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

« Return to A-Class review list

RAF Lossiemouth[edit]

Nominator(s): Thx811 (talk)

RAF Lossiemouth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article has been significantly expanded over the last year to include a comprehensive history of the station and it current operations. I have tried to focus on the station itself and its facilities rather than the units that were based there, as they are covered by their own articles, although both are obviously intrinsically linked. I have followed the structure of other articles on military airfields but hope that if considered acceptable that this article on what is one of the RAF's major stations could be used as an example to help expand other articles on UK military airfields.Thx811 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

  • regretfully oppose There are some issues here that are too substantial to allow upgrading to A-Class at this time or which could be reasonably resolved during an A review, namely:
  1. sections of uncited text - excluding the table and list of section commanders (both of which are largely uncited), by my count, there are six substantial factual assertions that have no sources
  2. some close paraphrasing - not much, but a few short passages could be restructured [1]
  3. maintenance tag on the article
Having said all this, I think this is a wonderful and comprehensive article that is right on the verge of WP:GAN and, from there, could be improved to A-class with only a modicum of effort. It is, mostly, well-sourced to RS, well-written, well-organized, and well-imaged. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry[edit]

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk)

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

After spotting an annoying red-link in articles related to the Indian rebellion of 1857, and not being a fan of placeholder stub articles, I decided to do a bit of research about the 3rd Bengal Light Cavalry. It was the actions of this unit that triggered the wider mutiny of the East India Company's Bengal Army but the unit itself, according to modern historians, is relatively unknown even in India. Being a bit of a nosey geek, I dug up what I could and turned it into an article! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, nice work. Overall, looks quite good to me. Just a couple of minor suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • there are a couple of "harvn" errors in the References: Hunter and Stafford. These do not appear to have corresponding short citations in the body of the article
  • for the two Amin works, "Defence Journal" should probably be in italics (not the website) as it is the name of the publication
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Illustrated London News", as above, should be in italics
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "mens'..." --> "men's..."?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "An information plaque containing..." --> "An information plaque listing..."?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Roberts went on to say "After careful..." --> "Roberts went on to say "after careful..." (you can probably just silently adjust the capitalisation here to conform with sentence case capitalisation).
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest the addition of "Category:Military units and formations established in 1796" and "Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1857"
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • for an article on the unit itself (rather than just its involvement in the Indian Mutiny), I think its battle history should be expanded a bit more to cover what it did during the three wars it appears to have fought in (Second Anglo-Maratha War, the First Anglo-Afghan War and the First Anglo-Sikh War). Would probably only need a reasonable sized paragraph on each, I think
Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • for A-class, I think it would be good to expand the lead a little more to potentially two paragraphs to summarise the regiment's pre-Mutiny battle history a bit more
Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg In progress Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Kodandera M. Cariappa[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

Kodandera M. Cariappa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I nominate this article for A-Class review. It passed the GA review by Sturm, and I believe that the article is comprehensive enough to meet the A-class criteria. I eventually want to be it a featured article. Coming to the intro, Cariappa was the first Indian commander-in-chief (C-in-C) of the Indian Army. He led Indian forces on the Western Front during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. He is one of only two Indian Army officers to hold the five-star rank of field marshal; the other being Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08[edit]

Hello there. I reviewed the images for copyright tagging. I believe File:Field_Marshal_of_the_Indian_Army.svg may be improperly tagged, it does not match its peers, and really the way it is tagged is vexing. If it is 'own work' as the author states, the copyright label should match the other images I think. Kees08(Talk) 19:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Roger B. Chaffee[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk)

Roger B. Chaffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the article recently passed for GA and received a copy edit from GOCE. Roger Chaffee was an American astronaut who died well before his time to shine. He had a lot of promise as an astronaut, and tragically Apollo 1 took that away. Anyways, I read his biography and incorporated all relevant material from it, as well as relevant material from the Apollo 1 AIB. Kees08 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Vanguard (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Other than becoming the only British dreadnought lost during World War I to non-combat causes (her magazines exploded in 1917), Vanguard had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired at the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war and that was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few other unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. I've significantly expanded the article over the last few months and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining before I send this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:HMS Vanguard (1909).png - same issue as on the class article with regards to the source
    • Replaced
  • File:1stGenBritishBBs.tiff - same issue as on the Neptune ACR - this is probably a S. W. Barnaby illustration (the same illustration appears in the 1913 edition, where he's credited as the illustrator), to the UK template should be updated accordingly.

Will review the article itself later. Parsecboy (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Brooks, John (2005) in bibliography, not cited.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Cho Ki-chon[edit]

Nominator(s): Finnusertop (talk)

Cho Ki-chon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

When Cho Ki-chon – a Soviet propaganda officer of Korean descent – entered his home country with the Red Army during the last days of WWII, he had a mission. The Soviets needed to groom Kim Il-sung for leadership of North Korea, but the man seriously lacked appeal. The Soviets figured out that with the help of Cho, they could kill two birds with one stone: write brilliant propaganda praising Kim as the hero of Koreans but do so in the socialist realist genre. Thus was born Mt. Paektu, an epic poem chronicling the largely made-up guerilla activities of Kim Il-sung to serve as the basis of his cult of personality. A few years later, Kim led Koreans to war again and Cho continued to write propaganda poems with names like "Aircraft Hunters" and "Mungyong Pass". Cho died in a United Nations Force bombing raid. Ironically, his death in "The Forgotten War" was what immortalized his legacy; he died just before Kim Il-sung began his sweeping purges of the intelligentsia in the mid-1950s.

The article is a GA and DYK. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 20:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "may have spared him his reputation" spared from what negative assessment?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: would you be happy with the wording I added in this edit: "may have spared him his reputation from that loss of official recognition. With the exception of a period in the 1970s when Cho's name was barely mentioned in official publications, his legacy has benefited from continued popularity in North Korea."? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by DarjeelingTea[edit]

Conditional Support - This is an absolutely fascinating article by Finnusertop. Having just, this last summer, been promoted to GA status there's not a lot that I can find that needs improvement but I have listed some items below. I've rated this "conditional support" on correction of these items.

