Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 an article:

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
  2. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  3. 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.
  4. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  6. 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).

If an article is nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be demoted:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing review subpage (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article) to an archive (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1).
  2. Update the link for the last review in the {{Article history}} on the article's talk page.
  3. Update the transclusion in the relevant assessment archive page, found by using the "What Links Here" feature.
  4. Follow the instructions for making a request above (editing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new nomination page).
  5. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the nomination statement (e.g. "Prior nomination here.").

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.

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.

After A-Class

Feel free to ask reviewers to help prepare your article as a featured article candidate. We're hoping that more FAC prep will help draw some of the regular FAC reviewers to our A-class review page.

edit

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

Battle of Kunersdorf[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth55 (talk)

Battle of Kunersdorf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Second of a four-part series on Frederick the Great's battles (others being Battle of Hochkirch, presently here for review, Battle of Leuthen, awaiting GA review, and Battle of Rossbach, still in puberty). auntieruth (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SchlachtbeiKunersdorf.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Joachim-Bernhard-vp-2.jpg, File:Kleist-fällt-bei-kunersdorf.jpg, File:Brief_von_Friedrich_der_Große.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Nikki, I added PD-old-70-1923 to the files. Is that the correct tag? auntieruth (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If the work was published before 1923 - is that true for all of these? (And if you're using that tag you don't also need to keep the separate life+70 tag). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • yes it's true for all. I didn't want to remove a tag that someone else had put on though.  :( auntieruth (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Names inscribed on the Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth55 (talk)

Names inscribed on the Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


Like Project E (below), the title says it all. I thought initially I'd make a category for these men, but the category glordes did not approve, so we have a list instead. The names were taken directly from the publication announcing the opening of the statue in 1851. Upon advice from Catlemur I added references to every name, most of which are ADB or NDB and explained in the notes. Everyone is linked to at least a stub. Some of these guys have very little written about them--in some cases, Frederick was scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of generalship and he ended up promoting a few men with absolutely no talent for leadership or military science. He expected his generals to lead from the front and consequently, he lost quite a few of them in combat. auntieruth (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009:

  • The name of the article drew me in - wonderfully obscure (in all the best ways!)
  • good!  :)
  • A very initial thought: I wondered if this should be a "List of names inscribed..." article, since most of it is made up by lists?
  • To confirm: is the capitalisation of "Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great" right? Various sources also put it as the "equestrian statue of Frederick the Great", but not sure which is the most common
  • Final bit of the lead looks broken ("Beneath the statues are bronze plaques listing")
  • duh. fixed.
  • "depicts the king in military uniform" - MOS would have this as "the King" (it is referring to the specific ruler);

same below

  • yes, fixed. But does not apply to his brothers
  • When you say "The pedestal has two bands of sculpture below the statue of the king", who is "the king"? Surely this is still Frederick the Great? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The lower of the sculpted bands depicts 74 men of Frederick the Great's time in life-size" would "The lower of the sculpted bands depicts life-size 74 men of Frederick the Great's time" be cleaner?
  • cleaned!
  • "The lowest band" - is this different from the lower band?
  • well yes, there is Frederick on the top, a band of bas-relief illustrations of his life, a band of the virtues, then the band of men on horse backand others, and then a sort of spacing band, and then the bronze plates with the names.
  • The text currently says, though, that "The pedestal has two bands of sculpture below the statue of the king", which I think is where the confusion comes in for me. I found your description here a lower clearer. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "The figures represented are predominantly military, but also include six men of note: diplomats, the Prime Minister of Prussia, jurists, poets, and philosophers." - this didn't read well to me; we say six men, and then give five different categories.
  • because there were duplicate categories
  • I'd suggest then "six men of note, including diplomats..." Hchc2009 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • "Brother of the King" - capitalisation seems wrong
  • he had several brothers; if there were one, it would be Brother.
  • "Philosopher" -ditto
  • "Diplomat" - ditto (same below where you are giving a role after a comma - sometimes you use lower case - which I think is right - occasionally upper case)
  • I think I've fixed these.
  • "did not reach the rank of General" - is the capitalisation right here?
  • changed to did not achieve the highest military rank.
  • Note on sources - could this be in normal size type? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • sure. Done
Thank you! auntieruth (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

MisterBee1966:

  • "they are marked with a <Hammer (Last Stone First End)>". I want to suggest color coding these entries in the table and using a searchable character tag such as an exclamation mark (!), etc.
  • Some entries in the section labeled "Standing, full figures" which are marked with an asterisk ... As before, I suggest to add some color coding to make them easier to identify
  • Perhaps this would then have been better as a table than current format?
  • I experimented a bit, have a look if this suits you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the lead "Beneath the statues bronze plaques list the names of military men, philosophers, mathematicians, poets, statesmen, engineers, and others important in Prussia's emergence as a military power in the mid-18th century." I suggest to state how many names in total are inscribed and to make a statistical statement saying how many of them are military men, philosophers, mathematicians, poets, etc.
  • OR?
  • I suggest mentioning its close proximity to the Bebelplatz, Humboldt University, St. Hedwig's Cathedral, Nazi book burning (just a thought)
  • that might be original research? Or not? I've added one of the images showing location relative to other places, but not the commentary. auntieruth (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In the section labeled "Inscriptions", I suggest making a statement that no names are inscribed on the east face other than Frederick the Great himself and Frederick William IV of Prussia (under his reign the statue was completed)
  • okay will do that. .... Although I don't remember that from the source....?
  • the link to Wiki commons in the lower right hand corner leads nowhere (commons does have a Category:Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great), suggest fixing
  • Ah, but it should lead somewhere....and now it's fixed!
  • "Anton Balthasar König, Biographisches Lexikon aller Helden und Militärpersonen: Welche sich in preussischen Diensten berühmt gemacht haben (Biographical Dictionary of all those heroes and military figures who have earned fame in the Prussian service), A Wever, 1791. v. 4, p. 2" unify naming convention for page numbers
  • done
  • check capitalization. example "Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, (1698–1759), mathematician, first president of the Prussian Academy of Sciences", mathematician is lower case, while in most instances the explanatory text following the comma begins in capital letters. I thought military ranks are only capitalized if they are place before the name. Please check
  • You and Hchc2009 seem to have conflicting ideas about what gets capitalized. auntieruth (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Hchc2009, but the question is this: is the military title capitalized after the person's name. It's clear it's John Smith was a brigadier general, but is it John Smith, Brigadier General, or John Smith, brigadier general? auntieruth (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure it would be either "John Smith, brigadier general" or "Brigadier General John Smith" - the latter would be more normal, I'd have thought, but happy to be corrected! ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I've moved all the titles to before their names.
  • Should this be in table format? auntieruth (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've tested one section in table format. See what you think. I can add a column that shows where their name is, and then merge all the tables too. auntieruth (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I liked the previous layout more. The current table layout creates too much empty space. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  • (Well, I was jsut thinking I liked the table layout more. I've filled in some of the blank spaces. I don't think it needs to have such large lines, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Although I like what you did above, it's not sortable, which you said it needed to be....? @Hchc2009:, what do you think? auntieruth (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm probably neutral on that one. On my screen at least, the table looks fine, but I'm generally cautious about complicating more simple formatting approaches unless there's a strong reason to do so. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Project E[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Project E (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The title says it all. When this article was created in November 2008, it was immediately nominated for deletion as a hoax. It wasn't. More recently I have expanded it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67

  • I reviewed this article for GAN and it is in good shape. I think that it needs some greater precision around the nomenclature of the bombers used under this project. It uses "V-bombers" as an umbrella term to refer to them, but at one point Canberra's were used as well. I think it would be better to use "strategic and tactical bombers" or something similar to refer to the bombers that were used when it is a more general reference, and only use "V-bombers" where it just refers to the Valiant, Vulcan etc that were actually V-bombers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    I've only used "V-bombers" to refer to the Valiant, Vulcan and Victor. I've tried to make it clear that Canberra was not a V-bomber. Is there some wording anywhere in the article from which a reader might infer that Canberra was a V-bomber? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
    Well, for example, there is "The Minister of Defence, Harold Macmillan, determined that the V-bomber force" when it seems clear that Canberra's were being considered for the role at the time, not just the planned V-bombers. Did Macmillan say "V-bombers" or was he more generic? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    No, he said "V-bombers" and Canberras were not being considered at all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Neptune (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Neptune (1909) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Neptune was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships. Before the First World War, she served as the flagship of the Home Fleet and as a testbed for an experimental gunnery director. Like the rest of the British dreadnoughts, she had an uneventful war, only firing her guns during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. Considered obsolescent, she was scrapped after the war. As usual, I'm looking for any remaining uses of AmEng and for unexplained nautical jargon in preparation for a FAC. Any help in identifying infelicitous prose would also be very helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

John Glenn[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk)

