- "Ranger" should be capitalised here I think: "The mortars killed one ranger..."
- This is awkward to me: "At that time, the tanks of the 89th mistakenly opened fire on the Rangers, causing several friendly fire casualties before Puckett was able to signal them to stop. Two Rangers were killed by this friendly fire." Consider instead → "At that time the tanks of the 89th mistakenly opened fire on the Rangers, causing a number of casualties including two killed, before Puckett was able to signal them to stop." (suggestion only)
- "On both flanks, Task Force Dolvin troops encountered sporadic resistance throughout the morning, but were able to capture objectives..." → "On both flanks, Task Force Dolvin troops encountered sporadic resistance throughout the morning, but were able to capture their objectives."
- Repeating the date here is redundant also: "The Rangers established a perimeter on the position and spent the day of 25 November fortifying the position." Consider instead → "The Rangers established a perimeter on the position and spent the remainder of the day fortifying the position."
- This is awkward and somewhat informal to me: "That evening, all along the Korean front, UN troops were unexpectedly slammed by the Chinese Second Phase Offensive; 300,000 Chinese troops swarmed into Korea against the unprepared UN forces.[14][26] Several kilometers away on the Rangers' left flank, the U.S. 27th Infantry Regiment's E Company was hit with heavy Chinese attack at 21:00, alerting the Rangers to a pending attack." Consider "The Chinese Second Phase Offensive was unexpectedly launched that evening with 300,000 Chinese troops streaming into Korea along the entire front, catching UN forces unprepared. Several kilometers away on the Rangers' left flank, the U.S. 27th Infantry Regiment's E Company was hit with a heavy Chinese attack at 21:00, alerting the Rangers to a pending attack." (suggestion only)
- "Rangers" should be captialised here too: "Chinese attack were unable to assist the rangers..."
- This is not a sentence: "advancing to within hand grenade range."
- "They were ordered to fix bayonets in preparation for the next attack." Who was? The Chinese or the Rangers?
- "The heavy casualties on Hill 205 rendered the company combat ineffective,[30] and it was capable of conducting only routine patrols or as a security force for division headquarters elements for the next several weeks." Consider instead → "The heavy casualties on Hill 205 rendered the company ineffective, and it was only capable of conducting routine patrols or for use as a security force for divisional headquarters elements for several weeks."
- "The company's next and final mission came on 27 March..." → "The company's final mission came on 27 March..." (suggestion only)
- Missing word here: "Rangers began their advance at 22:00 and arrived at the village at 01:00..."
- Overuse of the word "contended" or "contend" in the "Analysis" section.
- Is the terminology correct here: "Two of the Rangers who rescued Puckett, Private First Class Billy G. Walls and Sergeant David L. Pollock, were awarded the Silver Star Medal for their actions..."? Specifically I think its a "Silver Star" not a "Silver Star Medal".
- As far as I know, Silver Star and Silver Star Medal are interchangeable for the sake of clarity, as are Bronze Star and Bronze Star Medal. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One dab link [3]:
Anotherclown (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's everything. Thanks for such a thorough review. —Ed!(talk) 20:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After a second look at the article I feel there are actually a few more points that probably need attention:
- "The next day, 25 November, Task Force Dolvin resumed its advance..." - the previous paragraph started on 23 Nov, what happened on the 24th? Pls check the dates here. I know I have copy-edited this section so I hope I haven't introduced an error.
- "Ross ordered a platoon to conduct a stealth attack into the village" – which platoon (a history of a company should probably be detailed enough to identify which platoon was involved in this action IMO)? Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After a second look at the article I feel there are actually a few more points that probably need attention:
- Looks good. Adding my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since my original comments some inconsistency in abbreviations has been introduced to the article - in places you use "U.S." but in others "NK" and "UN". Pls use a common format (I suggest "US", "UN" and "NK"). Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. See my previous reviews of your articles for how to handle these problems. - Dank (push to talk)
- "The company saw a number of other infiltration and combat missions through late 1950":
- "The United States (U.S.)" [I got the first one]
- "newly-commissioned"
- "quick selection process, Puckett selected"
- "was formally organized 25 August 1950"
- "to Pusan, South Korea aboard the ferry"
- "the Ranger training. The Rangers trained"
- "The Rangers trained 60 hours per week and ran 5 miles (8.0 km) each day and frequently held 20 miles (32 km) speed marches" (two problems) - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "United States Army": In many places, there's no other army it could be, so anything more than army is redundant. Also, while it's fine to say United States rather than US or U.S. at the first occurrence when United States is part of the formal name of an organization, most organizations have a shortened form that's preferred after the first occurrence. The shortened forms usually don't include "United States"; they use US or U.S. or, usually, neither. Chicago 10.33 recommends US (but Garner's recommends U.S.) rather than United States in front of a noun, unless of course you're quoting someone or following established usage for a proper noun. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In Organization, the entire first paragraph is duplicated by what follows.
- "the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units": I don't know what that means.
- "Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare."
- "60mm" (I don't have a problem with this myself, but usually they want 60 mm at FAC.)
- "designed randomized designations"
- "in order to fool enemy intelligence and prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit": How does a number do that?
- "the unit. The unit ... unit ... unit"
- "This was a unique decision for the Eighth Army Ranger Company, as": This bit is redundant to what follows.
- Oppose. Needs a lot of work. I got down to Eighth Army Ranger Company#History. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank - in light of your comments I have revisted this article and agree that it needs more work. In this my support above was probably premature. I have now done a copy edit of my own. Hopefully this has improved the situation somewhat, although I didn't directly address some of your comments as this is best left to the nominator I think. Ed - pls review my edits and change any you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much AC. I've always been proud of how easy-going our A-class process is and how hard we all work to push these articles through. But in this case, given the density of problems, and given that it's all stuff I've tried to be clear about for over two years, I think I'm going to have to admit defeat; it's not fair to the other writers for me to keep sinking this much time into these Korea articles, I'm going to have to start opposing instead. Ed!, if you could work with a regular co-nom who will handle at least the basics, the stuff that I mention in all your articles, before these get to A-class, that would be a big help, and don't beat yourself up (or me!) over this, different writers have different strengths. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries - hopefully we can still get this one over the line with a bit more work. Anotherclown (talk) 03:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much AC. I've always been proud of how easy-going our A-class process is and how hard we all work to push these articles through. But in this case, given the density of problems, and given that it's all stuff I've tried to be clear about for over two years, I think I'm going to have to admit defeat; it's not fair to the other writers for me to keep sinking this much time into these Korea articles, I'm going to have to start opposing instead. Ed!, if you could work with a regular co-nom who will handle at least the basics, the stuff that I mention in all your articles, before these get to A-class, that would be a big help, and don't beat yourself up (or me!) over this, different writers have different strengths. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank - in light of your comments I have revisted this article and agree that it needs more work. In this my support above was probably premature. I have now done a copy edit of my own. Hopefully this has improved the situation somewhat, although I didn't directly address some of your comments as this is best left to the nominator I think. Ed - pls review my edits and change any you disagree with. Anotherclown (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I made an attempt at fixing some of the issues listed above, and some other things I found. Ed, can you please check that I haven't overstated anything? Dan, does this alleviate your concerns, or do you think it needs a bit more work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much Rupert, you did get a bunch of them. Ed!, here are explanations for a few of the things I pointed out above:
- "seen great success", "see combat" and "saw frequent combat" are fine, because those are (in context) abstract nouns. "saw a steady stream of defeats" and "saw 164 days of continuous combat" (twice) are not uncommon uses of "saw", but it's not good writing, because "saw" distances the actor from the action, as in "The 1950s saw significant increases in average wages"; my understanding is that these battles were raw, up-close and personal. They didn't "see defeats", they were defeated, or pushed back.
- "The United States (U.S.)": I've never met a reader who didn't know what "U.S." means, and don't link United States, at least at A-class or FAC. There's a bit more explanation above, and there are still too many instances of "United States" in the article.