  • Alt tags for images are all present, captions are sensible and supported by text, images all have correct licensing
  • No DAB issues or dead external links
  • Earwig shows copyvio unlikely
  • Everything is cited and to RS
  • LEDE complies with WP:LEDE for length
  • "Other poems by hum include" ... is that supposed to be "him"?
  • about the sufferings of Koreans ... I believe "suffering" should be singular
  • Yi Chang-ju of the North Research Institution, ... there should not be a comma after "institution"
  • " According to Gabroussenko," ... while this form is fine for the literature review of a thesis, I don't think in an encyclopedia we can just say "according to [surname]" without giving the given name on the first instance of use
  • By that time, he had much experience of Soviet literature and literature administration. (I think the preposition used here should be "with" instead of "of" - and a word like "substantial" might by stylistically preferable to "much"?)
  • Several times we refer to United Nations bombing raids and, while technically that's correct, I don't see this specific verbiage used often in lieu of naming a specific nationality's air force.
  • Cho died on 31 July 1951 in his office room - couldn't we just say in his office ... or did he also live there?

DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the great suggestions, DarjeelingTea. I've made all changes in this edit.
Notice that I didn't spell out Gabroussenko's first name where you point out it's missing. I've already introduced her with her full name when I first invoke her in the section #Before emigrating from the Soviet Union: "Tatiana Gabroussenko thinks it is probable that" as well as in the first footnote "According to Tatiana Gabroussenko, Cho's place of birth". If you think it would be wise to spell it out once more, I can do that of course. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 04:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, I missed it! That all looks good to me in that case. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Bengal famine of 1943[edit]

Nominator(s): Lingzhi (talk)

Bengal famine of 1943 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

No one is really certain how many innocent Indian peasants died, but the most recent and authoritative estimate (2.1 million deaths) is more than double the total combined military and civilians WWII deaths of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the US. No one agrees on what caused it – some blame a cyclone and floods, fungal infestation, the fall of Burma, or Winston Churchill personally. What scholars do agree on, however, is that the Bengal famine of 1943 is emphatically a wartime famine.

