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
Contest Awards Members
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.
  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 article, either at peer or A-class review to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory).

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.


The new 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.


Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Jacob L. Devers[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Jacob L. Devers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The second most senior general in Europe in World War II remained poorly known (and his name frequently mispronounced - it's Dev-ers not Deev-ers) for decades. Suddenly, he has two biographies. And now a good Wikipedia article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: fantastic work, as usual. Just a few nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "1909–1949" --> "1909–49" per WP:DATERANGE;
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "File:Jacob L. Devers portrait.jpg": licence looks fine to me, but I suggest adding author, publisher and date information to the source field on the description page.
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "File:USA-Benicia-75mm Field Gun Model 1897-1.jpg": possibly needs a freedom of panorama tag also, per this: [1];
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • probably same as above for: "File:Canon de 155mm GPF 3.jpg";
  • same as above for: "File:- Flickr - Joost J. Bakker IJmuiden (4).jpg";
  • "File:M26Belgium.jpg": probably needs a FOP tag for Belgium, but that could be problematic per this: [2];
    What for? There is no building or artwork in the picture. Just a PD tank. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    G'day,"File:M26Belgium.jpg" has a large building in the background (maybe a warehouse?). AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's the Belgian Army Museum. My understanding is that the law is the same as in France. It is okay if the building is incidental to the photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "File:Leese, Devers and McCreery.jpg": licence looks fine to me, but the image quality might be enhanced by cropping out the large black spot in the corner;
  • "File:Eaker, Cannon, Devers and Larkin.jpg": licence looks fine, but as per the first image above, I suggest adding author, publisher and date information to the source field on the description page;
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • same as above for "File:Lieutenant General Jacob L. Devers.jpg"
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • same as above for "File:Trusctt, Patch and Devers.jpg" -- I have fixed the typo in the file name for you over on Commons
    Thank you! Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "File:315th Air Commando Group C-123 Providers in VNAF markings 1962.jpg": source url is now a deadlink
    Knowing the Air Force, it is probably only temporary. Added a wayback link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "France and Germany 1944–1945" --> "France and Germany 1944–45" per WP:DATERANGE;
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • the service number (0-2599) appears to be uncited
    Sigh. Added a reference. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Chicago Pile-1[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Chicago Pile-1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Continuing the series on the Manhattan Project, we have CP-1, the first nuclear reactor. I find it fascinating that you can pile rocks in a certain way, and amazing things happen, things that can only be predicted by science, and by that of phenomena far too small to be observed directly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list


Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Nike-X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


This is one of a series of articles on US Army anti-ballistic missile efforts spanning the 1950s to 1980s. Perhaps one of the least known among these efforts, Nike-X was by far the most technically advanced and capable. It was "defeated" largely by its cost-exchange ratio, not technical problems, and the logic behind this decision illustrates the underlying problems with the entire ABM concept. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


When the Pacific War began, the Japanese aircraft carrier Jun'yō was being converted from an ocean liner to an aircraft carrier. She was completed in time to participate in the Aleutians Campaign in June 1942 and then supported forces during the Guadalcanal Campaign later in the year. Her air group was often stripped from her during 1943 and used in defense of Rabaul and other Japanese bases, while she was used as a ferry. Torpedoed twice the following year, she was still able to participate in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Her repairs were suspended in early 1945 as uneconomical and the Americans agreed after the Japanese surrender so she was scrapped the following year. I've recently overhauled the article after many years away and I believe that it meets the A-class standards. As always I'm looking for infelicities of language, unexplained jargon and any stray examples of BritEng that I may have missed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, good work as usual. A couple of nitpicks/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "File:Image-Japanese aircraft carrier Junyo 2 cropped.jpg": suggest changing the 2010 date on this to 1945, and I don't think the uploader is the copyright holder (even if it has been cropped/retouched)
  • "File:Japanese aircraft carrier Junyo.jpg": source is dead and description page probably should be edited to include more details such as the date of the photograph, a description, author etc.
  • punctuation: "in 1944, "As a Memorial to.." --> "in 1944, as a "Memorial to..."
  • in the References, the Silverstone work doesn't appear to have been specifically cited. As such, I'd suggest moving it to Further reading, or citing it
  • the heading "Jun'yō's ship bell" could probably just be "Ship's bell" or even just "Bell" (not a big deal, though, if you don't agree)
  • " 4 in two twin mounts" --> "four in two twin mounts"?
  • "due to bad weather and an American..." --> "due to bad weather, although an American..."?
  • numeral presentation: "she launched 9 Zeros..." --> "she launched nine Zeros"
  • as above: "attacked by 8 Curtiss P-40 fighters that shot down 2 Zeros and a pair of D3As while losing 2 of their own" --> "attacked by eight Curtiss P-40 fighters that shot down two Zeros and a pair of D3As while losing two of their own"
  • as above: "3 more in storage, for the..." --> "three more in storage, for the..."
  • "Mitsubishi Heavy Industries" is overlinked