- "Following an informal and quick selection process, Puckett picked the men to fill out the company ...": Better than it was, but I'm still wondering why they needed to be picked after they had already been selected.
- "to join the Eighth Army Ranger Training Center, also newly formed, for seven weeks of specialized training. This took place at "Ranger Hill" near Kijang, where the unit trained", "in the Ranger training. Adopting training techniques that had been established during World War II, they trained", "12 either dropped out of training": You can get rid of roughly 5 instances of "train" there with no fear that the reader won't follow what you're saying.
- "the first of its kind created by the United States Army to experiment with the concept of bringing back Army Ranger units": I still don't know what that means. Maybe this? "This was an experimental re-creation of an Army Ranger unit, the first since the disbanding of the Ranger units at the end of World War II"
- "Army Ranger units; small light infantry special forces units which specialized in infiltration and irregular warfare." Still a sentence fragment; fix it by changing the semicolon to a colon.
- "in order to fool enemy intelligence and prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit": I still don't know how a 4-digit number is capable of concealing all information about a unit from the enemy.
- "The unit was designated the 8213th Army Unit ... randomized designations to military units in order to ... prevent North Korean commanders from knowing anything about the unit. The unit was considered an ad hoc provisional unit, ... a temporary unit, akin to a task force. ... subsequent companies assumed the lineage of Ranger units from World War II, ... it prevented the company from accruing its own ... unit decorations." You can do without at least half of those instances of "unit".
- "This was a unique decision for the Eighth Army Ranger Company, as": This bit is redundant to what follows.
- Still opposing. I'd like to see a solution here that doesn't involve more and more of Rupert's and Anotherclown's time; I can't say of course what the best use of their time is, but I know they feel the same obligation I do to the A-class process as a whole, and for all of us to spend a disproportionate amount of time here doesn't strike me as a solution. Ed!, if you want to sink some time in and polish these up before they get to A-class, that would work, or if co-noms will do that, that would be great. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, due to having a day off work, I had some time to do some more. I made a few more tweaks, but I will stop now. Some of what I did might be a bit too drastic, so I will leave it up to Ed now to finish/revert/polish as he sees fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work as always Rupert, particularly on the "train", "picked", and "4-digit number" points. - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, due to having a day off work, I had some time to do some more. I made a few more tweaks, but I will stop now. Some of what I did might be a bit too drastic, so I will leave it up to Ed now to finish/revert/polish as he sees fit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed! Not sure if you noticed them but I still have a couple of points outstanding above. Are you able to have a look at these pls? Anotherclown (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: where do we stand with this article now? Given that the last edit was made to the article on 3 August, it is probably best to move to have this nomination closed as unsuccesful. I've tried my best to address the issues above to help out, but I haven't been completely successful. As Ed! doesn't appear to be active at the moment, it is probably best just to close this review and allow him to renominate when he becomes free again. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
45th Infantry Division (United States)
First nomination
Second nomination
This article failed two ACRs in 2009 and 2010 due primarily to issues with sourcing, when I was a much younger editor. Since then, I have completely reformatted the sources, eliminated almost all of the online refs, rewritten most of the prose, diversified references and basically redone the whole thing with my greater WP experience. It's ready for round three. —Ed!(talk) 21:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The initial 'Origins' paragraph does not cover the 45th Division at all, and needs to be removed; maybe broken up between the State ARNGs, but certainly doesn't belong here. Also same thing for the first four-line paragraph on the Korean War: it doesn't talk about this division. If I may be honest, this is is a bit of a weak consistent thread in your writing: you don't stick to the unit/formation you're actually writing about. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I heartily disagree. It had been your comments in the past two ACRs that the article lacked context and needed more from unit histories. All of the unit resources I consulted, including what was suggested to me, point strongly to the division's origins as state militias with a lot of detail. Lineage-wise, the division draws at least some of its ancestry from the militia units which saw activations in so many 19th Century conflicts. As to the second part, it goes to explain the unpreparedness of the U.S. Army in general for the Korean conflict and why a National Guard unit was drawn in to begin with. As with many of my articles, I think this adds clarity without forcing the reader to find contect by clicking elsewhere. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, I've parsed down this paragraph and merged it into the following one. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to say, but this misses the point. This is an article on the Division; not the constituent regiments, or the State ARNGs. The history of the division begins only on 19 October 1920, after the first section. The material in the first 'origins' section simply does not belong here; it belongs in other articles. What we need here is a sketch about division level formations and maybe the expansion of the U.S. Army and the reasons why more division level formations were created. As it is this article simply replicates material that should be in the State ARNG or regimental pages. More space should be freed up to discuss the unique historical circumstances dealing with *this* level of the chain of command, at the division level, not the lower level regiments and other units. Whether you agree or disagree, is this objection clear? Have I made myself clear in what I am saying? Kind regards and congrats on all the other progress you've made with this article; I don't want to tangle my objections to the way this is at the moment with my personal regard for all the work you've done here. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, I've parsed down this paragraph and merged it into the following one. —Ed!(talk) 17:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I heartily disagree. It had been your comments in the past two ACRs that the article lacked context and needed more from unit histories. All of the unit resources I consulted, including what was suggested to me, point strongly to the division's origins as state militias with a lot of detail. Lineage-wise, the division draws at least some of its ancestry from the militia units which saw activations in so many 19th Century conflicts. As to the second part, it goes to explain the unpreparedness of the U.S. Army in general for the Korean conflict and why a National Guard unit was drawn in to begin with. As with many of my articles, I think this adds clarity without forcing the reader to find contect by clicking elsewhere. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also want to see an expansion of the 1953-68 section; apart from the bare facts of the ROAD reorganisation, you've actually said very little. Historical regimental continuity? Mobilisation assignments? Training exercises? OK ARNG/other state ARNG political fights? None of this is reflected here. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking around for a few days and haven't found any Cold War-era resources about the division, or the Oklahoma National Guard. I could add in some things about the National Guard challenges overall in that era, but this would go back to your first point. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems trips to the archives will be required. Have you at least contacted the OK ARNG history office to check whether there are additional easily available resources? Buckshot06 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking around for a few days and haven't found any Cold War-era resources about the division, or the Oklahoma National Guard. I could add in some things about the National Guard challenges overall in that era, but this would go back to your first point. —Ed!(talk) 16:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments:I've done some copyediting on this this evening. These are my comments:- "federally recognized" --> I wonder if this needs explaining, perhaps in a footnote?
- is this right? "In August 1940, the 45th Infantry Division took part in the Louisiana Maneuvers, the largest peacetime exercises in U.S. military history". The Wiki article for the Louisiana Maneuvers states that it was in 1941.
- "The 82nd paratroopers, conducting the first combat jump of the war". Do you mean "their first combat jump"?
- this might need to be reworded: "German forces pushed back, the division advanced, its main objective was to capture airfields at..."
- this seems a little awkward: "forts Kaiser Wilhelm II designed" (was it one or more forts, and was it/were they named "Kaiser Wilhelm II"?)
- inconsistent capitalisation: Active duty v. active duty
- "antiaircraft" --> should this be "anti-aircraft"?
- not sure about this: "Some of the victims apparently had only died hours before the 45th Division entered the camp and lay where they had died in states of decomposition that overwhelmed the soldiers' senses". (My issue is with the word "decomposition". If the victims died only hours before the unit arrived, I don't think decomposition would have started).
- inconsistent: "U.S. " and "US";
- I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but in places the prose seemed to lack flow and seemed more like just a collection of facts. For instance the last part of the second paragraph of the Sicily section. I've had a go at trying to fix this, but I don't think that I was wholely successful. Would you mind making a run through and seeing what you can do? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've been having problems trying to get the level of detail right in some areas, while keeping the statistics still a prominent part of the narrative since they're the best documented details. Is there anywhere else in the article that stands out to you? —Ed!(talk) 20:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your changes look good. Cheers. I've taken another run through and made a few more tweaks. Please check that you are happy with my changes. I have the following additional comments:
- repetition: "On 19 October 1920, the Oklahoma State militia was organized as the 45th Infantry Division of the Oklahoma Army National Guard, and organized with troops from Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.[11] The division was organized" (a number of "organized") - perhaps one can be reworded?