The article is large, but it merits the size. Thank you for your time and trouble.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • "Bengal's rice output in normal years was barely enough" (and other quotes): WP:INTEXT has been disputed a bit, but I think we can live with it. If it isn't important to mention who said something, then the exact wording probably isn't all that important, either. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Dank, as I mentioned on your talk: There are some quotes that I strongly think should be left as quotes. The example that comes immediately to mind is about not being able to bury the dead, but others are that type as well. But there are other quotes that are not so...personal... that I feel could be converted to paraphrase. I gave two examples (copied from Clarrityfiend's comments) on your talk page as well... As a rule of thumb, think "vivid, personal" versus "dry, impersonal".... I can try to convert a few to paraphrase, but you are welcome to do so as well. Thanks!  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
      • That's not what I'm saying ... I'm fine with the quotes. But the guideline WP:INTEXT recommends that if you quote, or even paraphrase, it's best to mention who you're quoting in the text, rather than relying on the citation to do that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I think that providing the names of the witnesses and contemporary commentators would add excessive (and more importantly, unhelpful) detail/info. In a somewhat similar (but far more egregious) case, I'm looking at an article right now where the nominator is basically saying, "F*ck the guidelines, it isn't explicitly forbidden, so I'll do whatever I want, ha ha."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
          • Not my call, I'm just doing my job. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I certainly don't mean to give you trouble.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
              • No trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(undent)Dank, I tried to chop down the thicket of quotation marks a little. May do more tomorrow.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • "24–Parganas", "24-Parganas", "24 Parganas": consistency.
    • fixed tks
  • "This killed 14,500 people": I'm not sure what "This" refers to.
    • fixed tks
  • Check throughout for repetition.
    • yes, the famine codes bit.
  • In reviews where I can't sign off on INTEXT, I also can't sign off on the use of quote marks in general.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Dank, so forex we have:We couldn't bury them or anything. No one had the strength to perform rites. People would tie a rope around the necks and drag them over to a ditch." So are you saying I need to add One survivor said, before the quote? Or even give the survivor's name (it was just a survivor, non-notable otherwise)? And if so, do you think that helps...?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Generally, other reviewers handle this. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Lingzhi:@Dank: I've only just become aware of this. I have some general advice. This article is certainly very well written, and I don't expect many issues of syntax and style (beyond some prose niggles). I have only very, very, cursorily read the article. My first thought is this: It was developed in a sandbox and introduced into mainspace in one edit. It took the author a year to write it. The others who were editing the article earlier, who, granted, were doing a poor job, need to be given a chance to criticize it on the article's talk page for a reasonable length of time, a couple of months, perhaps. It needs to be advertized in WT:INDIA and WT:BANGLADESH. Should it really come first for a military history review, and so soon after it was introduced? In an academic field as contentious as the Bengal famine of 1943 (BFo1943), there are many salient issues, which are not likely to receive scrutiny in such a venue. This is in part because BFo1943 is only obliquely military history. In fact to cast it as military history is to buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility. My second thought is: it is packed with details, but yet strangely sanitized in both in prose and pictures, making the article vulnerable to accusations of missing the forest for the trees. If I were to use an image pattern recognition program to guess the article's topic, it is unlikely to come up with "famine." (Aside: I've lately been adding images to Timeline of major famines in India during British rule which I created some ten years ago (as I did all the famine articles in it, with the exception of the two Bengal famine articles); contrast some of the images in the timeline with the ones in this article.) It is the same with the prose. I perfectly understand Wikipedia NPOV, DUE guidelines, but, still, we are looking at a famine in which there were at the very least an estimated 1.5 million Indian deaths, a significant proportion from starvation. Yet not a single Briton died from starvation. I've lately been struck by this fact. It is the same with all the other famines between 1770 and 1943: some 50 million Indians died in famines. That's a lot of millions. Yet not a single Briton in India did. It could not have happened in a European settler colony of Britain (Australia, NZ, Canada, South Africa, or for that matter these here the United States). I'm not suggesting even remotely that the article take on the polemical tone of a Mike Davis or Nick Dirks, or even the quantitative slant of an Amartya Sen, but I have the sense that your tone is too muted. I could very well be proved wrong upon a more detailed reading, but that is my first reaction. Lingzhi, you've done an admirable job, and I congratulate you, but I think this is not the time for any review that assigns an imprimatur of Wikipedia quality. It really needs to simmer for a while, and it needs to be advertised in other venues. I'm sure we can take care of the occasional IP trolls. Again, I'm thrilled that you've done this, and I'm looking forward to reading it in the coming weeks when I find the time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • These are reasonable concerns. FWIW, it almost never happens that people get upset when an article is promoted to A-class; it's just not a process that a lot of people care about. Input is always welcome. Promotion here tends to take a long time, longer on average than at FAC, so there's lots of time for input. - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Re: "buy into a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility": For myself, I'm just a gnomish copyeditor, and even if I had a POV, it wouldn't generally make a difference to my work, but I can assure you this is not my POV, and judging from what I read here, it isn't Lingzhi's POV either. - Dank (push to talk) 12:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • {{ping| I deeply appreciate your lengthy comments. I also disagree strongly, even vehemently, with most of them. This article has been allowed to sit for a very, very long time as one of the most firmly and even outrageously POV-driven chunks of propaganda text in mainspace. I suspect that that is because the topic is just too huge for... pretty much anyone, except for people who simplify the topic by slicing and dicing things according to their POV. The article should have been deleted or blanked years ago, with only 3 or 4 sentences left as a placeholder. I'm very disappointed that you have swung the door wide open for the POV warriors to return and claim legitimacy.
  • You mentioned images, but images are a desperately huge problem. [You can ask Nikkimaria how much I've agonized over them]. Forex, I had to reprimand one well-meaning contributor who added two images from the previous century, and one from the Direct Action Day. here [2] All the images that people urgently wish to add are very, very dodgy, either in veracity or in copyvio problems. I did add the Chittaprosad sketch, which hardly looks sanitized, and the diseased child, and the dead/dying children and sorrowful woman in the infobox atop the page.
  • Speaking of "not sanitized", please rad the whole section about "Increased vermin and unburied dead" ("we just threw the corpses in ditches") or "Social disruption" ("...children picking and eating undigested grains out of a beggar's diarrheal discharge"). Etc.
  • And to say this is only obliquely a MILHIST issue is to fly in the face of every single source. Even Tauger, who might perhaps be described as (perhaps indirectly) a British apologist, asserts that British aid was sharply restricted by wartime shipping concerns.
  • In short, I disagree with almost everything you wrote. They are not reasonable concerns. Did I miss anything? I'll look again later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. :) I see that you have spent a lot of time on writing this, and are understandably keen to see it become the stable version on Wikipedia. I wrote down what were my first reactions, allowing very much for the possibility that I could be wrong. When I said it is "only obliquely military history," I was referring to the contrast between 1 and 319. Any one who claims it is essentially military history has to explain the contrast in the keywords of the sources. To point to "a POV out there that exceptional war time conditions allowed the famine to fly under the radar of British responsibility." is not to imply that "it was not a wartime famine." To say that I've swung the door wide open is to sell your own exceptional contribution short. I won't get into any other issue at this time, given Dank's time frame, and the distinct likelihood that I will be opening instead the "trapdoors to a bottomless past." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Many of the pictures had faulty licenses (or wrong information). I have removed them. That is not a bad thing because I believe there are much better and more relevant pictures around. It may take some time to find them though. The edit summaries explain the issues. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I have added new sourced, public domain, pictures (see Talk:Bengal_famine_of_1943#New_images) which speak to the context with as much precision as pictures will do. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • The lead is poorly written. It presented itself in this shape a few hours ago. I have made the first three sentences smoother, docked the excesses and hopefully enlivened the prose.[3] Famine articles typically first tell us where the famine struck, in what parts of where it struck, and among whom and how many in where it struck. (The author has given us very little of that in the lead.) Only then do they venture into guessing how many it killed. The last sentence of the lead paragraph: "Millions of families were impoverished as the crisis disrupted and overwhelmed large segments of the economy and social fabric, accelerating pre-existing socioeconomic processes generating poverty and income inequality."I have tagged incomprehensible. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • TEXT: Oddly enough, three experienced Wikipedians – two of whom are well-known as copy editors – gave the text a once-over. [That would be Ceoil, Dank and Clarityfiend]. I'm extremely certain that at least one of them would have noticed this alleged incomprehensibility. I won't remove your {{incomprehensible}} template; it would be much easier for everyone if you foresaw the eventual result and removed the template yourself.