John Glenn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because extensive expansions and improvements have been made since his death. Being an American icon and a famous astronaut, it would be very good for this article to reach A-class status. Kees08 (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Kees, welcome to A-class. I see you've gotten a good start getting several articles through GAN, and you've done a lot of admirable work on this article. It can be tough getting long articles with hundreds of editors through the review process, in part because it can be hard to find and verify the information in the article. But I agree that it's worth taking a shot at getting this important article through A-class and eventually WP:FAC, if possible. I'll be happy to help with copyediting, but it's too early for that. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That is good to hear, thank you. GOCE recently took a run at copy editing, and the only substantial amount of content added since then is in his political career section. Not to say the other sections cannot be improved still! I am hoping to get this and a couple others in the near future through, so it will be good to see how far away I was initially from A-class. Kees08 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment - Citation formatting is currently pretty uneven. As a general rule, similar citations should look similar, and citations should include sufficient information to clearly identify the source even without a URL. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, I have been working to address this comment. I believe the biggest elephant remaining in the room is the book citations, and I will try to take care of those in the next couple of days. Kees08 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: All of the book citations are now the same, and I expanded several others. Were there any other major, overarching problems with the citations? Kees08 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You're italicizing a lot of things that shouldn't be. I'm also still seeing a lot of inconsistencies - some books include locations and others don't, some newspapers include publisher and others don't (it's not necessary), several web sources include only title and URL, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I am working on these comments, do you have examples of what should not be italicized? Kees08 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
School names or NASA. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: In those cases, they are the publisher and should be italicized. In general they are not, but when they are the publisher they are. Still working on the other comments. Kees08 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
No, publisher names should not be italicized. Italics are for work titles - books, journals, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I do not mean to be daft, and the CS1 templates are not gospel, but the templates automatically italicize website names. Can you provide me any documentation saying that I am wrong, and that in general it looks like the template is wrong? Kees08 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Er... {{citation|publisher=Somewhere University}} produces , Somewhere University  Missing or empty |title= (help), {{cite web|publisher=Somewhere University}} produces . Somewhere University.  Missing or empty |title= (help); , etc. You are correct that website names are typically italicized, but website names and publishers are not the same thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
And the two were totally jumbled in the article. I made two passes over the references, making them consistent at least. I've also added access dates where they were missing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I will take a look as well. I still do not really understand the difference between the website and publisher fields. When would I use the website field? Just want to know for future articles. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My rules of thumb are: (1) use it only on {{cite web}}; (2) use it if and only if you can't figure out who the publisher is; (3) It has to be a domain name, and not an organisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Operation Hurricane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The next article in the British nuclear series, something of a spin-off from High Explosive Research, but interesting in its own right I think. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Having just passed to GA there's not a lot to criticize. Nothing needs DAB'ing, all ALTs on images look good, images otherwise appear viable, Earwig shows copyvio unlikely, everything is referenced and references are high-quality, no redirects or dead links. Some minor critique - At five paragraphs I think the lede is technically out of compliance with WP:LEDE, however, the paragraphs are short so I think it meets the spirit of law. Under "Outcome" the sentence that begins Writing in 1951 ... needs, I believe, to move the period outside quotes as per MOS:LQ. DarjeelingTea (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
    I have reorganised the lead into four paragraphs. Per MOS:LQ: Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material. It is, so I have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks - looks good to me in that case! DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comments Support re prose and sources/ auntieruth

This sentences is confusing.

The study noted that what was required was an isolated site with no human habitation 100 miles (160 km) downwind, from which fallout would be blown out to sea but away from shipping lanes. It had to be large enough to accommodate several detonations over a period of years, and ready by mid-1952.
The study noted four site requirements: no human habitation within 100 miles (160 km) downwind; from which fallout would be blown out to sea and away from shipping lanes; large enough to accommodate several detonations over a period of years; and ready by mid-1952.
YesY It's like the Spanish Inquisition. Re-cast it in point form. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
caption of radio tower photo: should be was erected, not is erected.
YesY I'm used to picture captions in the present.Changed to past tense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
souvenir relics  ??? you mean collect relics as souvenir? Use of souvenir as a verb is very informal.  :( Maybe I'm a snob.
YesY More likely me thinking in French instead of English je pense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

auntieruth (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Question: why is the Compagna listing so heavily? auntieruth (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Just an optical illusion caused by the anti-U-boat camouflage paint. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments -- great to see this old article, which I've linked to more than once in my Australian military bios, redeveloped to this standard...

  • Copyedited, so pls let me know any concerns there; outstanding (minor) points:
    • "There was political advantage in demonstrating that the United Kingdom was not a satellite state of the United States." -- I feel you've effectively said the same thing the para before with "political advantages to demonstrating that Britain could develop and test nuclear weapons without American assistance" so do we need both?
      YesY Removed, merged paragraph with the previous one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • "some men were transferred from Campania by helicopter" -- not particularly vital but since we mention types and operators of other aircraft do we know what sort of chopper and who operated it?
      YesY Campania carried three Westland WS-51 Dragonfly helicopters. Added. I don't know what NAS they belonged to. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    • "Two helicopters flew in to gather a sample of contaminated seawater from the lagoon" -- ditto.
  • Although I only know the bones of this story, the article seems comprehensive to me but not overly detailed, and structure is straightforward and logical.
  • I'll try to do a source review before I finish up.
  • Prefer to see Nikkimaria do the image review as we're talking post-war Australian pictures, so PD-1996 wouldn't apply to them.

Well done in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Monte Bello map (and is it Monte Bello or Montebello?)
    • Yeah, good point about the name, Nikki, I've seen both used in sources but the article seems to use Monte Bello elsewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
      All the old sources used in the article use Monte Bello, but the recent stuff generally uses Montebello. The two seem to be used interchangeably. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Several 1940s/1950s images include the PD-1923 tag or don't have any US tag (File:Op_hurricane.jpg) - some of these should use PD-1996, others it's unclear what their status would be in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    None of the images are using the PD-1923 tag; they are just using the US-PD tag. All Australian images from before 1 January 1955 are in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    In Australia, yes. On what basis are they PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    The images are owned by the government, and the government has released them into the public domain world-wide. Per the 2004 Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry to be dense, but I'm not seeing that provision in the agreement - do you know which specific section it's in? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    What I got said: The effect of the application of Article 18 of the Berne Convention, referenced in Article 17.4.5, is that there is no obligation on Australia to enact retrospective protection of copyright material that has already fallen into the public domain. The magical date therefore became 1 January 1955. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    In Australia. But unless there's a similar provision on the US side, they generally would have restored copyrights, and that provision wouldn't seem to affect that. (Also, something like OperationHurricane.png would seem not to have been government-owned). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    The British and Australian governments assert that the expiry of crown copyright applies worldwide. US law apparently does permit material to be put into the public domain. (Whereas in Australia, only the government is allowed to do that.) I have removed the newspaper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, I've seen the British assertion but not the Australian - do you have a link? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    I've asked the Attorney General for one. Last time we got bogged down in the US government's intention to abolish the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    I've sent off another ministerial request to Senator Brandis. This could take a while, so I would like to withdraw this nomination, and resubmit when the required paperwork is in hand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

Nominator(s): Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have subtantially expanded it (I think, about 5x?), in order to comprehensively cover the subject's life and career, in context of their time. It is now backed by good quality reliable sources, with particular adherance to WP:RS/AC. In order to achieve this, it required complete re-writing from this. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

A few brief passing comments (although I will return shortly to review in full) and I've made a few edits, mostly around spelling that you can see here:

  • There are a couple of footnotes (33 and 35 spring to mind) where the page ranges have not been closed off. Is there a reason for that?
  • Footnote 108 is a bare url
  • You deal with the DNB references in very different ways which should be made consistent. Footnote 1 is the best dealt with, but variations on a theme for the same person include 17, 45, 108, 139, 145 and 151. FN 146 should also be in the same format if it's a different person.
  • Is there a reason why most books are in the bibliography, with a short reference to identify them in the sources, while others are listed in the sources in full (149, 156 and 157, as example)? I'm not sure I follow a pattern or rationale.
  • There is a lack of ISBN/oclc numbers in the bibliography (although that may be because of answer to the point above).