- "After this, division was allocated to drive towards Messina, being ordered by Patton to cover the distance as quickly as possible..." and then "On 1 August, the division was withdrawn..." (Did they make it to Messina before being withdrawn?)
- "The 40th Infantry Division of the California Army National Guard would soon be deployed to Korea as well." This seemed just tacked on, so I had a go at working it into the paragraph. I'm not sure if I was completely successful, though. Would you mind taking a look ? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "as part of Secretary Robert McNamara's downsizing of the Guard"... this appears in the lead, but not in the body (specifically the mention of McNamara);
- "the 45th Infantry Brigade which inherited the division's lineage and honors, the 45th Field Artillery Group (today's 45th Fires Brigade) and the 90th Troop Command, were activated..." this appears in the lead, but not in the body of the article (specifically the arty, troop command, etc). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed until it is sourced. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been added back in with citations, which is fine, however, I think a couple of tweaks are needed now. Firstly, the information should be added to the body of the article (currently it is just in the lead), and secondly the sentence needs to be reworked as in its current form it is very awkward. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed until it is sourced. —Ed!(talk) 18:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I see the following problems (all of which can be corrected):
I concur with Buckshot06 - the initial paragraph does not deal with the division.
The last paragraph of Origins needs clarification. Both the 157th and 158th regiments were never part of the 36th ID, but the wording of the paragraph leads one to believe that they were.
- Other than those two problems, the rest of the article is great. Much better than before. GregJackP Boomer! 03:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Personally, I found the first para useful context, but I tend to prefer longer context intros than some, so might well be in the minority.
- "many of its members were adept with weapons and outdoor skills" - can you be adept with an outdoor skill? (the verb doesn't seem right to me)
- "designed by Carnegie, Oklahoma native, Woody Big Bow" - is Carnegie a place? (I thought it was a name the first time I read this, so might be worth playing with the text a little)
- "was federalized into the active force" - "federalized" won't be a familiar verb to many readers. Does it mean called up/mobilised into full time service?
- "Though the 45th remained de facto segregated in 1950" - I'm assuming it was segregated as a white unit? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Origin
Stating that discussion of the early militia in the original four states is not discussion of the division, is to me like stating that discussion of hydrogen and oxygen is not discussion of water. National Guard units are usually not the product of a start from scratch, but rather are usually the product of the combination, recombination, or elimination of existing elements. In this case, the territorial volunteer militia units are the direct antecedents of the regiments that would be combined to form the division--litterally the division's origin. I cannot conceive of an origin description that leaves them out. As is, only the militia of Oklahoma is directly mentioned, which in a discussion of today's brigade might be appropriate, as a discussion of the division this is an unwarranted lack of ballance.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree on this, though the editors above will need convincing. —Ed!(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, what about a compromise, much more focused on the division itself; 'the initial regiments of the 45th Div were the Xth, Yth, Zth, and Ath Field Artillery. The Xth traces its origin to.., the Yth,traces its origin to.. the Zth... the Ath traces its origin to... etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accompanied by proper links to the antecedent unit pages that would work. RTO Trainer (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course; that's implied by my statement. If I have read your contributions history correctly, you personally have done a fantastic job on expanding the various OK ARNG regimental pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I love my Thunderbirds. I'm about to offer a big expansion of the Korean War section, an actual history for the 279th, and I just came into posession of a source for Cold War to 1982, reorgs, SAD, and politics. RTO Trainer (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course; that's implied by my statement. If I have read your contributions history correctly, you personally have done a fantastic job on expanding the various OK ARNG regimental pages. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Accompanied by proper links to the antecedent unit pages that would work. RTO Trainer (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, what about a compromise, much more focused on the division itself; 'the initial regiments of the 45th Div were the Xth, Yth, Zth, and Ath Field Artillery. The Xth traces its origin to.., the Yth,traces its origin to.. the Zth... the Ath traces its origin to... etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1950 Reorganization
Currently, the article states: "During this time the division was also reorganized and as a part of this process the 157th Infantry was removed from the division's order of battle and replaced with the 279th Infantry Regiment.[89]" The cite is Varhola's Fire and Ice, history of the Korean War. Either Varhola has this wrong, or the reference has been misunderstood (I don't have a copy of this book to check). The reorganization that replaced the 157th with the 279th occurred in 1946. This is supported by the Lineage and Honors of each regiment, reproduced on the respective regiments' pages: 157th & 279th. In addition there is no reorganization listed in the 45th Brigade's lineage and honors in 1950.RTO Trainer (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Federalized
Perhaps the answer to this is a new article, or a new section on the National Guard of the United States page that can be referred to--would be useful to others. The Guard is unique in it's many duty statuses. RTO Trainer (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also agree an article on federalizing national guard units into federal service would be helpful. I'm personally not knowledgeable in the sources that would make a good article for this. —Ed!(talk) 21:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See if this seems useful to you: National Guard Active Duty Character. Suggestions for a better title would be welcome.RTO Trainer (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created Federalization of the National Guard to that section. It should be used every time federalized National Guard units are mentioned. —Ed!(talk) 11:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See if this seems useful to you: National Guard Active Duty Character. Suggestions for a better title would be welcome.RTO Trainer (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Italy Curent statement: "One of the first National Guard units activated for the war, the 45th fought in the 1943 Italian Campaign, seeing intense fighting during the invasion of Sicily and subsequent attack on Salerno." Fighting in Italy covered 4 official campaigns. Perhaps the plural should be used in the article.RTO Trainer (talk) 23:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, Italian Campaign (World War II) says: "The Italian Campaign of World War II was the name of Allied operations in and around Italy, from 1943 to the end of the war in Europe." - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I spent a while working on just the first two paragraphs, see if that works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing.
- So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at 45th_Infantry_Division_(United_States)#Allegations of war crimes. These are my edits. (The toolserver may need a few days before my recent edits show up.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing.
- "advanced training": advance training? - Dank (push to talk) 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No dab links [6] (no action required).
- External links all check out [7] (no action required).
- Some of the images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it for consistency [8] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria).
- The Citation Check Tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action required).
- Most of the images are PD or licenced and seem appropriate for article.
- Language here seems a little off (to me at least): "...the 45th Infantry Division accrued over 25,000 battle casualties...", perhaps consider "...the 45th Infantry Division sustained' over 25,000 battle casualties..." ("accrued" doesn't sound right, almost sounds like its a desirable statistic)(suggestion only).
- "These militias would eventually organize into most of the National Guard units which would make up the 45th Infantry Division...", consider instead: "These militias eventually organized into most of the National Guard units which later made up the 45th Infantry Division..." (suggestion only)
- Is there a missing word here: "...and would earn combat participation credit during the Meuse-Argonne campaign..."? Specifically should it be: "...and would earn a combat participation credit during the Meuse-Argonne campaign..."?
- "In 1937, the division's troops were once again called up to help manage a locust plague affecting Colorado..." had they been called up previously to manage a locust plague? Perhaps you mean something like: "In 1937, the division's troops were once again called up, this time to help manage a locust plague affecting Colorado..."?
- Is there a missing word here: "The division had great difficulty moving across the rivers and through mountainous terrain, and the advance was slow...", consider: "The division had great difficulty moving across the rivers and through the mountainous terrain, and the advance was slow..."
- "Allied forces conducted a frontal assault on the Gustav Line stronghold at Monte Cassino, and VI Corps was assigned Operation Shingle, detached from the Army Group to land behind enemy lines at Anzio." When?
- "The 45th Infantry Division was mostly stuck in its place...", or should it be: "The 45th Infantry Division was mostly stuck in place..."? (suggestion only)
- Missing word here: "but these plans were scrubbed before the division could depart due to the surrender of Japan, V-J Day...", consider "but these plans were scrubbed before the division could depart due to the surrender of Japan on V-J Day."