    • Images: From my perspective, there are 3 or 4 problems with your edits to the images. The biggest by far is that removing all the British military images is (presuambaly, according to WP:AGF, due to completely inadvertent oversight) POV. Second, most of the images you added are markedly inferior to the images you replaced them with. Third, and alas this will take a few days, apparently your goal is to emphasize and emphasize and emphasize the victims. <strikethrough>Well then, I have two images that are superior to yours. You will like them</strikethrough>.... It will take a few days to get to them. They are at work... Fourth, as for your licensing complaints, I suspect some complaints are valid and some are not. I was fully expecting the img with the TIME/LIFE watermark to be removed, forex. No problem with that removal. Perhaps I should have rmvd it myself, but it shows what are obviously "prioritized classes" (tho I wasn't gonna ssay that explicitly)... But many of your complaints will need to be scrutinized very carefully. Forex, the complaints about "this isn't a rice boat". That is... I have no words. I will quit now before I become {{incomprehensible}}.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Guys, per my standard disclaimer, I try to stay out of the kind of usage questions that people are most likely to disagree on. Language changes every day, and this is how it changes, by people disagreeing over it. Let's wait for more reviewers to help sort it out. Ceoil, feel free to jump in here. - Dank (push to talk) 11:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
            • Have not looked into the specifics here, but Fowler&fowler is an editor whose opinion I highly respect, and has some expertise in this area. He can be blunt, yes, but we are adults and I would take him IGF. Only answering with generalities because I was pinged; will look later in more dept tonight. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Good morning everyone!  :) I see I've been writing mean things, and creating ripples that are reaching faraway shores. Let me reiterate again: Lingzhi, I have great admiration for your rewrite. Is it great? Yes. Is it perfect? No. All my remarks are meant to push it farther down the road to perfection. We have had a decent relationship on Wikipedia thus far (I think). Let us not set it back over a few images and parts of speech. I haven't had my coffee yet, so I won't bother with the image stuff yet, but what I meant about the sentence, which my enfeebled condition last night prevented me from clarifying, was this: the reduced relative clause "generating poverty and income inequality," is an elliptical form (shorthand) for something. It is not clear to the reader what that something is: Is it "that generate," (i.e. referring to a general- or more permanent state) or to something more timebound, such as "that were generating," "that had been generating," ... even "that had generated." In the absence of that clarity, the reader is unable to figure out what sense of "pre-existing" is meant: "existing" (i.e. present earlier and continuing to be present) or "present before a certain time in the past." In general, as the sentence becomes more complex, reduced relative clauses create more ambiguity. Now I have to get some coffee, feed the animals, and (only then) take the first fledgling steps toward waking the better half. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments. You have "The Bengal famine... was a famine", redundant surely ("The red ball was a ... ball"). Perhaps somewhat worse, people seem to be dying twice: "people died in the famine, first from starvation and then from diseases". This seems as though we have a zombie attack on our hands, doesn't it?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Good catch. Have fixed, I hope. Yup there is repetition, but the second is a major famine, similar to Britannica: East India Company (was) an English company formed for the exploitation of trade with East ..." My point was about smoothing out the prose. I don't know what WP policy is about this sort of repetition. Will defer to whatever is the wisdom. Not even attached to my rewrite of the first three sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
        • I don't know whether i should put this comment on this page or on the article's Talk, but it seems we are discussing the lede's text here and the images there, so I'll mention this here and... images... there.. So about the lede: at one point it was a freaking monster that had (I am certainly not kidding) more than twenty cites in it. I made it that way for two reasons: first, nearly every single statement is controversial! Seriously! The only noncontroversial thing you can write is that "The bengal famine was a fmine. At least 1. million people died." So I cited everything. And as for length, apparently many people read only the lede, and this famine has many many many many important details. Even which details you choose to leave out is an exercise in POV-ness. I am not kidding. Every editing decision is hazardous. So... OK I chopped it down somewhat to a medium-sized (but still much longer than current) version here. If you thing anything is missing from the current lede, there is a good chance you can find it there.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I dont like the wholesale change in image selection, and would urge a reversion. Ceoil (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ceoil: But also for the record, you have no problems with the inexorably wholesale change wrought when lingzhi did a top-to-bottom rewrite in one fell swoop, against everything that I know the spirit of Wikipedia to be about. Are you aware what sort of task it is for a reviewer who has to check these edts for reliability, and not just of facile grammar? I already see statements here and there that don't jibe with my overall knowledge of Indian history (and I wrote the history section of the FA India), statements that will need to be checked not just for reliability but also for DUE. Seriously, Ceoil, he had supposedly worked on these images for a year, and came up with doozies; I appear less than a week ago, and find properly licensed public domain images, and lingzhi is hemming and hawing about now finding the images on Monday? I wasn't born yesterday. And we haven't even got to article content yet, the sentence by sentence check of the edits, of whether they represent some kind of consensus view or are just using a source here or a source there to make a blanket statement. Those are the things I typically worry about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The images I added are not blurry, they had been deliberately magnified because I was trying to get rid of half-tone effects, which I have now. Here they are: File:FatherSonCowRummagingFoodBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:Destitute mother and child Bengal famine 1943.jpg, File:OrphansWhoSurvivedBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:MotherWithShredsOfClothingAndChildCalcutta1943.jpg, File:BelongingsSoldAwayBengalFamine1943.jpg, File:BengalSpeaksJackalsVulturesEatingCorpsesBengalFamine1943a.jpg (only the last one, I haven't been able to fix properly yet). They are a lot more in focus that Lingzhi's: File:India and daily life in Bengal (1912) (14596006410).jpg, which is currently in the article, which is not only blurry, not only has full-blown half-tone effects, but is also nonsensical and incorrect. It shows a boy herding cattle in Bengal in 1912! What is it supposed to illustrate? Well, it is supposed to illustrate the section October 1942: Unreliable crop forecasts The other pictures present earlier either had bogus licenses, as I've already stated above, or were also wildly out of context. It is the same with the picture File:Smallpox child.jpg which is supposed to somehow tell us something about the diseases rampant in Bengal in 1943. The picture is taken from the CDC's website in Atlanta, but says nothing about which county the girl is from, which year the picture was made. It could be a Pakistani girl from the 1990s. So, what gives us the gumption to think that she is a legit illustration for the 1943 famine in Bengal, but that our own midwestern herding boys a man from the US midwest, also from 1912, as seen in File:SmallpoxvictimIllinois1912.jpg, is not? Do we really need a token South Asian looking face (anon in place and anon in time) with smallpox to illustrate the smallpox epidemic in Bengal in 1943? That's pretty shameful, and an insult to people from Bengal who will spot such subterfuge from a mile away. You're a good guy Ceoil, and I respect you, but seriously the pictures that were present in this article earlier were a sorry lot. Good night. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────And I have just read Lingzhi's attempt at lame sarcasm in the divination of my POV, in the Images post above. For everyone's information, I had removed the earlier images because they were either completely off-topic (i.e. File:Royal Air Force Operations in the Far East, 1941-1945. CI444.jpg showing a pilot in the Northwest Frontier province on the border with Afghanistan, at the opposite end of the subcontinent, attempting to illustrate the military buildup in Bengal in 1942-43) or were abysmally poor in quality, not to mention without proper license (e.g. File:HMS Cornwall - 1942 - WWII.jpg) (PS I have just discovered from other evidence that the RAF pilot may have been training to be deployed with Chindits support in Burma. We still can't use that image, but we probably can another which I will soon upload. In any case, it is not my job as a reviewer to uncover this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)) When I was able to find time, I did add the pictures, some good ones too: three from the Imperial War Museum and one from the US National Archives:

If you think I am getting irritated, you are right. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

      • Finally, I have just taken a look at the history of the page Bengal famine of 1943. Lingzhi claims that the page is full of POV, and that it left him with no option but to do the top-to-bottom, one-fell-swoop, rewrite. For someone who is railing against the longstanding POV on the page, Lingzhi made his first edit there only on 2-5-16. On the talk page? Also on 2-5-16. Is there any indication that he attempted to work with any previous author there or at least call them on a POV? Nope. People can look at the pages themselves. Where is the evidence of criticism of POV or of making small probing edits that we all make? There one set of dozens of small edits on 2/5 and 2/6, and thereafter only a few chunky additions (5K or greater), which were obviously prepared beforehand somewhere else. There is nothing of the sort of engagement with other editors that you will see me make on Talk:India, Talk:British Raj, and a host of others. There is also, as far as I can tell, no history of Lingzhi making India-related edits earlier, not even India-famine-related edits. There are a host of India famine pages (see Timeline of major famines in India during British rule). Of course, that shouldn't matter, but it does seems to be going against the grain of Wikipedia. However, since the time he made his all-at-once edit in April, Lingzhi has been busy like nobody's business on that page. I am not saying that what he has done should be reversed, or that his edits don't deserve our admiration, but I am saying that what was there earlier, if legitimate, needs to be incorporated. We can't take his word that he has done that, for there is no history of his working with anyone else on this page. In other words, an article this new, written by someone with no history of editing in the area, written all at once in a manner for which we are being asked to assume good faith, but not assume it for the others before him, and reviewing which places an inordinate burden on any reviewer who wants to take his job seriously, needs to simmer for a while outside of a review setting, where other people need to be given a chance to challenge the individual edits. As far as I see, this review is dead in the water in Milhist. Besides, it is not clear it is military history anyway, for it's a long way from here to Tipperary. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
        • So, I oppose, an A-rating, for the reasons I have given, but importantly, I oppose the very idea of a milhist review for an article such as this, also for the reasons I have given. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I suppose i could scare up a few specific points of POV in the previous version of the article. let's see this version:

  1. "Bengal’s winter 1942 ‘aman’ rice crop, the most important one, was well below average." POV. This is fiercely debated, but Wikipedia lays it out as a flat and unchallenged assertion. This is the opening shot of the POV volley. The two POVs are (technical term here) 1 FAD (food availability decline) and by extension 2) limited British responsibility.
  2. "... a fungus infection...believed to have had more serious effects on supply than the cyclone. The only evidence by an expert in the subject concludes, 'The only other instance [of disease damage]that bears comparison in loss sustained by a food crop and the human calamity that followed in its wake is the Irish Potato Famine of 1845. POV = FAD. This is presented as an uncontested "probable truth", with an expert as an appeal to authority. In truth, the degree of fungal damage is fiercely debated.
  3. "Carry-over stocks of grain, the stocks over and above the new crop, usually a protection against food shortages, were well below the normal two months' supply," POV (FAD again). Highly contested again, and yet presented as an uncontested fact again.
  4. "The Famine Inquiry Commission showed in detail that the people who stated that Bengal had plenty of food dominated the political and administrative decision-making up to mid 1943 at least, losing influence as the evidence accumulated that their assumptions were contradicted by observations on the ground, as their policies proved ineffectual, and as it became clear that a major famine was in progress. " This is a long sentence but it's POV again, flatly asserting that there was a grain shorage, and that people who said there was no shartage were just wrong. Again, it's FAD, and presented in Wikipedia's editorial voice.
  5. "The Famine Inquiry Commission was damning about the policies, actions and failures to act of the Government of India, of the Bengal Government, of other provincial governments and of the rice trade. It also called attention to the general corruption." POV the Commission has been highly criticized as a whitewash job. Many assertt hat their goals was to lay out just enough truth to be persuasive, then skirt around any and all blame on the UK (by extension, blaming the provincial government to some degree, and blaming catastrophe as well). FAD POV, exonerate Britain.
  6. "Inaction of the British Indian Government" section. That sounds very much like like it's gonna blame Britain.... but... it doesn't, not really. Does it mention the denial Policies' Nope! Not even word one! Does it mention inflation? there's a section about inflation later that is embarrassingly POV; e'll get to that. But the point is, if yo read the "Blame Britain section carefully, it only comes down to "No one officially declared a famine". But it is the Provincial government's role to declare famine, not Britain's. So again, even though the section heading looks like we're gonna blame Britain, we actually blame the provincial government.
  7. Let me repeat: Zero-point-zero discussion of the Denial Policies, which came from the UK.
  8. "It was widely believed by politicians, the Government of India, the Government of Bengal, other provincial governments, some administrators, some public servants and some of the general public that Bengal had plenty of food available and food shortages were due to hoarding, speculation and inflation " And some still substantially believe that (or believe that any shortage was minor), although the key culprit "inflation" is omitted. Why does Wikipedia's voice choose sides by tut-tutting one side?
  9. I'm still reading this section and it says some things that are true and some that are debated, but never does it really do anything to point at Britain. perhaps it suggests that Britain should not have permitted the provinces to set interprovincial trade barriers. Is that what it's saying? If so.. it's not making anything resembling a clear or coherent case. I actually think it isn't making any case at all.
  10. section: "Role of the British Government of Bengal" Here we finally have some clear assertions of blame! but wait, it's blaming the... provincial government. Precisely as the famine Commission report did.
  11. Section: "Hoarding" the section concludes there was no hoarding and no rice shortage."When these drives continually failed to locate large stocks, the government realized that the scale of the loss in supply was larger than they had initially believed" This is FAD POV.
  12. Section: "Speculation" Again Wikipedia casts doubt on the possibility that there was sufficient (or nearly sufficient) food. FAD POV. Forex, "Only if speculators had stored more than usual, and not released it during the famine year, would they have increased the number of deaths: there is ample evidence that they did not" Why is Wikipedia choosing sides in a debate and presenting only that side's evidence?
  13. Section: "Inflation" Oh God, read this and then read the current. They are worlds, worlds, worlds apart. Please. That section is a disgrace.
  14. Alas I have to go now! I will try to list more later. Bye.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 05:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I am about half done listing examples of POV. I can list more (did I mention there's not even a single mention of the Denial Policies? Oh wait, I did), but just for now, let's do a thought experiment, please. If it took me an entire year (yes I worked on it for about 14 months, with a 1-month break... and I actually worked during all that time) to rewrite the article unmolested, undisturbed, undisputed, how long would it have take if I had tried to work with POV editors? The answer, of course, is that it simply would NOT have taken place. In this alternate, counterfactual thought-experiment version of reality, the article would at this moment have 2 or 3 changes from the version that existed just before I copy-pasted the userpage version in (the page with POV described above, and that's only about half the POV-ness). This article is just too darn big and too darn complex and has too many darn moving parts and every moving part is a potential POV trap... You say piece by piece is the only wiki-way; I say in this case only (as far as I know; there may be other similar exceptions to the general rule) that path does not exist...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
You don't get it my friend. Why should we take your word that it was all POV then, and all NPOV now? Why are you pointing to the old POV now, when you didn't lift a finger to discuss it on the article's talk page? It is not in the record. There is no evidence anywhere on Wikipedia that you showed interest in any famine, anything Bengal related, anything India related, before you appeared on Bengal famine of 1943 claiming to be the purveyor of 100% NPOV and dumped your text. Please don't insult my intelligence. I am not that stupid. Please also don't list any more points. I am not paying attention and others will not understand. I have nothing against you, nor is my admiration for such an attempt diminished. I am happy to work on the article with you—as I see we already are, after a fashion, on the article's talk page. At least I'm not reverting it to the previous version, nor pasting a version of my own, which I could whip up, over yours. (For the record I had not edited this article until a few days ago, so there is no POV of mine it formerly embodied.) Moreover, I'm watching the article, so no blatant POV pusher can undo anything valuable you have done. But this review is over. As I already said, the article needs to sit, figuratively speaking, in the Bengal sunshine and rain unshielded by a review process. The privilege you are asking for yourself needs to be given to others. You attempted to take a short cut. But there are no short cuts, no free lunches, no free kittens, no undisturbed writing or rewriting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your time &trouble. You have expressed your opinion quite clearly.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav torpedo boat T5[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Built in 1914–1915, this ship served in the Austro-Hungarian navy during WWI, and was then transferred to the fledgling Navy of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Kingdom of Yugoslavia) in 1921. She was captured by the Italians in April 1941 during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, and then saw service with them. Handed back to the Yugoslavs in 1943, she saw out the rest of the war, and then went on with the post-war Yugoslav Navy until 1962. This article went through GAN a couple of months ago and is one of eight articles on this class of torpedo boat that saw service with Yugoslavia, two of which have already gone through ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • I spy one duplicate link for Durrazo.
  • Same comment about context on the Szent Istvan sinking as T3.
  • Ditto for scout/light cruiser description for the Saidas
  • Ditto again for links in the ref section.
  • Link displacement, propeller, drifter
  • All these done.
  • Hadn't thought of this for the other review, but were any of these boats involved in the Cattaro mutiny in any way? The Halpern article cited in SMS Novara (1913) mentions that 14 of the 250-ton boats were in Cattaro at the time, but does not state which boats were present.
  • Per that review, the torpedo boats were not seriously affected by the mutiny, Bell & Elleman also don't give the designations of any torpedo boats involved.
  • Wouldn't Zadar have been Zara at the time?
  • Good catch, fixed.
  • Nothing on what the vessel did in 1944 and 1945? Parsecboy (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the navy in exile was based on Malta, so I suspect it was based there, but it probably wasn't up to much given its age. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, on that and the mutiny points - worth a look, I guess. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Leuthen[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Third of a four-part series on Frederick the Great's battles (others being Battle of Hochkirch and Battle of Kunersdorf, both which he lost miserably and both articles presently here for review, and Battle of Rossbach, still in puberty). My drop down menu doesn't work, so I have to create this page manually. Hope I did it right. auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Ruth, just some minor presentation comments to get started. I will look to try to read through the article more thoroughly later: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • there is some inconsistency in presentation of page ranges, forex "p. 212–215" v. "pp. 233–235" fixed
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be at the top of the last section in the article (it just needs to be moved up slightly) moved up.
  • "The monument was dynamited during World War II..." --> by whom? don't know. source didn't say. probably the Russians.
  • in the References, is there an OCLC number for the Bodart book? no
  • in the References, same as above for Lindsay? done
  • in the References, suggest translating the titles of the foreign language works
  • in the References, " S. 745-746" --> "pp. 745-746"?
  • in the References, same as above for "S. 75"
  • in the References, "Band 3" --> "Volume 3"?
  • I typically don't translate, although I know some of the templates do. I find it makes the article and notes too cumbersome. I could be persuaded. auntieruth (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Continuing the review below: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • is this missing something after "by": " See Josef Wuk, Technisches polyglott-onomasticum: Oder Wörterbuch in sieben ... by , 1864"? Fixed.
  • in the infobox you have 167 and 210 guns, but I couldn't find these numbers in the body of the text (the Aftermath has "250 Austrian cannons", though...is this correct?) fixed
  • is there a word missing here: "invaded his ally's territory of Duchy of Hanover" --> "the Duchy of Hanover"? fixed
  • "captured another 2000 men and baggage..." --> "captured another 2,000 men and baggage" fixed
  • "File:Frederick the Great and his staff at the Battle of Leuthen by Hugo Ungewitter.jpg": suggest right aligning this image to avoid stacking two images together and so that the subjects face into the article fixed
  • "He secured the Nippern with eight grenadier..." --> "He secured Nippern with eight grenadier..."? companies. It was there....?
  • missing word: "the wing ended at stream and the village of Gahla..." --> "at the stream"? fixed
  • typo: "win the only weeks earlier at the Battle of Rossbach..." --> "win only weeks earlier at the Battle of Rossbach" fixed
  • "Prince Charles and Daun..." --> I don't think Daun has been formally introduced yet, I suggest using the full name and appointment her
  • "critical point could turn the tide of battle..." --> "critical point could have turned the tide of battle"
  • "26th Infantry" --> is there a wikilink that could be added for this unit? no it is not the same as 26th_Infantry_Division_(Wehrmacht).
  • "the Schweidnitz water" or "the Schweidnitz river"? it was called the water.
  • "showed the world, meaning Europeans..." --> probably simpler to just say "showed Europe..." fixed