I hope to be back shortly with a prose review. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks The Bounder- is this the place for me to comment? 'I've never done this befor,' she said ;) re. all your points about footnotes. The fact that I don't even really understand the questions should indicate the extent of my skills in that department. Research and prose man, me. Sorry about that! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 11:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
    • OK, I've been fixing the bits I can, and I'll do the prose review after the format tweaking. There will still be a couple of bits I'll have to,chuck back to you, as I can't close off the page ranges (where you have "pp. 123–").'most of the rest I,can sort with some minor tweaking (I've done the DNB points this morning). All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I've made a few more edits (following some source and formatting changes). A few other comments:

  • There are two "although"s in quick succession, which should be changed
  • There's either a word too many, or a missing name in "he and attended assiduously"
  • The following sentence needs to be re-written: "Indeed, since, Perche was a frontier region, and 'bore so much of the brunt of the war at this time,'[20] so whatever income the estate generated was probably ploughed back into the defence of the region.[21]"
  • You have "organise" and "organized"
  • "One of his most well-known disputes Buckingham had" needs re-working a little
  • "Buckingham was one of the lords commissioned arrest the rebels" needs a tweak
  • Is one a "negotiator to" or a "negotiator with" another party

Part done more to follow soon; I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Final comments

Again I've made a few copy edits on the more straightforward points

  • I'm not sure whether you missed the final point about "negotiator to" or "negotiator with" or whether you disagree. (I'm not 100% sure which way it should be, but it's worth checking out);
  • "and encouraged to do so by those retainers reliant on him": this doesn't seem to parse with the previous section of the sentence. It may just need a slight tweak to make it flow more fully;
  • Ditto with "Buckingham, once again acting as representative of the king[110] and did not allow the Yorkists' envoys to meet Henry";
  • "It has been noted that..." Probably best to say which historian writes (not notes) this.
  • You should run the 'duplicate links' tool over the article, as there are a few double links in close proximity to one another.

That's it from me. I haven't searched for additional sources, reviewed the ones used, or checked image licences, etc., but focussed entirely on the prose and formatting elements. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • References/Bibliography not systematically organized. Some are last name first, others first name, etc. Plus why aren't "references" linked to Bibliography?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Clearly because (with the possible exception of Cockayne) my referencing style is, as it should be, last name / first name, but the 'Googlebookrefgenerator' automatically and systematically does the opposite. End result, two different citation styles. On the assumption that this surely must have happened before, you, Lingzhi, probably have a better chance of resolving the issue than me. Cheers! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The Google book ref generator has wee little button you can click to fix that formatting. I press the wee little button every time... It's bedtime now. If you give me permission, I'll format things as the are in User:Lingzhi/sandbox, or at least similar, over the next few days.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you re-writing the Bengal famine of 1943 article? Excellent! H'mmm I think you should probably have that permission; although I studiously stay away from Harvard referencing, FYI. Good night! although it's only 1430 hours :p O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 14:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: left some comments about the referencing format over at the PR - just FYI, usually you shouldn't be running a PR and ACR concurrently. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Mmmm; I asked about that. Apparently it's no big deal. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I forgot to mention about PR. I'll redo the refs and leave a note on talk; if anyone grumbles I'll undo my edits.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I hope you won't be offended, but that is one of the more confusing referencing systems I've ever seen. Not the most confusing ever, but one of the most... I pity the poor n00b who tries to press "edit" on this article. No offense.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I imagine I was too subtle above; let me rephrase. I don't use Harvard because it is crap. No offence. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I can revert all my edits, if you wish. I don't think harvard is more repetitive than what was there before. In fact, I think it's much less repetitive. But as I said, I can revert all my edits, if you wish.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "Compton Reeves, A." or "Reeves, A. Compton"? My google search turned up slightly confusing results, but I suspect the latter, so I added it that way.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • All the Cokayne references are looking a bit wobbly. I would rather not touch them.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

comments from Auntieruth[edit]

I'm commenting here and not on peer review. I'm willing to do one, but the comments would be the same.
Lead
  • {xt|His early years were spent in relative poverty, as much...} How about making this poverty; much of his estate... Although...I'm not sure as the two are clearly related. Did she keep him on a tight allowance? did she squander money on herself? what's the deal.
  • How many fathers did this man have? It looks like only one, but you refer to plural fathers...
  • "for some time..." how about he was constantly feuding with....
  • After his return from France, Buckingham spent the rest of his life continuing to serve the English crown, but remained in England.
  • Overall, the lead is sometimes jumpy. He acted as a peace maker in the partisan politics of the 1430s,
  • his mother's death didn't turn him into a wealthy man it just gave him control of his wealth. How old was he when Mom died? Darn the old girl was 100 years old!!! Extraordinary.
  • "a great grandson of Edward and etc...Actually, the key there is that he's related to the leading aristocratic houses of the time: a great grandson of King Edward on his mother's side, connected to Staffords, Grenvilles, Audleys, etc, back to the house of Lusigan on his fathers. Furthermore, he made an excellent marriage to etc.
Background and youth
  • was it important that they had royal blood, or is that just an aside.
  • you need the mdah between STafford and Edmund.
  • no omma after reduced income or after year
  • Although his mother controlled management of the estate through her dower rights, Humphrey became a royal ward, under control...
  • Iwould put the sentence on his being a hothead in the section on his character.
Early career
  • However, Henry V died in France on 31 August 1422.
  • I don't understand the part of the sentence about getting to Westminster.
  • who did not impose the usual fee
  • who decided. also need proper dash John, Duke of Bedford, and Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, would have positions of importance. N
  • while the new king was a baby (not as)
  • he attended this meetings assiduously
  • favored the interests of Humphrey...Favored the interests of Gloucester
  • Beaufort, as defacto head of council, (needs comma)
  • what Cardinal? (you mention later, but it's confusing here)
  • the "He" after not too distant future should clearly refer to Stafford You have two Humphreys,
  • what bishop? Archbishop of Canterbury? I'm confused.
  • in the vicinity of Paris.
  • comma after 11 October 1431
  • when did the English withdraw from Norandy
  • ...although in an area of almost constant warfare, inreal terms, the ....
  • invested, not ploughed back. If he put it into agriculture....
  • the King's Lancastrian estates
  • regional magnates or regnal magnates?
  • do we have a link to royal affinity? If not, you'll have to explain it.

Will do more later.  :) auntieruth (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

St Vincent-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

St Vincent-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

These three British battleships were ordered at a time when the government in power was interested in reduced expeditures on the Royal Navy and showed only minor improvements over their predecessors. They spent their entire careers based in home waters and did not have eventful careers during World War I. They only saw combat during the Battle of Jutland. One of them was destroyed by magazine explosions while at anchor in 1917. The two remaining ships were effectively obsolete by the end of the war and were sold for scrap in the early 1920s. As always, I'm looking for remnants of AmEng and unexplained jargon. I'm also interested in readers' opinions on the balance in the narrative of the sisters' activities; too much detail, not enough? They literally did very little other than training during the war, so there's not a whole lot of excitement to add, although I can probably expand the training bits more if necessary. As the Grand Fleet generally did things en masse during the war, this will be the model for all the other battleship-class articles, so it needs to be done well. Therefore I'd like reviewers to pay a particular attention to the service section.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:HMS Vanguard (1909).png - needs a source, and this appears to be where it came from. I'm not entirely sold on the usability of the photo given what little we know about it (Nikki might be able to give us a better answer), but it may be better to just use a different image with clearer status (like this one).
    • Swapped in a better pic.
  • File:HMS Vanguard aft guns USNHC NH 52619.jpg - not necessary, but it looks like the version available on the NHHC's site is higher quality - you might consider uploading it.
    • Good idea, done.

Support Comments

  • I spy a "favor"
  • What were the speeds reached on sea trials?
  • I'd say the level of detail for the service history section is about right.
  • The Subsequent activity header seems to come out of nowhere - subsequent to what? On one hand, excessive subdivision isn't ideal, but there needs to be at least something else there. A "Jutland" section makes the most sense.
  • I wonder if the last section is appropriately titled - only three sentences of the final four paragraphs concern the loss of Vanguard. I might move that paragraph into the Subsequent activity section and retitle the last section as "Postwar" or something. Parsecboy (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Rearranged the paras, see how it flows now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Parsecboy:

Comments

  • You asked for AmEng, so there is a "favor" and "center"
  • "preceeding" should be "preceding"
  • I don't see the benefit of giving pressures in kgf/sqcm; just psi and kPa is enough
    • Actually, I see it more often in books than I do kPa, but I have no idea what's taught nowadays.
  • "back up" should be "backup"
  • "the 4th BS were in the centre" should be was

Were only three bodies recovered from Vanguard's explosion, or was it that Collingwood recovered three?

    • I think that there might have been a few more bodies recovered, but those 3 were just by Collingwood.

Pretty good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Thanks for looking this over and catching these little, but annoying things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: « Return to A-Class review list

Norwich War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Norwich War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Yes, another war memorial. Not the most imposing design, but a relatively intricate one. It has moved around a bit during its history and was sadly neglected in the early 21st century but thankfully restored and now takes pride of place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Just two minor points from me in another excellent article:

  • As this was unveiled in 1927, it is obvious that at least part of "The dates of the two world wars are inscribed..." must be a later addition. Do we know when the additional date was made?
    • Sadly not. Many war memorials were modified in this way after WWII in lieu of building a second memorial, but there rarely seem to be records of it.
  • There are a couple of places where a definite article should be used ("The architect" x 2, "The journalist", etc)
    • I don't really like using definite articles like this and I suspect it will fall out of fashion in a few years, but it hasn't yet. The title was redundant in two places anyway, but I've added it for the third.