- Redundant language here: "...these divisions were equipped with antiquated weaponry and they suffered from a shortage of anti-armor weapons...", consider instead: "...these divisions were equipped with antiquated weaponry and suffered from a shortage of anti-armor weapons..." (minor point - suggestion only)
- Missing word here: "Following its arrival, the division moved to the front line replace the 1st Cavalry Division...", consider: "Following its arrival, the division moved to the front line to replace the 1st Cavalry Division..."
- This could be reworded: "...individual unit commanders made great pains to integrate...", consider "...individual unit commanders went to great lengths to integrate..." (suggestion only)
- These sentences need to linked somehow with the language you use, because their proximity implies a relationship but the way they are written doesn't make it clear: "In the spring, the division launched Operation Counter, an effort to establish 11 patrol bases around Old Baldy Hill. The division defended the hill against a series of Chinese assaults from the Chinese 38th Army." This could be as simple as: "In the spring, the division launched Operation Counter, which was an effort to establish 11 patrol bases around Old Baldy Hill. The division then defended the hill against a series of Chinese assaults from the Chinese 38th Army."
- This is repetitive: "...but most of the division was held back to hold a defensive line against the Chinese...", perhaps consider rewording?
- This lacks context: "The ensuing Battle of Hill Eerie was one of a series of larger attacks by Chinese and North Korean forces which produced heavier fighting than the previous year had seen." Why? I assume it was because the Chinese were looking to gain political advantage at the Armistace talks or was there another reason?
- Overall, this article is looking good to me but there a few issues with prose that need to be cleaned up / discussed.
- Also have Buckshot's concerns been fully addressed (I can see changes have been made but are they sufficient)? I'm no expert on US Army units so I'm really not qualified to say either way. Anotherclown (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, he hasn't clarified. I'll query his talk page. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy with these changes; however, noting Buckshot's recent comments above I'm putting my support on hold for now as it is beyond my area of knowledge. I'll check back in a few days. Anotherclown (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, he hasn't clarified. I'll query his talk page. —Ed!(talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article promoted Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher
Previous nomination: here
I am nominating this article for A-class review on behalf of Adam, per this request on my talk page: [9]. The article is currently rated GA and was previously nominated for A-class, but withdrawn upon Adam's request. Adam has done quite a bit of work on the article since then and would like to receive feedback upon whether or not it qualifies for Milhist ACR. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- Technical
- No dab links [10] (no action required).
- External links all check out [11] (no action required).
- Images lack Alt Text so you might consider adding it [12] (suggestion only - not an ACR criteria). Done
- I've added this. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Citation Check Tool reveals multiple errors with reference consolidation (this is fairly minor housing keeping - not a major issue):
- Andrew, (1999), p. 147. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. xi. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Hearn, (2006), p. 15. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 258.(Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 146. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 9. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Hearn, (2006), p. 10. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 10. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Arthey, (2004), p. 163. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 18. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 171. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/hollow-nickel/ ''FBI: Rudolph Ivanovich Abel (Hollow Nickel Case)''] (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 172. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 94. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 96. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Whittell, (2010), p. 109. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 148. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, (1999), p. 175. (Multiple references contain the same content)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 147 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. xi (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 258 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 146 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 9 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Hearn, 2006, p. 10 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 10 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Arthey, 2004, p. 163 (multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2011, p. 18 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- FBI (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 171 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Hearn, 2006, p. 15 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 172 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 94 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 96 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Whittell, 2010, p. 109 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 148 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- Andrew, 1999, p. 175 (Multiple references are using the same name)
- File:Young Vilyam G Fisher (1937).jpg might need a tag indicating why its PD in the US, although I'm not an expert in this field. Not done
- Prose - can be a little awkward in places so I have added some suggestions for its improvement:
- "His parents, ethnic Germans from Russia, were revolutionaries of the Tsarist era, and had fled to the United Kingdom in 1901...", consider instead "Revolutionaries of the Tsarist era, his parents were ethnic Germans from Russia who had fled to the United Kingdom in 1901..."
- "His father, Heinrich, a keen Bolshevik, whilst living in England took part in gunrunning, shipping arms from the North East coast to the Baltic states to help the proletariat...", consider instead "His father Heinrich was a keen Bolshevik and whilst living in England took part in gunrunning, shipping arms from the North East coast to the Baltic states to help the proletariat..."
- "The Fisher family left Newcastle upon Tyne in 1921, to return to Moscow, following the 1917 Russian Revolution...", consider instead "Following the Russian Revolution the Fisher family left Newcastle upon Tyne to return to Moscow in 1921..."
- "After the family's return to Russia in 1921, Fisher worked for Comintern as a translator, as his lingual fluencies included English, Russian, German, Polish and Yiddish...", consider instead "Fisher was fluent in English, Russian, German, Polish and Yiddish and following his family's return to Russia he worked for Comintern as a translator..."
- "During his military service in the Red Army, 1925–1926, he was trained as a radio operator...", consider instead "He served in the the Red Army during 1925–1926 and was trained as a radio operator..."
- This is a little informal to me: "In the view of Fisher's bosses in the KGB...", perhaps: "In the view of Fisher's superiors in the KGB..." (suggestion only)
- Tense here could be improved: "Members of the network stopped cooperating, due to the tightening in security at Los Alamos, after the war...", consider: "Members of the network had stopped cooperating, due to the tightening in security at Los Alamos, after the war..."
- A little awkward: "Whilst it is not known for certain where Fisher went or what he did, it is believed one place he travelled to was Santa Fe, New Mexico, the collection point for stolen diagrams from the Manhattan Project...", consider instead: "While it is not known for certain where Fisher went or what he did, it is believed he travelled to Santa Fe in New Mexico, the collection point for stolen diagrams from the Manhattan Project."
- "However on October 21, 1952, a thumbtack was left on a signpost in New York's Central Park..." by whom? Not done
- Tense here: "The real Maki was born in 1919, in the U.S. to a Finnish-American father and a New York mother...", consider instead: "The real Maki had been born in the U.S. to a Finnish-American father and a New York mother in 1919."
- "Häyhänen prior to opening the coin misplaced it, either buying a newspaper or using it as a subway token...", consider instead: "However, prior to opening the coin Häyhänen had misplaced it, either buying a newspaper with it or using it as a subway token."
- "preferring conventional", conventional what? Perhaps consider "preferring more conventional styles" or something similar.
- "Whilst in Moscow Fisher expressed to his superiors his dissatisfaction with Häyhänen...", consider instead: "While in Moscow Fisher informed his superiors of his dissatisfaction with Häyhänen."
- "the same location and using wrong radio frequencies...", might be reworded as: "the same location using incorrect radio frequencies."
- "By early 1957, Fisher had run out of patience with Häyhänen and demanded that Moscow recall his deputy...", consider instead: "By early 1957, Fisher had lost patience with Häyhänen and demanded that Moscow recall his deputy..."
- "Firstly he made contact with the KGB residency, receiving another two hundred dollars for his journey to Moscow...", consider instead: "Making contact with the KGB residency he received another two hundred dollars for his journey to Moscow."
- This is too informal: "Häyhänen, upon his arrival in the U.S., was grilled by the FBI and proved very cooperative...", consider instead: "Upon his arrival in the U.S. Häyhänen was interrogated by the FBI and proved very cooperative..."
- "During Fisher's detainment at the Federal Alien Detention Facility...", the facility has already been mention so it could be dropped altogether to avoid repetition. Consider: "During Fisher's detainment the FBI had been busy searching his hotel room and photo..."
- To be honest the level of detail about field craft might not be required in a biography article, perhaps you might consider condensing it in parts? This is particularly so given the lack of success Fisher appears to have actually had as a spy. Not done
- I wonder if the structure of the article cannot be improved. Its a fairly minor point but I think you might consider spliting the "Capture and later life section" into a "Capture" section and a "Release and later life", with the later incorporating the last two paragraphs of the article? (suggestion only)
- The heading "In the Secret service" seems a little off to me, would something like "KGB service" work better? (suggestion only).