« Return to A-Class review list

Majestic-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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


Something of a departure for me, in that these ships came from the other side of the North Sea. The Majestic design was a major development in capital ship technology in the late 19th century, and the inspired many copies throughout the world. They were the oldest battleships in RN service during WWI, though they were mostly withdrawn from front-line duty by 1916. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is this one comprehensive enough for FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd say so - it's comparable to Sturm's current ACR on the Peresvet class and FAs like Fuji-class battleship (and is only marginally shorter than Andrea Doria-class battleship, which has a fairly lengthy section on those ships' reconstruction). Parsecboy (talk) 13:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


  • The fire-tube boilers that you reference are actually cylindrical boilers, aka Scotch marine boilers.
  • Link roll.
  • Is a figure available for the amount of coal stowed after they've converted to mixed firing?
  • 9 inches (229 mm) of Harvey armour on the armoured belt This reads a bit oddly to me. Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "In 1891 Rear Admiral Jackie Fisher, then the Controller..." --> maybe clarify of which Navy?
  • "and a draft of 27 ft (8.2 m)" --> "and a draught of 27 ft (8.2 m)"
  • "File:HMS Majestic sinking 27 May 1915.jpg": I wonder if there is an online source that can be linked to on the image description page of this image. If not, I don't believe it is a problem, but would be an improvement to add one. I'm not sure about the life of author + 70 licence, though, as the author isn't identified

« Return to A-Class review list

Coast Guard Squadron One[edit]

Nominator(s): Cuprum17 (talk)

Coast Guard Squadron One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it a stable article that is ready for review and I also believe that I finally have enough experience to help the reviewers in their assessment of the article. The only recent changes involve the repair of dead links caused by the change in format earlier this year for citations drawn from the Naval History and Heritage Command website. I have tested each link and have determined that they are now operative for the new web addresses. Warning!!!: This is my first and only A Class Review, so this is new territory for me. Am I nervous? Yes, I am, but I feel it is time to learn the process so that I will feel comfortable in reviewing other A Class articles. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cuprum, welcome! Here's an image review to start you off - let me know if anything needs further explanation.