I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much as ever. You're fast becoming my most loyal reader! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent, as always! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Support

Looks fine to me. Some quibbles:

  • The use of "garden" and "gardens". Should it be singular or plural?
    • The sources use them interchangeably but I've gone with "garden" consistently.
  • Should Market Place be capitalised? If it's the name of the street, why the "the"?
    • Good point; it is the name of the street, so I've removed the definite article.
  • "A row of eight ornamental lamp-posts stands along either side of the memorial itself, one of which is a later replacement." This is really jarring. We suddenly jump into the present, and then this bit from the past. Any idea when it was replaced?
    • Alas not, Historic England only says later in the 20th century. Do you have a suggestion to make it less jarring? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment

In Australia, the War memorials eschew religious imagery because the Catholic Church would not permit its members to participate in religious services of other denominations. This was repealed by Vatican II, but it was much too late by then.

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Most of the smaller ones in Britain are overtly religious (usually a cross with a Bible verse in the inscription); with bigger city memorials it depends a lot on the architect and the client. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Hochkirch[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

Battle of Hochkirch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...this was an important battle of the Seven Years' War, among several, and the follow up to the battle, or lack of it, meant the Austrians lost their initiatve. auntieruth (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Menzelhochkirch.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Saxonia_Museum_für_saechsische_Vaterlandskunde_I_27.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "who apparently started their days": Would "who started their days" be wrong? If so, why?
  • "On the positive side, though, Retzow's corps": I think I'd prefer "Only Retzow's corps" (if true), but it's your call.
  • This would be fabulous at FAC, I hope you'll bring it there.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • your edits are fine. I'll think about Retzow's corps. Plan is to bring this and Battle of Leuthen to FAC, but I cannot get Leuthen past GA yet. auntieruth (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Project SAINT[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Project SAINT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I feel that it fits the criteria. It forms somewhat of a niche, and actual content is somewhat limited due to it being cancelled, but I feel that there is still enough. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kees08[edit]

Anti shouldn't be capitalized here: ...cheaper Anti-satellite...

Yes check.svg Done.

In what year? - cost 56 million dollars.

After checking the sources, it merely says what they were projected to cost, not what they actually cost. I have removed it.

Increase the number of wikilinks, for example in project phases there are none. Radar cross-section would be a good one for that section, as an example.

  • Yes check.svg Done

I understand the significance of the F-15 missile photo, but in my opinion any photos not of the subject matter should be called out by name at least once in the article.

It sort of is with the "The project's only unique role, that of being able to destroy satellites, was then given to fighter planes, which were cheaper and could hit a satellite without being detected" links directly to the photo of a fighter plane with a ASAT rocket. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Should be 'such as a' in this sentence: The third phase of the project included several elements such as powerful main engine whose propellant was pressure fed

  • Yes check.svg Done

For this, the proper term would be cold gas thrusters, so it would read 'along with nitrogen cold gas thrusters for orientation' or similar wording, could also say its for attitude: along with cooled nitrogen gas jets for orientation

  • Yes check.svg Done

Reword to "After this, the Agena would use its propellant to put the...:After this the Agena would be used as fuel to put the SAINT in a co-orbit with its target

  • Yes check.svg Done

Propellant, not fuel: depleted of battery power and fuel.

  • Yes check.svg Done

Would coat be a better verb?: was to blast it with black paint

  • Yes check.svg Done

Maybe try 'rendering it inoperable': making it useless

  • Yes check.svg Done

Additionally, I have found a couple of sources that give a little bit more interesting background. You might have to dig into the material that these sources are citing, but for your reference:

https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/14219/Sambaluk_ku_0099D_12030_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1

Contained in these links are interesting things like the fact they changed it from Satellite Interceptor to Satellite Inspector to make it align with the President's view of having peace in space. Obviously look into it and vet the source. Also I swear I had found more than one source when I first started typing. I'll try to find them again later.

@Kees08: Wasn't incredibly full of detail, but the bit about the kill function not being developed after 1959 is very useful, I've added it to the developments section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@Iazyges: I have received a lot of sources from the reference desk and can email them to you, can you send me an email and I can forward them on to you? I would expand the article, but I am guessing as an A-class reviewer I am not really supposed to? Kees08 (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@Iazyges: Anything useful in those citations? No rush, just curious. Kees08 (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kees08: I've only gone through a few, but so far, nothing exceptional, in one of them it mentions the president (Eisenhower) wanted an investigator from the start, but that is huge enough that I would have thought every source would talk about, not just a thesis. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

Ah, the 1950s. The Golden Age of Mad Science.

Yep, I'm hoping to live until its declassified (should have been in 2012, but wasn't for some reason) so I can find out exactly who, at a meeting about how it would take out a satellite, stood up and said "lets launch a one megaton nuke at it, and if they were summarily fired.
Judging from Project A119, he probably got his own TV show. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The project was created after... Following this... In response... Suggest removing the "Following this", since things that come after are invariably following. Consider removing "In response" too.
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (at the time called Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)) Just name and link Advanced Research Projects Agency
    Yes check.svg Done
  • the construction of a launch facility within 12 hours of Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg These are on opposite sides of the country. If it's twelve hours by air, last I looked, all of the lower 48 were. (And Alaska and Hawaii were not states at the time.)
@Hawkeye7: What do you recommend I do here? Remove it entirely?
What do we really mean? What does the source say? launch facilities capable of responding within 12 hours at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg So we are not talking about constructing new launch facilities at all; we are talking about using the two existing facilities, and making arrangements so a SAINT can be launched within 12 hours. Which makes far more sense. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing the source, it means building two new launch facilities that could respond within 12 hours. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The study undertaken by the Space Technology Laboratory suggested the use of a Thor-Hydra booster, however the more capable and more readily available Atlas-Agena B booster was selected instead. Phase two however, would use the Atlas-Centaur booster. Can we cut back on the "however"s?
    Yes check.svg Done
  • a nuclear weapon or something else whose power source involved a radioactive substance Nuclear weapons were not normally powered by radioactive substances (although it's not a bad idea). Delete "else"
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Other sensors included infrared, gravimetric sensors to ascertain the mass of the other satellite, while Replace the comma with "and"
    Yes check.svg Done
  • It was planned to the launch four satellites in December 1962. Delete "the"
    Yes check.svg Done
  • The project had also gone heavily over budget, spending over 100 million dollars, which was several times what was reported to the public. Are we talking here about the budget, or the cost overrun being under-reported? (And suggest deleting "heavily")
    Yes check.svg Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Curtis P. Iaukea[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Curtis P. Iaukea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have found this subject to be such an interesting figure the more I researched into him. He served as an important court official and military officer during the monarchy, provisional government and republic of Hawaii. I am confident with some suggestions and extra nudges I can get to A-Class quality. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Conditionally Support: A very good and thorough article generally free from typographic or grammar errors and with excellent use of WP:RS and free-use images. A few minor issues: (1) per WP:LEADLENGTH articles of this length should be two paragraphs, (2) not all of the images have WP:ALT text, (3) is use of the word "administration" correct terminology for the Hawai'ian royal government (it may be, I don't know, but I've only seen this word used in presidential systems), (4) in the sentence that says "he was appointed Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Great Britain" - the title is more commonly invoked as "ambassador" and the full and formal use may confuse readers, (5) there are some grammar errors as follows:
  • uncle Kaihupaʻa to be raise as in the the Hawaiian
  • broke his foot in process saving him
  • he noted, "Of the more ("of" should not be capitalized here)
  • Each units were subject to call for active service when necessary.
  • he decided continued to work for the two subsequent
DarjeelingTea (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@DarjeelingTea: Let me know if this addresses all your concerns. I'm retaining the use of the ambassadorial titles because it was important in the 19th century post Congesss of Vienna era since it reflects international rank and status..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
It does! DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Interesting article on a subject I knew nothing about previously. I made some very minor adjustments here, which I think are probably straightforward, but some additional comments for you to consider below:

  • You only need one 'also' in "He also held numerous important positions ... also"
  • Maybe a footnote to explain what the aliʻI class is, to save having to go off to a separate article
  • Added a parentheses after first mention.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure of the correct grammar in American English, but in British English it would be "he was sent to an Anglican boarding school" (or "he was sent to boarding school").
  • I would give readers a clue who the "notable classmates" were (and drop the "notable" too), along the lines of "included Samuel Nowlein and Robert Hoapili Baker, both of whom were politicians in later life". (Or whatever they turned out to be)
  • Again, a brief footnote to explain what a kāhili is
  • To me that just seems extraneous.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I had no idea what a "kāhili" was and had to leave the article to find out. There is always a danger that once people click away they won't return. Your call on it, but this isn't a term that people are going to understand or be able to guess at. - The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "awaiting for an assignment from the king" should either be "awaiting an assignment from the king" or "waiting for an assignment from the king"
  • The "in 1874" in the sentence "This unit was a voluntary military regiment originally headed by King Kalākaua in 1874" is a bit clumsy if "originally" is there. You could re-draft it along the lines "When King Kalākaua formed the unit in 874, he…" etc
  • Is the "and etc" part of the title? If not, get rid of it and say that the posts included, then the list
  • Change. There are too many to mention so I just mentioned the more important positions.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Was his title "Secretary of the Foreign Office" or "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" – I'm a bit confused
  • No it is just that. It was an assistant position to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You should use the correct title once, and lower case for the one that isn't the title. Having two things that look like formal titles is confusing. - The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oops. I did not notice the second usage. Thanks. Changed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you may need to tweak "the court tor the defunct monarchy" – I'm not sure that makes sense as it stands.