- Overall, this article is not in bad shape but needs to be copy-editted. Pls have a look at my notes above and once you have done so I would be happy to have a read over it again. I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam. I've been bold and implemented the bulk of these comments so pls review my changes and feel free to revert / discuss any you disagree with. Once you have done so I will give it another read and possibly a light copy edit. Other than that the only thing outstanding is the issue of the image (needs a US PD tag I think). Are you able to have a look at that please? Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I've marked the issues that are still outstanding. Most are not enough to stop me from supporting but I would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adam. I've been bold and implemented the bulk of these comments so pls review my changes and feel free to revert / discuss any you disagree with. Once you have done so I will give it another read and possibly a light copy edit. Other than that the only thing outstanding is the issue of the image (needs a US PD tag I think). Are you able to have a look at that please? Anotherclown (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical
- Sorry. I was going to do the changes you recommended this weekend. I appreciate you doing what you've done and I'll do the rest in the next few days or over the weekend. Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems at all, when you're done I have another look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am satisfied with the article now. Anyone wish to look over it? Adamdaley (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Adam, good work with this article. Unfortunately Anotherclown is away for at least another three or four weeks on an exercise. I would like to review the article for A-class, but as I have been involved with it in the past (copy editing etc.) I probably can't review it due to a conflict of interest. I will ask some favours on your behalf to see if anyone is free to offer you their opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again Adam, I got back a little earlier than expected so I've gone over this again. I have made a couple more changes so pls review to ensure I haven't changed your intended meaning. I am quite happy with the way this article has progressed, and all my points have now been addressed. There are still a few points raised by Ed and Ian which need to be actioned but I will gladly support once these are done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of comments in this ACR appear to have been actioned now so I've added my support. Well done Adam. Anotherclown (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello again Adam, I got back a little earlier than expected so I've gone over this again. I have made a couple more changes so pls review to ensure I haven't changed your intended meaning. I am quite happy with the way this article has progressed, and all my points have now been addressed. There are still a few points raised by Ed and Ian which need to be actioned but I will gladly support once these are done. Anotherclown (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Adam, good work with this article. Unfortunately Anotherclown is away for at least another three or four weeks on an exercise. I would like to review the article for A-class, but as I have been involved with it in the past (copy editing etc.) I probably can't review it due to a conflict of interest. I will ask some favours on your behalf to see if anyone is free to offer you their opinion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am satisfied with the article now. Anyone wish to look over it? Adamdaley (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problems at all, when you're done I have another look. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I was going to do the changes you recommended this weekend. I appreciate you doing what you've done and I'll do the rest in the next few days or over the weekend. Adamdaley (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- The Early Life section is almost problematically terse to me. In one sentence he's 15, two lines later he's fluent in five languages. Are there any ideas of his personality or interests? I assume there isn't a great level of detail, but some kind of background would help.
- "...his parents were ethnic Germans from Russia who had fled to the United Kingdom in 1901." -- Any idea why they fled?
- "...before being accepted into London Universityin 1919." -- What was his area of study, and did he complete his degree?
- "...despite the accusation that his brother-in-law was a Trotskyite" -- this is the first mention that he might have siblings. Are any known? Could be included in the early life section.
- " Kayotis conveniently disappeared while visiting relatives in Europe." -- I'm not sure if this is loaded language, but please make it clear if he was somehow incapacitated by the KGB or if his name was used just because he had gone missing.
- The "KGB service" section could use breaking into a few subsections for better organization.
- " he knew that if he cooperated with the FBI, he would not see his wife and daughter again." -- Again this could use some adding in earlier in the article, even if it's just to say "During this time he married and had a daughter." That way it's less of a surprise to find out this late in the article.
- The photo in the "release" section needs a caption that clarifies who is who in the photo, including which of them is Fisher.
- Haynes ref is in Bibliography but not used.
- "West" should be moved from further reading to bibliography.
- A few lines or section indicating his honors and accolades might help, particularly if any of his military decorations are known, or more details about him being on the stamp featured in the infobox.
- Just a few comments. Happy to support once they're addressed. —Ed!(talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a small update in the last 48 hours. Progress is being done with the other changes you've suggested. Adamdaley (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looking at the article now, I'm satisfied with the changes and now support for A-class. —Ed!(talk) 16:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Date ranges: I've made the change in the lead but not anywhere else -- you only put spaces around dashes in complex date ranges, e.g. "5 March – 10 September 1954", not year-only ones like "1953–1955".Over-linking: Countries don't need to be linked unless they're historical, e.g. Soviet Union makes sense but United Kingdom not really -- people don't tend to oppose an article at reviews on this basis alone but it is an example of over-linking. World War II, being so well known and so wide-ranging, is also not really necessary to link, nor are common/generic terms like spy. Finally, you may need to make some links more precise, e.g. in the lead, does New York mean the state or the city, i.e. New York City? Pls check this sort of thing throughout.Citations: I'm not a hard-arse on formatting these as long as it's consistent within the article, however it is redundant to put a comma in front of the date when the date's in parentheses, e.g. "Hearn, (2006), p. 10." -- in fact you could omit the year entirely if you only have one work by the author, so it reads "Hearn, p. 10."Just as you don't need to cite something in the lead if it's cited in the main body of the article, so you don't need to cite things in the infobox if they're cited in the main body: examples of such redundant citing in the infobox include his birth date, and the first and second of his aliases (at least, I stopped checking after that) -- pls check for others."He served in the Red Army in 1925 and 1926 and was trained as a radio operator" -- bit confusing to me, was he trained as a radio operator for his 1925–26 Red Army service, or did he serve in the Red Army in 1925–26 and then get training as a radio operator?"In the spring of 1955, Fisher and Häyhänen visited Bear Mountain Park, and buried five thousand dollars, destined for the wife of Morton Sobell, a Soviet spy sentenced to thirty years in jail" -- this last clause reads oddly; can we say roughly when he was sentenced, e.g. "recently"?"debauchery" is a rather old-fashioned and general term, can we be more specific, e.g. alcohol, parties, whatever?"...a hollow shaving brush, cuff links and numerous "trick" containers including hollowed-out bolts" -- the significance of the cuff links isn't clear from this; were they hollow like the shaving brush?Spotcheck of the one online source (CN5) revealed the following concerns:- CN5(d): Couldn't see Hicks Street mentioned in the source, only Fulton Street.
- CN5(f): "On May 28, 1957, FBI agents observed a man resembling "MARK" on a park bench opposite the entrance to 252 Fulton Street" in the article is a close paraphrase of "On May 28, 1957, agents observed a man resembling "Mark" on a bench in a park directly opposite the entrance to 252 Fulton Street"
- CN5(g): Paraphrased okay but prefer you didn't employ the exact term "exclaimed" used by the source.
CN5(i): Both article and source use the exact phrase "his former trusted espionage assistant".Other citations to this source look okay, however based on this I think you need to review your offline references and spend some time checking and if necessary recasting the article wording vs. the sources' wording.
- Aside from the above, images, structure, level of detail, and now referencing/citations appear okay. Overall, an interesting and enjoyable read.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completed. Adamdaley (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose – Isn't it clear that he was in the Red Army in 1925–26 where he was taught to be a radio operator? Even prior to this he had an interest in basic radio's, while after the two years in the Red Army he was able to teach others and used radio's during World War II and his time in the United States. Adamdaley (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it could be expressed more clearly but, in any case, I can see that you've addressed most of my recent follow-up points so let me have another read through the article, during which time I may copyedit a little more, and we'll see how we go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, based on the latest changes and following my final copyedit, I'm happy to support -- well done. Just one last thing: I realised on my latest copyedit that we say "He was, however, dismissed from the NKVD in 1938" without having explicitly mentioned his membership of the NKVD. I know the Soviet intelligence apparatus had many names and layers so if he was in the NKVD by default through membership of some other organisation previously mentioned, fair enough, but we should make the connection clear. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stanisław Koniecpolski
- Nominator(s): Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus (talk)
- The article's previous A-class review can be found here.