  • File:VTN_USCGSQ1_Patch.jpg: is there any further information about this image? Any ideas about the date?
No idea on the date or origin of the unit patch. Here is the original Coast Guard Historian's Office image: [3] The Historian's Office doesn't include anything on its origin in their website.
  • File:VTN_Mortar_Color_Firing.jpg: suggest using only the second of the two licensing tags
    • Yes check.svg Done
  • File:VTN_Pt_Welcome_1.jpg: any idea of the date?
    • No idea on the date of the photograph of Point Welcome. The origin of the photograph is the Coast Guard Historian's Office website [4]. They do not have any records of the photo's date.
    • Yes check.svg DoneRemoved offending photograph.
  • File:Vietnam_gallantry_cross_unit_award-3d.svg and File:Vietnam_Campaign_Medal_Ribbon.png: licensing should be the same as for File:Vietnam_Service_Ribbon.svg
    • This is somewhat troublesome. The Vietnam Service Medal ribbon is the work of a U.S. Government employee and has the correct license. The other awards were presented to U.S. service personnel and units by the Republic of Vietnam and are not really creations by a U.S. Government employee. What do you suggest?
      • Wouldn't Vietnamese law apply? The current government is the legal successor of the RoV. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Theoretically. However, immediately after the fall of the RoV, the current government refused to recognize intellectual property rights of any kind - it's unclear what the restoration process was and whether an RoV copyright would be recognized now. I also don't know what the RoV's laws were with regards to government copyright, as it's possible there is no copyright to recognize (if they adopted a model similar to the US of govt works being PD). I've been trying to find more information on this but thus far haven't had any luck. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
          • @Nikkimaria:Yes check.svg DoneRemoved all images of unit awards from section in question because of public domain concerns. I know that the United States awarded unit ribbons are in the public domain, but leaving them in the article makes the other two citations look empty. To keep the assessment of the article moving forward it is easier to just remove the questionable material.Cuprum17 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I've decided to take a bit of a break from reviewing A-class articles for a while, but I'd be happy to help you with this one. I took a quick run through and made a couple of tweaks. I have the following comments/questions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  • this seems inconsistent: (in the lead) "Its formation marked the first time since World War II that Coast Guard personnel were used in a combat environment." v. "Coast Guard had only a very minor role in combat operations during the Korean War" (in the body of the article)
Changed lead to read: "Its formation marked the first time since World War II that Coast Guard personnel were used extensively in a combat environment."Yes check.svg Done
  • " signed a memorandum of understanding where the Coast Guard would supply..." Perhaps this might be better as: " signed a memorandum of understanding stating that the Coast Guard would supply "
Sounds better...Yes check.svg Done
  • I think you should link Officer (armed forces) on first mention of "officers" in the Crew training and commissioning section
Yes check.svg Done
  • (in the lead): "Coast Guard Squadron One was a combat unit formed by the United States Coast Guard in 1965 under the operational control of the United States Navy during the Vietnam War and assigned duties in Operation Market Time." This sentence is possibly trying to do a bit too much. Perhaps it could be tightened thusly: "Coast Guard Squadron One was a combat unit formed by the United States Coast Guard in 1965 for service during the Vietnam War. Placed under the operational control of the United States Navy, it was assigned duties in Operation Market Time."
I like it!Yes check.svg Done
  • (in the infobox) the nickname "RONONE" probably needs a citation as it doesn't appear in the body of the article;
Yes check.svg Done
  • " Squadron One and its remaining division, Division 13, came to an end" --> " Squadron One and its remaining division, Division 13, ceased to exist"?
used the term "decommissioned" instead, hopefully that works...Yes check.svg Done
  • "the Office of Senior Coast Guard Officer, Vietnam" --> "the Office of the Senior Coast Guard Officer, Vietnam"?
Yes check.svg Done
  • " when military operations became intense during 1967" --> " when military operations intensified during 1967"?
Yes check.svg Done
  • "All Squadron personnel distributed gifts of candy and toys as well as clothing, soap and toothpaste during the Christmas holidays at local orphanages that had been donated by Coast Guard families in the United States and brought to Vietnam on the Commandant's airplane" --> "During the Christmas holidays, at local orphanages squadron personnel distributed gifts of candy and toys as well as clothing, soap and toothpaste that had been donated by Coast Guard families in the United States and brought to Vietnam on the Commandant's airplane"?
Yes check.svg Done
  • the header "Crew training and commissioning of Squadron One" probably could get away with removing the article title e.g. "Crew training and commissioning"
Yes check.svg Done
  • in the References, instead of "New York, New York", I'd suggest "New York City, New York" (minor nitpick though);
Yes check.svg Done