I hope these help. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Bounder: Let me know if there is anything else.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a couple of points - one needs action, the other is for you to consider. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – Nice article and, from a prose point of view, I support. I have not searched for additional sources, reviewed the ones used, or checked image licences, etc. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Tube Alloys[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Tube Alloys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The British wartime nuclear weapons project Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support As with High Explosive Research, Tube Alloys has just been GA promoted so it is difficult to find much in the way of suggestive comments that don't amount to nit-picking. But, to nit-pick:
  • Alt-tags might be desirable for the images.
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Under Post-War I think "The Special Relationship" could be "the Special Relationship".
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Also under Post-War, this sentence seems to contain an incomplete paranthetical expression: "In April 1950 an abandoned Second World War airfield, RAF Aldermaston in Berkshire was selected as the permanent home for what became the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment (AWRE)". I think there may need to be a common after "Berkshire".
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keeping with the Special Relationship, this term is wikilinked three times in the article, while MOS:DUPLINK would suggest it should only appear once after the lede. (IOW, it might be appropriate to cull the final wikilink to the Special Relationship.)
    The duplicate link checker doesn't find anything. "Special Realtionship" is linked only in the lead and the Post-War paragraph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
These things aside, this is a great article! DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Suport, mostly nitpicks. This another excellent article:

  • While it recommended that while a pilot separation plant be built in Britain, the production facility should be built in Canada. Is the second "while" a typo?
    YesY Just me fumbing for the right wording. Deleted the first "while". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Similarly there was no majority agreement upon to move forward with it
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • agreement that “ordinary” gaseous diffusion straight quotes per the MoS
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • per diem of uranium-235 why use the Latin if it's not necessary?
    English grammar. "Per" being Latin should be followed by the Latin word, if there is one. eg per cent, per diem, per annum. If there isn't, then there is no proposition eg per kilometre, per battalion Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    • In very formal writing, perhaps, but "per day" is more common and perhaps more accessible. Still, it's up to you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • would cost about £5,000,000 To build? To run (per day/month/year)?
    YesY To build. He estimated that it would cost £1,500,000 per year to run, in which time it would consume £2,000,000 of uranium and other raw materials. Added. The estimate was way out by the way; the Capenhurst plant cost £14,000,000 to build. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This was only a minor setback due to the fact that Maybe I'm just a snob but I really hate the construction "due to the fact that", perhaps due to the fact that (winces!) it uses four words where one will do.
    YesY Oh very well then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Very early experiments were carried out by Is there an easy way to re-phrase that in the active voice?
    YesY I can try. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • plutonium bomb would lead to proposed premature detonations proposed premature detonations?
    YesY Stray word. Removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • he wanted to make sure that the relationship between the United States and Great Britain the links to the countries seem unnecessary but regardless the GB article is about the island rather than the country
    YesY Removed. I am constantly getting rid of these. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Why the name "Tube Alloys"? Does it mean something? Was it chosen for a reason? Or would any suitably obscure title do?
    The article says: Anderson and Akers came up with the name Tube Alloys. It was deliberately chosen to be meaningless, "with a specious air of probability about it" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work. Comfortably meets the A-class criteria in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

S-50 (Manhattan Project)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

S-50 (Manhattan Project) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Manhattan Project's isotope separation project using thermal diffusion. Passed over in favour of more practical methods, it eventually played an important part. The article was deleted back in 2006, but subsequently restored. I recently expanded it and took it to GA. When I went looking for images, I found many of the ones you see here on Commons, but uncategorised. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support As this recently passed GA it's a struggle to find much room for improvement. Grammar and sourcing look good. The article is broad, impeccably referenced and well-illustrated. There are no broken external links or DAB issues. The only thing I'll say is the article could benefit from adding ALT tags to the images. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and image review I did a light c/e of the prose and closely reviewed this article for GAN last month. I believe it meets the A-Class criteria, including that the images are appropriately licensed and have useful captions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Kragujevac massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk) and 23 editor

Kragujevac massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The Kragujevac massacre was one of the worst German reprisal killings carried out in the German-occupied territory of Serbia during World War II. Like others of its type, it involved the killing of 100 hostages for every German soldier killed by insurgents, and 50 hostages for every wounded German. The victims were rounded up in Kragujevac and the surrounding districts, and included 144 high-school students and their teachers. Some of the senior German officers who ordered the reprisals were tried at the end of the war, with one committing suicide while in custody. This another joint endeavour between 23 editor and I, and recently went through GAN. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

Excellent article and very little to comment on, but...

  • The aftermath section jumps around chronologically, and while the first para deals with postwar up to 2007, paragraph 3 deals primarily with 1943 and wartime events. Personally I'd run it in the order 3, 4, 2, 1, but I'll leave it to you discretion.
  • The first paragraph of the Legacy section says the park "contains the 30 mass graves", but the previous section says there are over 31 graves. Perhaps "contains 30 of the mass graves"?

Excellent work otherwise. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Bounder: All done. Thanks for taking a look! 23 editor (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support from me now. Nice article. – The Bounder (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of protected cruisers of Italy[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

List of protected cruisers of Italy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This list comprises all of the protected cruisers built for the Italian Navy, from the early 1880s to the 1910s. It's been done for some time, but I haven't gotten around to bringing it through ACR until now. It's the capstone for this project. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • I'm not sure that I buy US-PD for File:Italian cruiser Dogali.jpg as there's no publication info. I think the PD-USGov-Military-Navy tag is probably better since we can't prove publication before 1923.
    • Well, we don't know for sure who took the picture. See if the tag I changed it to seems fine to you. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's good, but I'm still OK with the Navy tag as it could well have been taken by a naval attache or at least purchased by one from a commercial photographer.
  • I'm not sure what to do about File:Varo RN Basilicata.jpg as no publication info casts the PD-1923 tag in doubt. It's clearly out of copyright in Italy, so that part's OK. Time to call in a real expert. @Nikkimaria:
  • {{PD-1996}} is quite likely to apply, but we really need a publication date to confirm. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That was my assumption - until I can find a date of publication, which will likely be impossible, I'll just pull the photo. Thanks Nikki.
  • Watch your conversions for rounding errors.
    • I think these should all be fixed now - let me know if you see anything still wrong
      • All fixed, but a conversion is needed for Piemonte's guns.
        • Done.
  • Link squadron, North Africa, Arabian Peninsula, gunfire support, distilling ship, ship-breakers, observation balloon, gun battery, Australia, blockade, boiler.
    • All done
  • Explain /30 in armament or delete it.
    • Deleted, unnecessary in a list like this
  • Need a comma after scrap for the Etnas
    • Fixed
  • Is the bow section of Puglia still in existence? And shouldn't museum be capitalized in the Vittoriale degli italiani museum?
    • Yes - I see how the past tense might imply that it's gone. As for capitalization, I don't know - maybe @Dank: can answer for us?
  • Cambridge MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81311-4 comma after Cambridge. Suggest spelling out states for those foreigners unfamiliar with US state abbreviations.
    • Removed the states instead.
  • J. J. Keliher & Co. XLVII. 1903. 8007941 Tell the reader that this last bit is an OCLC number.
    • Good catch
      • You must have gotten distracted ;-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah, I fixed one and didn't see the other.
  • Standardize your treatment of ISBNs; some have dashes and others don't.
    • Fixed
  • Add an ampersand for Marinelli in the bibliography.
    • Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • All tool checks ok, inc the Earwig tool which didn't detect any issues with close paraphrase / copy vio. etc [1] (no action req'd).
    • Some minor inconsistency in use of both "World War I" and "First World War".
      • Fixed.
    • Slightly repetitive prose here: "Dogali was originally designed by William Henry White of Armstrong Whitworth for the Greek Navy; she was originally..." (use of originally twice in one sentence seems redundant - perhaps consider rewording?)
      • How does swapping the second "originally" for an "initially" work?
    • Some minor inconsistency in presentation of date ranges, with the article using both "1911–12" and "1907–1908".
      • Fixed.
    • I made some minor changes here [2].
      • Those look fine to me.
    • Otherwise this looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
        • @Anotherclown: - can you revisit your comments and let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to fix? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Added my support now, sorry for the delay I forgot all about this one. Anotherclown (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Al-Mu'tasim[edit]