A biography of one of the best known Polish military commanders, from the Golden Age of Poland. Also, an illustration of how our standards change. This was one of my first FAs years ago, in the days of Brilliant Prose. Recently I got around to adding inline cites, and bringing it to a GA status. Now, I hope we can move it forward to A-class, and eventually, FA-class. With regards to the "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" concern raised at an earlier review (and/or the "heavy reliance on one source"): Podhorodecki (1978) is THE decisive biography of the subject, no significant work has on him has been published since (and the entry from Polski Słownik Biograficzny predates Podhorecki's work, and he discusses it anyway). (And in case anybody wonders: no, there are no good English sources). PS. If somebody can do the "Update the transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page, found by using the "What Links Here" feature." part of the instructions, I'd appreciate it, it doesn't make enough sense to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical comment (not by way of review): I have completed the requested transclusion updates with these edits: [13] and [14]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, good luck with the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, here are some comments of mine.
- "Koniecpolski also negotiated with the Cossacks near Olszanica, where the Cossack register (list of privileged Cossacks in the Commonwealth military) was limited to 1,000 and Cossack raids on the Black Sea were banned" This seems a bit confusing in structure. Is what happened that: In negotiations with the Cossacks of Olszanica, Koniecpolski banned raids on the Black Sea and limited positions that the Cossacks from Olszanica could hold in the Cossack register to 1,000. If so, your current structure seems a bit confusing. Also, perhaps the total # in the Cossack register should be mentioned. Later, you seem to mention that the register is related to military service. Perhaps a bit more could be said about this.
- Clarified. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When was Treaty of Khotyn signed?
- Date added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything to say about his relationship with Khmelnytsky other than what is already said? This seems like it could be important due to Khmelnytsky's later rebellion.
- Nothing significant. Chmielnicki had more of a (bad) relation with Stanislaw's son, Aleksander Koniecpolski (1620–1659), but this is outside the scope of this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps something should be said about his legacy for future Polish and European/worldwide military leaders. That could also be somewhere that would describe tactics that were characteristic of him.
- An excellent idea, if only there were any sources for that. As far as I know, there aren't, or at least I cannot find them. If anybody would like to point me to any specific source, I'd be more than happy to read it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This [15] seems like it has a section on the Polish Art of War in the 16th and 17th centuries. That section, from what the Google Book preview shows me, does seem to talk about the influence of Koniecpolski on some later commanders, though I can't tell because some pages are not in the preview.Perhaps that might be of help. Other than this, I'm willing to support. --DemonicInfluence (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent idea, if only there were any sources for that. As far as I know, there aren't, or at least I cannot find them. If anybody would like to point me to any specific source, I'd be more than happy to read it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also are foreign language sources really not allowed?
- Why wouldn't they be...? I just made that note above for the occasional editor who thinks so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think this article was decent, but it felt like it lacked a bit of a conclusion. DemonicInfluence (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: I have focused on nitpicks. I hope these won't come off as too petty, but if you want to take it to FAC, you will probably need to consider some of these sorts of things:
- some images appear to have alt text, but others don't. It is not an A-class requirement, but you might consider making it consistent: [16] (suggestion only);
- Sure, fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a disambig link here: "negotiated with the Cossacks near Olszanica" (Olszanica, being the dab). Can this be dealt with?
- Well... there is one location that makes the most sense, and I disambiguated the link there, but it's not like the source is specific. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Notes, there is a tense issue: "after the diary of Karol Ogier, a French courtier, who in 1635 noted that Koniecpolski is 43 years old". (It should probably be "after the diary of Karol Ogier, a French courtier, who in 1635 noted that Koniecpolski was 43 years old);
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the lead "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is overlinked;
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- elsewhere in the article, the duplicate link checker reports quite a few instances of possible overlink: Sieradz, Sigismund III Vasa, Jan Zolkiweski, Iskender Pasha, Krzysztof Zbaraski, Khan Temir, viovode, Sejm, Black Sea, Pomerania, Puck, Danzig, Gniew, Tczew, Baltic Sea, stutter (and others);
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Gustavus Adolphus: 1626-29 section, there is an incorrectly spaced emdash: "putting his small forces to most efficient use — quick". Per WP:DASH, emdashes shouldn't be spaced;
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Wealth and influence section, there is an incorrectly spaced emdash: "Like most magnates, Koniecpolski sponsored artists — painters, sculptors". As above;
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- in the Wealth and influence section, "Koniecpolski inherited some 7–8 villages from his father". I suggest changing this to: "Koniecpolski inherited seven or eight villages from his father";
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- some of the inline citations end in full stops, but others don't. For example consider # 47 and 48. Either style is fine, but consistency is the key;
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the works in the Further reading section are not presented in a consistent style. For example consider Czaplinski v. Jasienica. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My concerns have been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport - some technical stuff, mostly nitpicking:- This article has some WP:Overcite issues - you don't need citations to the exact same reference for consecutive sentences, this is poor citation use and not in line with general practice in writing history.
- I beg to strongly disagree here. No, we are not writing a history book; we are writing a wikified encyclopedia. For such a medium, those are very good citations. That we accept lesser standards is a pity, I most certainly refuse to write substandard articles. (Sorry if I came of strong here, but this is something I feel very strongly about; and the citation style I use is not forbidden or discouraged by current rules). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns over text-source integrity, but the way you're going about it doesn't really accomplish anything different than using less dense citations. People always can insert new material into sentences with sources (see here for example). There's nothing you can do about that besides remain vigilant; it doesn't matter how densely you cite things. Annotating the citations to include what material they cover would probably be a better way to ensure text-source integrity, as then, if other material was inserted, the readers would at least know what each citation actually covers. Even still, as long as at least one person is keeping an eye on an article, it shouldn't be a problem. For example, I wrote SMS Von der Tann four years ago, and no such problems have crept into the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, nonetheless a densely cited article is better than the one that is not. While both can suffer from unreferenced text sneaked into referenced sentences, the densely cited one will at least not suffer from the question of "whether this sentence is referenced or not." --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concerns over text-source integrity, but the way you're going about it doesn't really accomplish anything different than using less dense citations. People always can insert new material into sentences with sources (see here for example). There's nothing you can do about that besides remain vigilant; it doesn't matter how densely you cite things. Annotating the citations to include what material they cover would probably be a better way to ensure text-source integrity, as then, if other material was inserted, the readers would at least know what each citation actually covers. Even still, as long as at least one person is keeping an eye on an article, it shouldn't be a problem. For example, I wrote SMS Von der Tann four years ago, and no such problems have crept into the article. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to strongly disagree here. No, we are not writing a history book; we are writing a wikified encyclopedia. For such a medium, those are very good citations. That we accept lesser standards is a pity, I most certainly refuse to write substandard articles. (Sorry if I came of strong here, but this is something I feel very strongly about; and the citation style I use is not forbidden or discouraged by current rules). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, there are several instances where three or more citations are used to support one sentence or even a single clause - this is overkill, especially for non-contentious material. For example, why do you need four citations for this sentence: "On 2 April 1627 Koniecpolski managed to recapture Puck."
- You are right here, I removed three unnecessary cites.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What source was used to create File:Rzeczpospolita.png?
- We would have to ask User:Halibutt. Out of curiosity, are we finally up to removing and tagging unreferenced maps? I suggested we should do this years ago, but the community was not interested then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what the general consensus is, but at the FAC I'm doing right now, Nikkimaria raised concerns over a map that did not specify a source, so I removed it. It makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could ask her. I'd support such a policy, but I'd hesitate to remove a useful map from an author I trust, just because we are going above and beyond our current policy. In this case I am pretty sure the map is accurate and neutral, and seems helpful. I've also left a comment at User_talk:Halibutt#Sources_for_your_maps and you're welcome to chip in and pressure 'but for the sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what the general consensus is, but at the FAC I'm doing right now, Nikkimaria raised concerns over a map that did not specify a source, so I removed it. It makes sense. Parsecboy (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We would have to ask User:Halibutt. Out of curiosity, are we finally up to removing and tagging unreferenced maps? I suggested we should do this years ago, but the community was not interested then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The description for File:Bitwa pod Oliwą 1627 3.JPG gives a date in the "mid 20th century" - if this was painted in the mid-20th century, it is not PD in the US and therefore unusable.