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Very interesting article. Thanks for your efforts and good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    • All my comments have been addressed, so I've added my support for promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Welcome to A-class. We've done a pretty good job of covering A-class for years, but some of us are on a break at the moment so it might be a few weeks ... I'm sure we'll get this one sooner or later. You're in the right place. - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • So far, I have copyedited down to Division 13.
  • "Division 12 got underway accompanied by the music of Cast Your Fate to the Wind transmitted over the radio circuit by the crew of Division 11 cutter Point Banks.": I think you're going to get some pushback on some of the sentences that have a nostalgic feel, or have more detail than we usually see at A-class or FAC. These questions aren't really my call, so I'll stop copyediting for now and wait to see what other reviewers think. - Dank (push to talk) 03:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • I'd still prefer to see comments from another reviewer before I continue. There are some differences in style and content from what I'm used to, and I'd rather not make those calls. - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • I did a copy edit and made a few other changes - my edits are here [5].
    • "Concern by top MACV advisors as to whether the SVN..." do you mean "RVN" here?
      • corrected.Yes check.svg Done
    • "At 00:01 on 12 June 1965..." do we need to be so precise? (minor nitpick / suggestion only)Yes check.svg Done
    • There is some inconsistency in the presentation of Vietnamese place names throughout. Specifically in some places you use diacritics and some you don't. WP:DIACRITICS is the relevant policy and states that either style is correct so I think all that is necessary is for consistency either way. Personally as I neither understand their meaning nor am I able to type them with my English language keyboard I do not use them; however, it is entirely up to you which you choose.
      • Not sure what to do here. I will attempt to make all of the place names with the diacritic marks. I am afraid that if I make all the place names without them that someone will come along and change at least some of them back to diacritics. There are editors from Project Vietnam that are sensitive to the issue and make changes, but they haven't caught all the instances where the diacritics are needed. Working on it...
        • That's fine, it is of cse entirely up to you but diacritics are in no way mandatory and if you are concerned about it any editor that was to make such a change without first gaining a consensus to add them to an article that did not use them would likely be editing contrary to the ARBCOM ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk in 2005 which found that "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." It further found that that doesn't include simply implementing one's "preferred style", although it is acceptable to make such changes to ensure the internal consistency of an article. As such they couldn't impose such a change on the article without discussion first. Like I said though I'm happy with either style you choose as long as its consistent. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
          • I think it would be much easier to remove all diacritics for the simple fact that some place names in Vietnam don't have diacritical marks in the name of the place and the end result would be a mixture of some with and some without and it would look kind of like it does now. That was the way the article was written in the first place and I let the changes stand because I was unaware of the policy on diacritical marks. With the marks all removed, this should put this problem to rest. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
          • @Anotherclown: In your opinion would the diacriticals need to be removed from the table at "Cutter assignment and disposition information"? Before I actually undertake such an edit I would like an opinion or two on its necessity. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Good question. On the one hand removing them all would of cse result in consistency throughout the entire article; however, the table as it is currently is at least complete and internally consistent. As such I'd see no major issue with you leaving the table as is (but making the article consistent) if that was your preference. To be honest if it was me I would bin the lot to avoid possible future issues, but I'd say there is probably some wiggle room available if necessary. That's really only my two cents worth though (as I'm not sure there really is any policy which covers the issue specifically). I guess I'm really saying its up to you. Anotherclown (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Removed diacritical marks from tableYes check.svg Done
    • "...Division 12 got underway accompanied by the music of Cast Your Fate to the Wind..." Yes, I agree with Dank's advice above about this, it is probably too nostalgic for Wiki.
      • Removed with some reservations. War is not all names and numbers and killing...Yes check.svg Done
    • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of times, for instance " the port city of Da Nang at 07:00..." vs "...At 0715 the USS Haverfield arrived on..." (colon vs no colon)
      • Yes check.svg Done I think...
    • "...nine other crewmen were injured along with a SVN liaison officer..." should this be "RVN" here too?
      • corrected.Yes check.svg Done
    • "...what would be later be referred to as the "Tet Offensive"..." not sure the quotation marks are req'd around Tet Offensive.
      • Removed.Yes check.svg Done
    • "...However, requests for naval gunfire support by land based..." → "land-based"
      • Corrected.Yes check.svg Done