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Al-Mu'tasim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the Abbasid "warrior-caliphs", al-Mu'tasim may have not had the intellectual calibre of his predecessor al-Ma'mun, but as the founder of a new capital, and of a new, militarized regime that formed the prototype of Islamic governance for centuries, he had a disproportionate impact on history. The article has been under development in stages since 2014; it passed GA in 2015, but has been rewritten and expanded since. I feel that the article covers all aspects of the reign in appropriate detail, and that it meets the A-class criteria. As the eventual goal is FA, I would appreciate any feedback on readability, need for context and/or clarifications, or any further improvements that you might suggest. Constantine 10:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by PM

  • When al-Ma'mun died unexpectedly inon campaign
  • Instead of referring to him as "the future al-Mu'tasim" it would be worth restating in the Early Life section that this chap was Abu Ishaq before using the name to refer to him. It is currently a bit confusing.
    • Good point. restructured, and added a clarification of the name. Constantine 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The "October 796 (Sha'ban AH 180), or earlier, in AH 179 (i.e. spring 796 or earlier)" seems to reverse the year systems in the second bit. Suggest leading with one and sticking to it as the lead system.
  • In New elites and administration, aṭā is introduced without explanation
    • I forgot to move the explanation when I restructured the article. Good catch. Constantine 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This measure was probably intended
  • the in-text attribution is a bit non-standard. Suggest "who, according to C. E. Bosworth, was "always one of al-Mu'tasim's closest advisers and confidants" " Same with Kennedy and Tayeb El-Hibri
  • "and trytried to shore up the finances"
  • Mazyar and Wasif are introduced in the body without explanation
  • more to come, down to Foundation of Samarra Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • subsequent mentions of Caliph al-Mutawakkil could probably just be al-Mutawakkil
  • link Umayyad
  • suggest "After two weeks, however, taking advantage of a short truce for negotiations requested by one of the Byzantine commanders of the breach"
  • probably mention that Bosworth is an Orientalist when he is first mentioned
  • add the oclc for Vasiliev
  • add date of death of Droysen to the author field of File:Arabische Eroberung 2.jpg to prove the licence
    • Done, and added name and date of original work to caption as well. Constantine 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • images are all appropriately licensed and captioned.

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67, thanks for taking the time. I've fixed the troublespots. Could I bother you for a more general review on the article's structure and content? The subject is complex, and I wavered long between a chronological and thematic presentation, and I would like some opinions on what could or should be improved. Best, Constantine 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Support I actually like the way you've done it, it captures themes but provides a good chronology too. Not an easy task with such a complex character. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

15th Tank Corps (Soviet Union)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

15th Tank Corps (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article covers a Soviet tank corps that was formed twice. Its first formation, formed in 1938, fought in the Soviet invasion of Poland and was disbanded shortly afterwards. Its second formation was formed in 1942 and fought on the Eastern Front for more than a year before becoming an elite Guards unit. The article recently passed a GA review, and I would like to improve it further as part of my goal of increasing the number of A-class and FA articles about Soviet military history. Kges1901 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Bt7_3.jpg: which of the Russian rationales applies here?
  • File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg needs a better FUR and more info on its original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I suggest adding a list of commanders to the body of the article, including (if possible), the years of their command
  • in the lead, "and the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Lozovsky..." --> explain very briefly who Lozovsky was
  • link BA-I here: "and 30 BA armored cars"
  • "Lawrence, KS, USA": spell out the abbreviation "KS" and remove "USA" for consistency
  • I suggest putting the citations into columns to reduce the amount of whitespace
  • if possible, an image in the infobox would help improve the visual appeal of the article
  • inconsistent date format, compare "29 December 2016" with "2016-12-27"
  • Citations 26 & 27 should also have accessdate/retrieved dates
  • "During its first formation, it helped take the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest, and finished its formation at Wilno and Soleczniki...." --> "During its first formation, it helped take the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest, and finished its service at Wilno and Soleczniki"?
  • "of up to 3,000 Polish officers, gendarmerie forces, and volunteers..." --> "of up to 3,000 Polish officers, gendarmes, and volunteers
  • "...the other corps of the army..." --> by "army" do you mean the 3rd Guards Tank Army? If so, it is probably best just to say this.

@Kges1901: Any progress? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Crusades[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Crusades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is currently down as C-Class but during 2016 went through significant change and in my view some improvement. Probably needs a new set of eyes to look it over if it is to improve further. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • To start off: pinging Dbachmann, who's done a lot of editing on this article this month, and Rjensen, who has also done some recent editing. I just want to make sure that this is a good time for an A-class review for this article. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Thanks for your efforts on this article. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to judge the content on this one, sorry, so I just looked at minor issues. I made some tweaks and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Ninth Crusade is overlinked in the Terminology section;
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • other examples of overlinked terms are: Anatolia, County of Edessa, Principality of Antioch, Kingdom of Jerusalem, County of Tripoli, Iberian Peninsula, Reconquista...(I stopped halfway down the article, but there are more than just these; if you install this script it will help identify where the duplicate links are);
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • the second part of the first paragraph in the Military orders section appears to be unreferenced;

Green tickY— redrafted and sourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • same as with the last part of the second and third paragraphs of the same section;

Green tickY— redrafted and sourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • the first couple of paragraphs in the Northern Crusades section appears to be uncited;
Green tickY— added cite to Davies which just about covers everything 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • the last part of the Albigensian Crusade paragraph needs a reference;
Green tickY— removed irrelevent content Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath, this sentence appears uncited: "The Crusade of Varna was another attempt to move against the Ottomans";
Green tickY— Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Aftermath, the paragraph beginning "Polish-Hungarian King Władysław Warneńczyk invaded..." appears to be uncited;
Green tickY— removed the uncited text, too much detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • for A-class, the citations should be consistent, but currently there appear to be a few different styles. For example, compare "Tuchman 561" (Ref 159) with "Lock 2006, pp. 187–188" (Ref 157). Likewise, Ref 152 uses a different style also;
I have started on moving all the citations to Harvard—will complete next week Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Green tickY— All now converted to Harvard Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Regional remains of the order was merged with the Knights Hospitallers and other military orders" --> "Regional remnants of the order were merged with the Knights Hospitallers and other military orders"?
Green tickY— removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • are there publisher and ISBN details for the Rose book?
Green tickY— added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • same as above for the Cohn book?
Green tickY—added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the Edington, Runciman, Cantor, Nicolle, Owen and Kolbaba books? These can be found usually at worldcat.org;
Green tickY—done 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • in the External links some of the listings use unspaced emdashes, but one uses a spaced endash. This should probably be made consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Green tickY—I've removed the entire section, most of the links were to redundant websites Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
    • G'day again, I've just noticed that this article also currently has a peer review open: Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusades/archive2. It's probably not a good idea to have two reviews open at once, so I would suggest requesting one of them to be closed. If you wish for the ACR to be closed, please let me know and I can unleash the bot. If you wish for the PR to be closed, I believe that the bot that does that is closed, but if you let me know I think I can do it manually. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks AustralianRupert — please close the PR, it has been dormant for months. I don't think anything further of note will come from it. Hoping the ACR gives greater feedback to move the article forward. Thx again 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

They say "no guts, no glory" so I'll give this mini-monster a try, though its size will dictate several bites to assure easy digestion.