- You are probably right. The description of the file is bad, I'd suggest notifying the uploader, USer:Mathiasrex, and nominating it for deletion on Commons. I'll remove it from our article till this is resolved.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful with image placement, they shouldn't sandwich text between two images.
- Fixed; they don't on my screen... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The monitor I'm using right now is somewhat small, so that might have been why.
- Fixed; they don't on my screen... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an eye on low value links - stutter, hip, and fire power should probably be de-linked, for example. Also, some things are linked more than one, such as Tartar.
- This article has some WP:Overcite issues - you don't need citations to the exact same reference for consecutive sentences, this is poor citation use and not in line with general practice in writing history.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "de facto unofficial ruler" - this is redundant.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Foreign language terms should be italicized consistently.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "sponsored artists—painters, sculptors, writers." - this is not how an emdash works. You should use a colon, or something like "sponsored artists, including painters..."
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of comments/questions after a cursory reading
- The Crown Grand Hetman: 1630–37 section uses the spelling Zygmunt III Waza, while elsewhere in the article that king's name is spelt Sigismund III Vasa
- Is "Grand Crown Hetman" a different title than "Crown Grand Hetman"? Fornadan (t) 16:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both (standardized). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: Not much to point out here given it's a well written article and you fixed a lot of what the others pointed, but I did pick up on a few things:
- A little context for some specialized terms like "Hetman" and "Podstoli koronny" is lacking.
- I have reviewed them in text and I see no good way of explaining them on their first use. They are however blue-linked, so the reader can easily learn more. Commonwealth had over two dozen of unique titles and offices, and it is simply impractical to explain them on their occurrence. PS. Hetman is explained in lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In autumn of the same year he rejoined the army" An army wasn't previously mentioned nor is it specified which.
- I thought it would've been clear from the context, but I made it even more so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "King Sigismund III Vasa granted the buława (ceremonial mace or baton) of Grand Crown Hetman to Stanisław Żółkiewski and the baton of Field Crown Hetman to Koniecpolski." Either both should be "baton" or "buława" to be consistent. (I'm assuming both are equal in status)
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The conflict ended in cease-fire and in the Treaty of Kurukove; the Cossack register was set at 6,000; and the Cossacks again promised to stop raiding the Black Sea shores and provoking the Tatars." When did the conflict come to an end and the treaty get signed?
- Date added. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1625 the Zaporozhian Cossacks, led by Marek Zhmaylo,, rebelled, allied themselves with Szanhin Girej, and attempted to form an alliance with Moscow (the Zhmailo Uprising)." Unnecessary comma.
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In some instances you refer to Władysław as "King Władysław IV" in others as "King Władysław". This should be consistent.
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigismund III's last name is spelt as "Vasa" while his son's is spelt as "Waza". Why?
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that birth place and death place have the entity that existed at the time and a note saying "(present-day Poland)" and "(present-day Ukraine)" -- ◅PRODUCER (TALK) 18:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Here are some comments on the first two paragraphs:
- "(szlachcic)", "starosta", etc.: italicize words that haven't entered the English language and aren't proper nouns.
- I removed szlachcic, but szlachta and starosta seem to be used in specialized English literature without italics ([17], [18]). This is not consistent, and I could italizice them, but is this supported by MoS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:MOS#Italics, "Foreign words". - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed szlachcic, but szlachta and starosta seem to be used in specialized English literature without italics ([17], [18]). This is not consistent, and I could italizice them, but is this supported by MoS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "from 1625": Usually we say "from 1625 until his death" or whenever.
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Grand Crown Hetman": The series is nonparallel, because this phrase needs a "the", not an "a".
- I am sorry, I don't understand this comment. I don't think the text uses "a Grand Crown Hetman" phrase anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at it again, follow the link I provided, ask around, and if it still doesn't make sense, let me know. I'm not trying to be evasive; when I work as a copyeditor, it's helpful to know how much the writers can do on their own. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess there is an extra the, or his, or such in text. As a non-native speaker, those are sometimes a lottery to me, so if there's an extra, or missing, I am afraid the only way I could know which one would by by random guessing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at it again, follow the link I provided, ask around, and if it still doesn't make sense, let me know. I'm not trying to be evasive; when I work as a copyeditor, it's helpful to know how much the writers can do on their own. - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry, I don't understand this comment. I don't think the text uses "a Grand Crown Hetman" phrase anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "and later": after all the preceding things in the list?
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "(second-highest military commander, after the King)": Some will read that as highest other than the King; some will read it as second-highest.
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Koniecpolski's life involved almost constant warfare.": Generally avoid the word "involved"; it has too many different meanings, and it's often taken as a sign of intentionally evasive writing, even when the writing isn't evasive.
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Before he had reached the age of 20": Before age 20
- Clarified, I hope. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Battle of Cecora (Ţuţora) (1620)": ... in 1620
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "After release in 1623": After his release in 1623
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "defeated ... in 1624–26": This is a hard call; there's no consensus on when dashes are good substitutes for words. Personally, I'd say "between 1624 and 1626." - Dank (push to talk) 17:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both.
Due to RL, I may not be able to address/respond this issues for a few days; I'll try to do so around Tuesday the latest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both.
Oppose on prose per standard disclaimer, not because I don't think it can pass, but because I don't want to see it passing in the current shape, where even when I point out a very basic problem in the opening sentence (no "and" in a list is the problem at the moment), the nominator says that he can't spot a problem. The number of problems is also part of the problem. It's not the job of copyeditors and reviewers to go through the prose of an A-class article fixing a lot of mistakes this basic. If you don't want to find a co-nominator who can help, then ... I'm not sure what's the best way to put this, but help others with their articles and it's likely that someone will help you with yours. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- G'day, Dan and Piotr. I made an attempt at reworking the lead. Dan, is that an improvement? If so, and if Piotr is also happy with it, I will make another run through the article. Piotr, could you please review my change to the lead and check that I haven't changed the meaning? Also, I think there was an error in the dates. I changed 1625 to 1632 for Koniecpolski's rank of Grand Crown Hetman. Was this the right thing to do, or have I missed something? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rupert. I've done more with the first two paragraphs; see what you think. I'm seeing problems in every sentence of the third paragraph as well. (The second sentence is a judgment call; I'm concerned that Wikipedians will read "sources" as the word is used on Wikipedia, and I don't expect most readers to read it that way ... I'd prefer something more specific, such as "his biographers", "historians of the period", whatever.) If it's more than you want to do, then let's talk about the fairest and most productive way to tackle this problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done a couple of small sections. I will leave it at that for the moment, as I would like to make sure that Piotr is okay with my changes before I move on. I had a little trouble with some of the foreign language words, so unfortunately I might have misinterpreted something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and edits. I've m tweaked some things in lead. I hope they are to your liking. I very much appreciate proofraeding and copyediting, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a native speaker and those are my weak points. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to see this pass A-class, Piotr, and I don't want you to give up on Milhist's A-class process. It would be nice if we could get more help from WP:POLAND here, since few (none?) of us can read the main sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of help? Even through WP:POLAND is pretty active, it is no milhist, we have several active editors. They can verify some facts, particularly online, but I would very much doubt they anybody would bother to verify an entire book, particularly given that most of Polish books are not visibile in Google Books, so they'd have to get a real physical copy. (Btw, I used to try to reference certain key facts with English sources, but after being repeatedly told by reviewers that my articles are over sourced, I begun to give up on that). PS. The best idea I have, source-wise, is that if there are any controversial or other claims in the article, I can quote the Polish text which translation you can have another editor verify (mind you, however, I am traveling between US and Poland often, and I may not have some sources at hand). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my two cents is that this is a bigger problem that we can solve all at once. Yes, I'll ask over at WT:POLAND for a "spot-check" of the sources; what that entails will be up to whoever does it. We'll help with prose on this one, and I'll put some deep thought into a longer-term and more general solution to the problem; it's not fair to burden you with what I see as a wiki-wide problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like thinking about wiki-wide issues (see User:Piotrus/Morsels. But in this case, I don't see what we can do beyond getting more reviewers, who are the function of more editors... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, my two cents is that this is a bigger problem that we can solve all at once. Yes, I'll ask over at WT:POLAND for a "spot-check" of the sources; what that entails will be up to whoever does it. We'll help with prose on this one, and I'll put some deep thought into a longer-term and more general solution to the problem; it's not fair to burden you with what I see as a wiki-wide problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of help? Even through WP:POLAND is pretty active, it is no milhist, we have several active editors. They can verify some facts, particularly online, but I would very much doubt they anybody would bother to verify an entire book, particularly given that most of Polish books are not visibile in Google Books, so they'd have to get a real physical copy. (Btw, I used to try to reference certain key facts with English sources, but after being repeatedly told by reviewers that my articles are over sourced, I begun to give up on that). PS. The best idea I have, source-wise, is that if there are any controversial or other claims in the article, I can quote the Polish text which translation you can have another editor verify (mind you, however, I am traveling between US and Poland often, and I may not have some sources at hand). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do want to see this pass A-class, Piotr, and I don't want you to give up on Milhist's A-class process. It would be nice if we could get more help from WP:POLAND here, since few (none?) of us can read the main sources. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and edits. I've m tweaked some things in lead. I hope they are to your liking. I very much appreciate proofraeding and copyediting, as I mentioned earlier, I am not a native speaker and those are my weak points. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've done a couple of small sections. I will leave it at that for the moment, as I would like to make sure that Piotr is okay with my changes before I move on. I had a little trouble with some of the foreign language words, so unfortunately I might have misinterpreted something. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rupert. I've done more with the first two paragraphs; see what you think. I'm seeing problems in every sentence of the third paragraph as well. (The second sentence is a judgment call; I'm concerned that Wikipedians will read "sources" as the word is used on Wikipedia, and I don't expect most readers to read it that way ... I'd prefer something more specific, such as "his biographers", "historians of the period", whatever.) If it's more than you want to do, then let's talk about the fairest and most productive way to tackle this problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: there is a page needed tag in the Early career section. Could this be dealt with? If you are citing the whole work, then it is probably fine to just remove the tag, although it would probably be good to add a page range. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, removed that ref, the single fact it cites is covered by another ref. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- this might be better presented in a footnote (like the one currently at 'a'): "Podhorodecki gives slightly different estimates—just over 15,000 (including low-quality Gdańsk infantry) against 21,000". As it currently is, it seems a bit abrupt and breaks up the flow of the narrative. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing. I see "Podole Voivodeship", and "Podole" linked to Podolia, but apparently Podole can mean a lot of things. Are we talking about Podolia in both cases? - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to stop at chorąży koronny. One problem is, if they do click on chorąży, they'll find out it can mean several different things, and they have to read a fair amount to find that out. Please go through the text making sure that a reader who doesn't speak Polish can understand what the text is saying. We worked carefully on the language at WP:Checklist#clarity: "Read your work slowly to make sure that you're saying what you mean to say. Avoid obscure technical terms. For words and phrases that are common in the sources and hard to do without but unfamiliar to a lot of our readers, provide a link to a Wikipedia page or section of a page that clarifies the term. If many readers won't even be able to guess what the sentence means without clicking, give at least a clue to the meaning in the text in addition to the link." Many readers won't guess from the context what chorąży koronny means here. Please ping me when you've had a chance to go through the text, using English wherever possible (but it's fine to also give the precise, Polish words at the first occurrence), and adding clues to the meanings of Polish words where that's necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 12:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I understand what you are asking for. Both Podolia and Podole Voivodship are linked; they are not a disambig, and I don't think we explain geographical terms in text. I added an explanation for chorąży and podstoli. I don't see anything else from Polish terms that needs explaining, but if there is, let me know. Other terms, perhaps raitar...? On the subject of copyediting, I am not comfortable with one of the recent changes, I see that the word voivode has been replaced with the word governor. This is not correct, which is why we even have different articles on those concepts. I understand that if an English term exists, we prefer to use it, but this should be done only if this is a direct translation, and no article exists on the specialist term. When it does, as is the case with voivode, it should be used, even if it is less familiar to the reader. This is, after all, not a Simple English Wikipedia. Besides, use of approximate translation is a pain; I cannot begin to count how often I've seen inacurate translation even in academic works, making it impossible to correctly link or define a term without the use of Polish sources (oh, and FYI - the most common incorect rendering of voivode in English is not governor, but palatine...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A voivode is a provincial governor, right? What's wrong with "provincial governor"? - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about I get started on the difference between provinces of Poland and voivodeships of Poland? There were no provincial governors, only voivodeship governors. Known as voivodes :) Look at {{Polish terms for country subdivisions}} and try not to cringe - most if not all of them have no good translations. And Poland is no exception, France has its arrondissements, Germany has its Regierungsbezirk, Russia has its oblasts... calling them provinces or counties is not correct, not for a proper encyclopedia, that's why we have loanwords. Btw, check the naming discussion we are having at Talk:State country :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it's sometimes best to use the more exact foreign words, and I'm aware that the words that I proposed weren't exact translations. When we put "the voivode (governor)" in the lead, we're hoping that people who care about the distinctions will know that when we say "governor" in what follows, we mean voivode. What you've said has been helpful, and if this one is still here in a few days, I'll come back to it, but I'm really pressed for time right now so I won't have time to finish copyediting. I see Rupert had a chance to work on this one, and I've struck my oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and help so far! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it's sometimes best to use the more exact foreign words, and I'm aware that the words that I proposed weren't exact translations. When we put "the voivode (governor)" in the lead, we're hoping that people who care about the distinctions will know that when we say "governor" in what follows, we mean voivode. What you've said has been helpful, and if this one is still here in a few days, I'll come back to it, but I'm really pressed for time right now so I won't have time to finish copyediting. I see Rupert had a chance to work on this one, and I've struck my oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about I get started on the difference between provinces of Poland and voivodeships of Poland? There were no provincial governors, only voivodeship governors. Known as voivodes :) Look at {{Polish terms for country subdivisions}} and try not to cringe - most if not all of them have no good translations. And Poland is no exception, France has its arrondissements, Germany has its Regierungsbezirk, Russia has its oblasts... calling them provinces or counties is not correct, not for a proper encyclopedia, that's why we have loanwords. Btw, check the naming discussion we are having at Talk:State country :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A voivode is a provincial governor, right? What's wrong with "provincial governor"? - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I understand what you are asking for. Both Podolia and Podole Voivodship are linked; they are not a disambig, and I don't think we explain geographical terms in text. I added an explanation for chorąży and podstoli. I don't see anything else from Polish terms that needs explaining, but if there is, let me know. Other terms, perhaps raitar...? On the subject of copyediting, I am not comfortable with one of the recent changes, I see that the word voivode has been replaced with the word governor. This is not correct, which is why we even have different articles on those concepts. I understand that if an English term exists, we prefer to use it, but this should be done only if this is a direct translation, and no article exists on the specialist term. When it does, as is the case with voivode, it should be used, even if it is less familiar to the reader. This is, after all, not a Simple English Wikipedia. Besides, use of approximate translation is a pain; I cannot begin to count how often I've seen inacurate translation even in academic works, making it impossible to correctly link or define a term without the use of Polish sources (oh, and FYI - the most common incorect rendering of voivode in English is not governor, but palatine...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment: This struck as a very good article (being made better by the current copy edits) with a messy reference section, so as I had some time on my hands I spent the last week tiding up the reference section, in the process of this I also converted the references to the "short format" type - I hope everybody is OK with this. --Thefrood talk 20:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the cleanup. I think I'll start using the "short format" ref type myself, inspired by what you've shown me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.