    • "...considerable damage to Hobart and injury to several of her crew..." This is a bit of an understatement. Casualties aboard Hobart from this incident included two killed and eight wounded (for a reference see Jeffrey Grey (1998) Up Top: The Royal Australian Navy and Southeast Asian Conflicts 1955-1972, pp. 176-179)
      • Yes check.svg Done@Anotherclown:Changed copy to include deaths and used Grey as a citation reference. The references that I had available did not suggest deaths occurred aboard Hobart and I it was not my intention to minimize the incident. Thank you for providing a reference for this tragic incident and I'm just sorry it was an Aussie editor that had to find this oversight. If I have mis-cited this information, I trust that a correction will be made by those that have the reference available.
        • No problems at all, that change looks fine to me (I just tweak the dashes etc). We are all limited by the sources that we have available to us so I'm sure it was an honest representation of the source used on your part. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Throughout you use the terms "Army", "Navy", "Airforce" and "Coast Guard", I'd suggest changing to "US Army", "US Navy", "US Airforce", and "US Coast Guard" etc for clarity. Whilst it is clear to me to which service you are referring it is probably presuming too much and some of our readers might be confused.
      • Yes check.svg Done
    • Some inconsistency in the presentation of numbers, consider "...for an 18 week pilot training..." vs "...a fifteen week program..." vs "eleven-week". AFAIK the correct presentation would be "11-week" per MOS:NUMERAL.
      • From the MOS:NUMERAL: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). In spelling out numbers, components from 21 to 99 are hyphenated; larger ones are not (fifty-six, five hundred). I will adopt the number method rather than spelling out the expression unless it is the beginning of a sentence.
        • Yes check.svg Done
        • Your change looks fine to me. Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • These points aside I thought this was an excellent article. Well done. Anotherclown (talk) 11:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • Adding my support now as the majority of my points have been addressed (I'll leave the issue of the table to your judgement). I didn't know much about USCG operations in Vietnam before reading this and found the article very interesting. All the best taking it even further if you choose to. Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • toolbox checks are all ok except alt text for images, which is not a requirement at ACR
  • In the Background section
    • county should be countryYes check.svg Done
    • suggest linking Junk (ship), United States Army, Airstrike, Mortar (weapon), Anti-tank grenade, Recoilless rifle, United States Navy, Radar picket, Operation Market Time, Berth (sleeping), Mess (in the latter case, at first mention)
    • one million rather than 1 million, per MOS:NUMERALYes check.svg Done
    • 82 mm should be 82 mm to ensure a non-breaking space, this should be implemented for all such measurements
    • comma after alarms on the bridgeYes check.svg Done
    • LST should be in fullYes check.svg Done
    • I don't think the description of the Mk2 dual mount is adequate. It was a unique set-up and few will be familiar with it.
      • @Peacemaker67:There is no article on the mount in Wikipedia or I would have linked it. The two links are the closest I could come to giving more information on the mount. The was no M-number ever used to describe the mount because it was a lash-up solution to a problem. Any detailed description of the mount moves away from the focus of the article which is the squadron and its operations. What do you suggest that I do?
    • Given that Operation Market Time has already been introduced, the final sentence seems redundant.
  • Crew training and unit commissioning
    • What ranks were the officers that were added to the complement, esp what rank were the commanders of the cutters?clarified officer ranksYes check.svg Done
  • Naval Base Subic Bay
    • the handling of this reads a bit weirdly, because the first two divisions deployed there and to Vietnam before the third division even deployed there.
      • @Peacemaker67:This is handled in chronological order. I am not sure how else to do this. The Division 13 activation was an afterthought and a follow-on deployment of additional cutters and crews. The two other divisions were already actively in combat when the need for additional coverage in the southern area of the country was decided upon. Suggestions?
    • Division 11 consisted of nine cutters and a U.S. Navy support ship Was the support ship the LST USS Floyd County? If so, I would state it in this sentence.Yes check.svg Done
    • Division 12 consisted of 8 cutters but then in the following sentence the LST USS Snohomish County is listed as the support ship? Did this support ship allocation continue? It isn't clear.
      • Edited paragraph for clarityYes check.svg Done
    • the map in this section needs some work. I suggest getting rid of the "North Vietnam", "Laos", "Cambodia" and "South China Sea" labels, which obscure the important information, which is the locations and labels of the bases. Also, the label for Phu Quoc Island is partially "off the map", and should be moved to the "top" position. The labels also use a lower case d for div, and I think that should be rendered as Div.
      • Left South China Sea label as I don't think it covers anything important.Yes check.svg Done
  • Operations
    • U.S Navy, U.S. Coast Guard or RVN is missing a period after U.SYes check.svg Done
    • the areas varied in size, do you mean length?Yes check.svg Done