  • The People's Crusade included the Rhineland massacres: the murder of thousands of Jews. Awkward, suggest moving the last clause to the middle of the sentence.
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Constantinople was sacked during the Fourth Crusade Needs some sort of transitional phrase to tie in with the previous sentence.
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weren't the Crusades responsible for the recovery of a lot of Greek and Roman works that had been translated into Arabic? Even if it took the Europeans a few more centuries to begin to absorb them during the Renaissance. And what about technology transfer?
    • Any progress on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Seems like this wasn't significant from what I can find. There was some, particularly translations from Antioch, but the major transfer happened in Spain, predominantly Toledo, and Muslim Sicily after the Norman conquest. I will add a line before I stop.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • The map in the Eastern Mediterranean Background section needs a header to explain what it's covering.
  • Tried, but technical details with the legend stop it showing, how about this? 13:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Link pontificate, papacy and Rome. In general, I think it's a good idea to link most places as geography literacy continues to decline.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • outbreak of European Antisemitism do not capitalize Antisemitism
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Philip I, king of France capitalize king anytime it's associated with a particular individual as it's a title of rank and thus a proper noun.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
Still some examples left.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor Awkward usage, more commonly seen as the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV,...
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • There were campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou between 1120 and 1129, the Venetians in 1122–24, Conrad III of Germany in 1124 and the Knights Templar were established The connection between the Knights Templar and the rest of the sentence is not clear. Break it out into a separate sentence with a bit of exposition about the crusading orders.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • In 1187 Saladin united the enemies of the Crusader States, was victorious at the Battle of Hattin and retook Jerusalem This seems awkward to me, perhaps move the last phrase to the middle?
Green tickY— Done 15:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Led by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz comma after Mainz
Green tickY— Done
  • captured the cities of Sidon and Beirut but after Henry died, most of the crusaders returned to Germany move the middle clause to the end and rephrase.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Down to Crusader states, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Twice conquering Constantinople? That needs some explication.
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Who is Andrew II?
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 1240 but Richard of Cornwall arrived in Acre a few weeks later and completed the enforcement Comma after 1240. Enforcement of what?
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Little reliable evidence survives but these events provided a salutary influence that hearts and minds could be engaged for the cause. Awkward.
  • Down to Northern Crusades, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Link the Livonian order and the Livonian Brothers of the Sword and Bremen
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • In 1225, Honorius III called the Hungarians to undertake the Bosnian Crusade that failed when the Hungarians retreated following defeat by the Mongols at the Battle of Mohi. Awkward, possibly split the sentence.
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The papacy declared frequent Iberian crusades and from 1212 to 1265, and the Christian kingdoms drove the Muslims back to the Emirate of Granada, which held out until 1492 when the Muslims and Jews were expelled from the peninsula. This is misleading, the Muslims and Jews were not expelled until after the conquest of Granada in 1492.
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The chronology of the 2nd and 3rd paras in the Aftermath section is confused.
  • In 1536 Francis entered into one of the capitulations of the Ottoman Empire with Suleiman the Magnificent also making common cause with the Sultan's North African vassals including Hayreddin Barbarossa Awkward--Sturmvogel 66
Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk) 20:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

Working on an article like this one is a thankless task. People will probably say that the article is too big, but there is more material that I would like included. Disclaimer: my own ancestor fought in the First Crusade.

  • I would like to see more on the First Crusade, the key component of the article. I would like it expanded to name the key crusaders (Godfrey, Raymond, Tancred, Robert etc) and their forces (only Bohemond is currently mentioned). Also mention the emperor. I would like to mention the important battles fought and won.
  • Break up the Crusader states section; move the Latin Empire paragraph down into the Fourth Crusade and the rest under the First Crusade. Remove the duplication, and expand if you wish.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Quick comment[edit]

  • I will try to look at this in detail, but I have a couple of points. Setton is wrongly given at one point as Stetton, and should be linked as Kenneth Setton. Ref 106 is wrong. It is cited as Setton, but he was just the general editor of the multi-volume work. The author cited at ref 106 is shown here as Jean Richard. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY—Thanks Dudley. Linked to Setton and replaced Ref 106 with Runciman who appears to be the original source of the quote. 08:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "were peasants hoping for Apotheosis at Jerusalem, or forgiveness from God for all their sins." 1. This implies that only peasants were hoping for forgiveness for their sins, which is obviously wrong. 2. I am also doubtful about the capitalisation of "Apotheosis" and the link to Divinization (Christian). It seems more likely that Cohn was using the word in the ordinary dictionary sense of ascension to heaven.
  • "Different perspectives of the actions carried out, at least nominally, under Papal authority during the crusades have polarised historians." This sounds awkward.
  • The capitalisation of "crusades" is inconsistent. It is capitalised in "The Crusades were a series of religious wars" and when referring to numbered crusades such as "First Crusade", but not otherwise. Personally I would capitalise when referring to to the medieval religious wars, as in "The crusades had a profound impact on Western civilisation", but not when the word is used generally as in "The term "crusades" is also applied to other campaigns". Other editors may disagree.
  • Green tickY—At a suggestion in talk I have capitalised them all Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:19, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The detail of the etymology of the word are excessive and not relevant to this article. Also the word "Etymology" should not be capitalised.
  • "Constable (2001) describes four different perspectives among scholars" "Constable (2001)" links to the bibliography, which is wrong. It should be shown as Giles Constable with a reference giving the page number(s).
  • "Popularists, Constable did not use this term,[11] limit the crusades". This is ungrammatical and confusing.
  • "resident Christians were given certain legal rights" presumably in Muslem lands generally, but this needs clarifying.
  • "Cultures and creeds coexisted and competed, but the frontier conditions became increasingly inhospitable to Catholic pilgrims" What frontier conditions and where?
  • " In this the papacy began to assert its independence from secular rulers, marshalling arguments for the proper use of armed force by Catholics." This is a non-sequitur, and the first part repeats what has been said above.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "It is likely he exaggerated the danger facing the Eastern Empire while making his appeal." As the Byzantines had recently lost almost all Anatolia to the Turks, this could do with clarification.
  • "the County of Tripoli (1104—Tripoli was not conquered until 1109—to 1289)" I do not understand this. The county was founded in 1104 but not conquered until 1109?
  • "In the Iberian Peninsula crusaders continued to make gains". The Reconquista has not previously been as a crusade. Also I do not think "Peninsula" should be capitalised.
  • Saleph River should be linked.
  • "became known as the Third Crusade" You have already said this.
  • "Within sight of Jerusalem supply shortages prevented assault and forced retreat." Is this correct? The version I read is that Richard thought his forces were too weak to hold Jerusalem.
  • Finance. This section seems out of place as it discusses the cost of later crusades before they are described.
  • "After the fall of Acre" You have not yet described the fall of Acre. I would move this paragraph down and mention that the Hospitallers still exist.
  • "instead conquering Byzantium twice" Surely Constantinople and a large part of Byzantium, but not the whole? And what happened after the first conquest?
  • "before being routed by the Bulgars at Adrianople. After gathering in Venice" This is confusing. You do not make clear that you have described the end and then gone back to the beginning.
  • "Further Eastern Crusades". This and the following sections are confused. This one has "Main articles: Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Barons' Crusade, and Siege of Jerusalem (1244)", but the crusades are not referred to in the text, and the section covers Louis IX's seventh crusade, which according to "Main articles" should be in the next section, "Division and failure". The crusades linked in "Main articles" should be mentioned in the text.
  • "but an invasion further into Egypt was compelled to surrender." An invasion does not surrender.
  • "Although Frederick II had been excommunicated" You need to give further details about Frederick as he has not previously been mentioned, apart from in the terminology section.
  • "Defeated at Gaza, Theobald agreed treaties with Damascus and Egypt that returned territory to the crusader states." I do not understand this. He was defeated but secured territory for the crusaders?
  • "In 1244 a band of Khwarezmian mercenaries travelling to Egypt captured Jerusalem" Captured on whose behalf?
  • "Louis IX organised a crusade to attack Egypt in response" You need to explain that this was King Louis of France.
  • The last paragraph of "Further Eastern Crusades" would be better placed at the beginning of "Thirteenth century".
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Division and failure'. Again the subjects linked in 'Main articles' are not specifically mentioned in the text.
  • The first paragraph is confusing. "In 1256 Genoa and Venice went to war over territory in Acre and Tyre." Presumably from what is said below Genoa held the territories and Venice attacked them, but you need to say so.
  • "Venice conquered the disputed territory but was unable to expel the Genoese." If Venice was unable to expel the Genoese then it did not conquer the territory.
  • "Two factions embarked on a 14-month siege" Siege of where and who were the besiegers (presumably Venice but you should say so)?
  • "Pope Urban IV brokered a peace to support the defence against the Mongols." You need to say first that the Mongols were sweeping through the area.
  • "Genoa finally regained its quarter in Acre in 1288." The quarter has not previously been mentioned.
  • The second paragraph of 'Division and failure' assumes considerable background knowledge of matters which are not explained.
  • "He delayed Charles by beginning negotiations with Pope Gregory X for union of the Greek and the Latin churches with Charles and Philip of Courtenay compelled to form a truce with Byzantium." The last part of this sentence is unclear. Presumably the Pope compelled Charles and Philip - who has not been mentioned before.
  • "But the fleet was destroyed in an uprising fomented by Michael VIII Palailogos and Peter III of Aragon. Peter was proclaimed king" The fleet was destroyed where and Peter king of where? Presumably king of Sicily as Charles was king of Sicily but this has not been explained.
  • "before Charles died in 1285, allowing Henry II of Cyprus to reclaim Jerusalem." How did Charles's death allow Henry to reclaim Jerusalem - and why "reclaim" - had he held it before?
  • "This led to the legitimisation of seizing land and possessions from pagans on religious grounds and was debated through to the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries." This seems to hint at a thought which is not spelled out. Presumably the arguments used to justify seizing land from Muslims were later used to justify expropriation of natives of colonies. Does "debated" mean that the justification was contested?
  • Green tickY— I have taken this out. One sentence that didn't add much 18:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • "This made the reunification of the Christian church impossible and created a perception of the Westerners of being both aggressors and losers." This should probably be qualified. The crusades cannot have been the only factor making reunification impossible.
  • "Helen Nicholson argues that the increased contact between cultures the Crusades instigated improved the perception of Islamic culture." "instigated" is an odd word here.
  • "Alongside contact in Sicily and Spain the crusades led to knowledge exchange with Christians learning new ideas from the Muslims in literature and hygiene." This could do with clarification. So far as I know, Europeans learned about ancient classical and later Muslim and Jewish thought mainly in Spain, but other centres such as Sicily and the crusader states no doubt contributed.
  • "The order also came into conflict with the Eastern Orthodox Church, Pskov Republic and Novgorod Republic. In 1240 the Novgorod army defeated the Swedes in the Battle of the Neva, and two years later they defeated the Livonian Order in the Battle on the Ice." Were Pskov and Novgorod Orthodox and were the battles defeats for the Catholics?
  • "The Cathars were driven underground" Surely they were exterminated rather than driven underground?
  • " I would leave out the quotes from Brehier in 1908 as they are dated and probably do not reflect modern scholarship.
  • "Francis I of France sought allies from all quarters, including scandalous plans with German Protestant princes." This is vague and "scandalous" is POV.
  • This article is some way off A-Class in my view. There are far too many matters alluded to but not explained. A more serious fault is that there is very little on the crusaders' opponents. If I remember correctly when reading Runciman, the early successes and later failures of the crusaders were to a considerable degree due to early disunity among the Muslim rulers and later unity under leaders such as Saladin, but this is not brought out. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the process of working my way through the gap on the Crusaders opponents.16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