« Return to A-Class review list

Peresvet-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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


The three Russian Peresvet-class battleships were designed to support their armored cruisers in a commerce raiding war if war broke out with the British in the late 19th century. They were optimized for high speed and endurance to this end rather than heavy armor and armament, but the situation was vastly different in the war that they actually fought against the Japanese in 1904–05. The two ships that reached the Far East before war began fought creditably in the two major fleet actions with the Imperial Japanese Navy and were ultimately sunk in harbor. The third ship was part of the Baltic Fleet that was destroyed at the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 and was the first ship sunk during the battle. The other two ship were salvaged and placed into service by the Japanese after the war. One was sold back to the Russians in 1916 and sank after hitting mines in the Mediterranean while the other participated in the Battle of Tsingtao in 1914. She was probably scrapped around 1923. I've recently overhauled the article and believe it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'd like reviewers to look for examples of unexplained jargon and infelicitous prose in preparation for a FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

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

  • " The Peresvet class had five 15-inch (381 mm) torpedo tubes, three above water, one in the bow and one pair of broadside tubes, and two broadside underwater tubes.": I'm not sure I follow.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

  • all toolchecks are ok (except alt text which isn't an ACR requirement)
  • broadside is overlinked
  • 1898–03 in the infobox should be 1898–1903 per WP:DATERANGE
  • there are rounding differences between the body and infobox for beam
  • the first figures in the displacement range in the body and infobox don't match
  • the kW conversions in the body and text don't match
  • there is no conversion of the 6-inch guns in the body, but there is in the infobox
    • Converted on first use, which is earlier in the description.
  • suggest reversing the conversion on the 37 mm, 47 mm and 75 mm guns in the body and infobox for consistency with the larger guns and torpedo tubes, which are inches first with conversion in mm. Given the armor thicknesses are consistently inches first, it seems incongruous
    • Those guns were bought from France and the Russians retained the metric designations.
  • 0.75-inch isn't converted
    • Umm, look earlier in the para
  • the 51 mm low range for the deck armor in the infobox isn't clearly established from the body
  • Battle of the Yellow Sea should be linked
    • Look in the lede.
  • Battle of Tsingtao is linked in the lead but not when mentioned in the body
    • Generally only one link per article, excluding the infobox, except for very long articles.
  • the standard note explaining caliber would be a useful addition
    • The link for caliber suffices, IMO.