comments by auntieruth55[edit]

  • I've read/reread this several times, over time. I agree with many of the comments above, especially Dudley's. And it's definitely improving as you incorporate reviewer's comments! This is an overview article, so it should have, specifically, an overview of the Crusades: all of them, their general problems, opponents, purposes, challenges, and commanders. I don't think it needs to go into a lot of detail, but it should link to other articles that do. Allusions to an issue, for example, need to be directly explained. Not in massive detail, but clearly enough to cover the issue. I'd like to be able to refer one of my students to this article and have them come away with a broad overview of the Crusades: time frame, goals, opponents, campaigns, general outcomes, etc.
  • one specific thing: footnotes should probably be called Notes. The section you call "references" is structured the way foot notes usually is in printed material.
  • The above said, this is a massive project, and thank you for tackling it. auntieruth (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This article has appeared on the GA list of nominees, and I've asked the editor to get someone from GOCE to have a look at it. I agree with above that it has some ways to go, and I think the editor is willing to put in the effort. It has good "bones" and Norfish is dedicated, so can we put all this either on hold or be patient, while the GOCE people have a look? Thanks. auntieruth (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this meets the A-class criteria or is close to meeting it. If it isn't meeting it, I will improve it so it meets the A-class criteria. This article is about a Soviet mechanized corps that was formed three times and which fought in WWII. Kges1901 (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: Nice work, thanks for your efforts with this article. It's not really an area that I know much about, but I made a few minor tweaks here and there, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

  • in the lead: "disbanded in late August" --> suggest adding the year here;
  • what's a chemical tank? Is there a link that could be provided here?
  • "...the corps was converted into the 15th Tank Corps": do we know why this occured?
  • is there an ISBN or OCLC for the Istomin source?
  • I wonder about whether a list of commanders and a structure or orbat section might be added to the added as separate sections?
  • "Perechen No. 4 Part III" website: can publisher and accessdate details be provided for this ref?
  • the paragraph beginning "On 1 October the corps..." is quite long. I wonder if it could be split somewhere?
  • "Spas-Demensk Offensive" (and similar constructions) should use an endash instead of the hyphen per WP:DASH;
  • "...and the corps achieved "limited success" with its own attack..." (probably best to clarify whose opinion is that they had "limited success")
  • "File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-090-3916-30, Russland, zerstörter sowjetischer Panzer.jpg": might be more visually appealing if the white bar was cropped off
  • {{Soviet Union corps}} seems to draw the eye away from the article a little; I wonder if it might be better to present it in its collapsed form?

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Year ranges need to conform to the new requirement of MOS:DATERANGE
  • Done
  • The space between the commanders in the infobox can be removed by changing the breaks to bullet points like I did with the years of formations.
  • Done
  • Link Komdiv on first use.
  • Done
  • On 11 June 1934 the corps delete the years since we know it from the previous sentence.
  • Done
  • Vickers 12-ton!? I think that this is a typo for the Vickers 6-ton which was sold to the Soviets.
  • Russian Vickers 12 tons are mentioned in this book [3] Kges1901 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Can you explain Crossing 76 and 77 a little. I suspect that they were related to the Trans-Siberian RR, but would like a bit more info.
  • Done
  • Link flamethrower,
  • Done
  • On 1 July the corps was still with the 16th Army and consisted of the 13th and 17th Tank Divisions and the 109th Motorised Division We already know the composition of the corps from the previous paragraph.
  • Done
  • On the same day, the corps was reported to be fighting in the Liady and Syrokorenye region, 60 kilometres (37 mi) west of Smolensk. It was reported to be retreating to the Gusino crossing, 45 kilometres (28 mi) west of the city. This is kinda confusing, what's the sequence here?
    • Still needs clarification
  • Done
  • The 1st Motor Rifle Division was attached to the corps in the Smolensk Pocket Is there a date for this, if not, then delete "in the Smolensk Pocket" since we already know that it's there.
    • And this.
  • Why was the corps disbanded in August? Down to Third Formation, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • German encirclement line delete line

@Kges1901: It's been nearly three weeks; any progress on addressing Sturm's comments? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • city outskirts. The corps was thrown back by German reinforcements This last sentence should probably be tied in directly to the preceding one by replacing the period with a comma and "but"
  • It fought in Operation Gallop Link this better to the preceding sentence to make the text flow better. Try something like "Almost immediately afterward, it was committed to fight in..." Also be sure to note that Gallop happened in 1943.
  • What happened to the 49th Mech Brigade between 1 April and 1 May?
  • and in the Spas–Demensk Offensive of the battle This bit links back to the 2nd Battle of Smolensk immediately before it.
  • It was relocated from Kirov to the 10th Army's sector of the breakthrough towards Vorontsovo. The corps became part of the 10th Army. Combine these two sentences.
  • By the time it attacked, the German troops' resistance had stiffened. It engaged in heavy fighting in the Tyagaevo area, subject to air attacks which destroyed many of its Lend-Lease tanks. Until 16 August, the corps advanced 5–10 kilometres (3.1–6.2 mi). On that day there was a heavy air raid which caused significant losses resulting in the transfer of the corps to front reserve. These are awkward with little to no transitions between them. Recommend consolidating them into two sentences.
  • The corps was moved back to Ukraine after being replenished from Naro-Fominsk in December 1943. what does this mean, replenished?
  • You have a bad had of saying "the corps did this, and then the corps did something else" Mix it a bit by rewording things and using pronouns.
  • Only in a couple of places. And you chose in one place to use "they" rather than "it", which reads very oddly to me. You need to go through the entire article and systematically mix things up. Perhaps someone from the WP:GOCE could help with this.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kges1901:

  • Link self-propelled gun
  • Shubennyi Stav, which was to be taken on 26 January with Zvenigorodka what does this mean? Sound like Zvenigorodka is to be used to take Shubennyi Stav, which can't be right.
  • Some maps of the various battles would be very helpful.
  • On the next night the Dniester had been crossed and awkward
  • Not fond of lists of commanders; I think that they should be covered in the main body of the article.
  • Add "|lastauthoramp=y" to the cite book template for books with multiple authors to match the use of ampersands in the Notes section.
  • What makes mechcorps.rkka.ru and tankfront.ru RS?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

comments by Auntieruth55[edit]

  • I'm close to supporting this. A couple of questions?
  • I'm not sure about the mechcorps.rkka. etc a reliable source. I don't read Russian, and I cannot tell
  • Should "corps" when it refers specifically to this unit be capitalized?
  • Shouldn't the distance template turn on abbreviations after first use?
  • I'm a fan of maps.  :)
  • The 5th Mechanised Corps was reformed on 8 September 1942 on the basis of the 22nd Tank Corps. what does this mean?
  • I'd be happier if there were fewer simple sentences. X was this. X was that. X was something else. Makes it sound so much like one darn thing after another. What did this Corps actually do? auntieruth (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)