Comprehensive article, in very good shape, just needs some tweaks. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough review; catching all those discrepancies was great.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments: just a couple of minor nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "File:Peresvet Brassey's.png": needs a US licence - I'd probably go with PD-US-1923
  • "File:Peresviet Port Arthur LOC 3f06353u.jpg": probably needs publication details - these can be found here: [6]
  • "gun turrets and their support tubes, which were made from Krupp armor" --> "gun turrets and their support tubes, which were fitted with Krupp armor"?
  • "reclassified as 1st-class" --> "reclassified as first-class" (for consistency with "the second-class battleships")
  • otherwise I believe this article meets the A-class criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Hrabri-class submarine[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (crack... thump)

Hrabri-class submarine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Hrabri-class were the first Yugoslav submarines. One was captured by the Italians in April 1941 and subsequently scrapped, and the other escaped to Crete then Egypt, remaining in a training role for the rest of the war, but served on in the Yugoslav Navy until 1954. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, similar comments to the article on one of the boats below: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • are there ISSNs that could be added for the periodicals in the References list? These can usually be found on []
  • accessdates for the websites?
  • "The ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta" --> I think this should possibly be attributed in the text as it seems like an opinion. For instance, "According to the British naval attache, the ships and crews made a very good impression while visiting Malta..." or maybe "Jarman recounts that the British naval attache was very impressed by the ships and their crews while visiting Malta" (or something similar). Thoughts?
  • "One of her guns was removed at the end of her career" --> do we know why?
    • G'day Rupert, thanks for the review. I've covered all your points except the gun removal (who knows, the source doesn't say), and also Sturm's points on the FAC of the Nebojsha. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
      • No worries, I've added my support above. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


  • I think the balance of this article is off. The description section should be the bulk of the article, and should expand on the info given in the individual boat articles. I'd like to see some discussion of the context of these two submarines - why did Yugoslavia buy them? How did they envision using them? I'd assume not coastal defense, given that they're a bit big for coastal boats, and as I recall, Yugoslavia had intentions of exerting its naval power beyond the Adriatic.
  • On a related note, I'd trim down the service history section. I'd leave the first paragraph, and then condense the rest down to one or maybe two more paragraphs
  • Sturm and I have been using tables for construction details in our class articles lately - see for instance his current article at ACR or the article I'm about to nominate. While "our way" isn't the only way, I do think it's useful to have it laid out that way. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I believe I've addressed your points, Parsecboy. While I've been unable to find any reference to the intended use of the subs, I have found a British naval attache report from 1933 that states the Yugoslav naval policy was strictly defensive, aimed at protecting its coast. This is consistent with other things I've read, the Yugoslavs couldn't rely on help in the Adriatic from the French or British, and were always concerned about an enemy blockading of the Straits of Otranto (as well as being very wary of the Italians, who considered the Adriatic their domain. These are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments The background for these boats is lacking. Why these ships and why were they completed so much later than the other L-class boats? Why did Yugoslavia want them?

As I've stated above, I have not been able to definitively establish this. The parts were available, and I assume that meant the boats were cheaper, some later L-class boats were completed in the mid-20s, so these weren't that late. No doubt the British defence staff encouraged the Yugoslavs to buy them from the UK, but I don't have a source that confirms that. So far as why they wanted them, coastal defence appears to be the reason, per my explanation to Parsecboy above.
  • Description should be a bit more complete although I suspect that sources are a bit lacking. Propeller diameter and gun/torpedo performance data should be added if available. Friedman's book on Naval Weapons of WWI should suffice for the latter as I'm fairly certain that the boats retained their British 4-inch guns as that's not a caliber in service with the A-H Navy, IIRC.
  • that may be true, but I can't find a source that says what the propeller diameter was, and don't have a source that confirms my assumption that the guns were QF 4-inch/L40 Mk IV guns or what the maximum elevation was. Without such sources, it is not possible to establish the range. I also don't have a source for which of the many versions of the 21-inch torpedo were supplied to Yugoslavia, although I assume they were Mark IIs.
  • Infobox says test depth, text says operational depth, which is correct? And should be linked anyway.
  • The parameter in the infobox only allows for test depth, so I've removed it, as I don't have a definitive source for test depth. While some online sources claim deeper diving depths for L-class subs than the E-class subs, this is the best I've got. I've changed it to diving depth in the text. What should I link it to?
  • Move the link for diesel engines to first use and add link in infobox. Also add links for electric motors to infobox and main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)