:hmmmm I have an Order of Battle. Should I add it? auntieruth (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Benbow (1913)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

HMS Benbow (1913) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Figured I ought to join the British battleship fun Sturmvogel has been having lately. This ship was one of the Royal Navy's most powerful ships at the outbreak of World War I, though like the rest of the Grand Fleet, she didn't see much action, even at Jutland. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Iazyges[edit]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "Halpern, p. 251" Which Halpern book?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle[edit]

Nominator(s): Randomness74 (talk)

M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this is my first shot at an A-class review and the first in (hopefully) a long series of World War II tanks, which I'm trying to make into a good topic. This article has passed GA review, and I firmly believe this article meets A-class standards. Regards to all reviewers, Randomness74 (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments It's good to see a detailed article on one of the the under-appreciated workhorses of armoured units. However, I think that this article currently needs a fair amount of further work to reach A-class status. I have the following comments:

  • "It was phased out after the introduction of the M74 Tank Recovery Vehicle" - can you provide an approximate date range here? Done
  • I think that the 'specifications' section should start from first principles in describing this vehicle. For instance, the reference in the first sentence to its length "when the boom was fully extended" is confusing as it's not previously indicated that the vehicle had a boom, or what it was used for. Done
    • It was actually previous mentioned in the lead, but I have made it more clear what a boom is in the body.--Randomness74 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "the engine varied between which variant of the M4 Sherman it was based upon" - ditto - please explain why these variations existed (because the M32s were diverted from the standard M4 production lines?)  Done
  • "The Ordnance Department needed armored recovery vehicles for the D-day Invasion. However, they did not desire to use the British armored recovery vehicles, because they didn't prefer with the modifications the British made with M4 Sherman tanks, such as the AVRE or the BARV" - the grammar here is awkward. Also, the US Army didn't procure vehicles only for the D-Day landing: its entire operating model was to ruthlessly standardise its fleets, with vehicles intended to be general purpose and suited for varying conditions across entire campaigns. Presumably the M32 was intended to support the fleets of M4s in European conditions, and presumably also built on lessons learnt by the US Army in North Africa as well as British combat experiences Done
  • Why was the M4 selected as the basis of this design? (presumably to simplify its production and ensure commonality and the availability of spare parts in combat zones) Done
  • What was the role of the M32: was it intended to support units equipped with M4s, or was it used more widely?
  • "They also converted 298 M32B3s" - what vehicles were converted? Done
  • The service history section should discuss how successful this vehicle proved to be: what were its good and bad features? Did it prove suitable for its intended purpose? Do historians regard it as having been a success?
    • I would have added much more, but there are no sources for this...--Randomness74 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Update: I've found a few sentences on this. I would be able to find more if anybody could find a place that has the United States Army Combat Forces Journal.--Randomness74 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Please explain the purpose of the vehicle's armament: this was presumably for self defence only as the M32 wasn't a combat vehicle. Done
  • Was the US Army the only operator of the M32, or were they exported to Allied countries? (as was common with M4 variants)  Done

--Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Rochdale Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Rochdale Cenotaph (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Rochdale has a population of over 100k and yet I'd wager that most non-Brits have never heard of it and most Brits couldn't find it on a map. Pevsner charmingly describes it as a "drab town". Still, it has a Lutyens war memorial, so here I am. The good people of Rochdale raised a handsome budget and the project proceeded smoothly compared to some of his others, so they were rewarded with one Lutyens' grander and more elegant designs. The article is shorter than some of the others because lack of controversy leaves less to write about, but I think it's comprehensive and I'm hoping to take it to FAC. Any feedback would be much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have enough trouble finding places in Britain that I have heard about on a map. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Britain's not a huge place by Aussie standards. Point your finger at one of the non-green bits in the right sort of area and you probably won't be far off! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Image Review
  • All images are appropriately licensed. I would have used the image down the bottom in the infobox, but it is missing the remembrance stone. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Tyvm. That was the lead image in an earlier draft, but I think it's important for the lead image to show the whole thing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Cannot see anything wrong with it. I was a little surprised at the Bibliography coming before the citations. The MOS (WP:FNNR) would have them the other way around. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I don't know where I picked up that style but I've used it in almost all my articles. On the rare occasion that it's been questioned, I've always relied on WP:CITEVAR ("follow the established style, even if you think it's mad") and FA? 2c ("use any style you like, just do it consistently"). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
So what you're saying here is, just because the rules don't explicitly forbid something, you're gonna do it with the wind in your hair and all flags flying, just because it's sorta cool, sorta like scratching "HJ Mitchell was here" on the article, sorta like.. graffiti? I mean, of course I won't/can't oppose, but for the record, it's something like that, right? if so, then I have to admit, it's really cool.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Personally I think the MoS is a little too concerned with forbidding and prescribing, and if some of the more obscure parts ever saw the light of day we'd find that they were added on a whim by a single editor and aren't actually backed by consensus; it's just that most people don't care enough (they're busy writing articles, instead of telling other people how to write articles). Anyway, I copied the style from some other article years back and I've used it ever since. I guess 'putting my mark on it' has something to do with it but it wasn't my main motivation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
MOS-blaming may be appropriate for some nitpicks, but this isn't a nitpick. It's a glaring discrepancy involving major sections. No one else will argue with your idiosyncratic method (and I will stop after this post) because 1) as a rule reviewers very often don't even look at citations/references, and 2) everyone knows it's a losing argument (not expressly forbidden). Unwatching, good luck with your nom.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd always done it the other way around, not because of the MOS, but because that it the way it appears in books. Only when I saw it done the other way did I think to look it up in the MOS. No big. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Linghi[edit]

  • Boorman in Bibliography but not in the Citations.
  • The History sentence contains exactly one sentence of History. I would suggest renaming the "Commissioning" to either "History" or "Commissioning and dedication", move the one sentence about dedication up to that section, delete the stuff about "The earl was a descendant " and the Manchester cenotaph, and rename the "History" section "Historic designation" or similar.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    Hi Linghi, thanks for looking. Well spotted on Boorman. Citing him now. With respect to the history section, it's more than just a sentence of history. The details of the unveiling are part of the history, and the reason Derby was chosen to do the honours is very relevant (there's a lot more that could be said about Derby; he's synonymous with recruiting in WWI and with the pals battalions). Likewise, a later decision to preserve it and a still later decision to upgrade its preservation status are part of its history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Support by auntieruth[edit]

  • Solely on text. It looks good. It will probably run aground at FAC on MS:Caps for the same reason as the Norwich article. So when that is resolved, perhaps carry it over....? I don't have much opinion on bib/citation thing except that I usually expect it the other way around. In some countries, publication of the bibliography comes first. Before the text. As an historian, I like that, but I have no problem flipping to the end of the book to see the sources, either.... just my two cents! auntieruth (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

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)

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • Citations formatting inconsistent.
  • Standard offer: I will happily replace your citations with {{sfn}} and your references with {{cite book}} or other as needed. Your choice.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the offer! I don't see inconsistencies, though. First citation has full information. Second citation I use the shortened "refname=" form or, if page numbers are not the same, I state the author and page number, and use refname= for further notations on that one. I do them this way all the time, too. auntieruth (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge that you declined. For conversational purposes only: there are four reasons to do so, all four of which apply to this article. The first reason is to standardize the formatting. [Will discuss below] Many articles – especially longer ones – are very far from being so well-tended... The second reason is that Ucucha's harv tools can help find citations without a book in the bibliography, and vice versa. [Will discuss below].. The third and perhaps least important reason is simply to provide a clickable link from each citation to the corresponding bibliography entry. The fourth reason is that it provides a rigid system for other editors, who may come along months later, to follow paint-by-numbers.
  • Alas, there seem to be many inconsistencies. I could point them out and you could fix them, but then, the next time we have a nom like this we'd have to check them manually again and if any are found then you'd have to fix them again, etc. Why do so much extra work?
  • What is Duffy, A life? Not in Bibliography.
  • Walther Killy, Dictionary of German Biography... Not in Bibliography.
  • Redman in citations seven times; not in Bibliography
  • "Scott, p. 15; Duffy, here. " .... doesn't say which Duffy
  • Hedburg in Bibliography, not in citations. it is in the notes
  • Ditto Hoezsch. also cited
  • Ditto Jones.
  • Ditto Longman. removed
  • is Duffy's middle name Duffy also? "Duffy, Christopher Duffy. Frederick the Great:"
  • You said first mention (only?) has full information, but full info twice for Szabo; for Duffy, The army of Frederick the Great, (which has inconsistent capitalization); twice for Blanning (once as Tim Blanning and once as TCW Blanning)
  • Weigley is given in Bibliography as a chapter, but in citations as a book title. (Meanwhile, Horn is given consistently as a chapter in the citations and the Bibliography, so Horn's formatting is inconsistent with Weigley's)
  • And perhaps more, but it's time for me to go do something...more later.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand what you are suggesting. Now that you point them out I see the issues! Are you saying that there is something that will automatically construct all this ? It took me two years to accept the ref name short cut. I don't easlly like the author name parens page number thing auntieruth (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

(undent) yes there are many tools to make things easier and more consistent. I personally favor {{sfn}} (and I also use {{sfnm}} extensively, but many editors seem to want to avoid that) and {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}. It ain't as hard as it looks (tools help, will explain) and it has all the advantages I explained above. Forex, User:Ucucha/HarvErrors in your Special:MyPage/common.js. displays an error every time there is a citation not in the bibliography, or a book in the bibliography not in the citations. And making all those cite books templates can be done automagically as well... I have to run now for an hour or two but books... if you copy the url from google books, you can paste it into the tool that's linked on the bottom-most userbox on my userpage, the Wikipedia Citation Tool for Google Books. There's another for journals, I'm told, but I have never used it. More later, gotta run.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Prose: "He assumed he could use his trade-mark oblique order attack, but his reconnaissance had be incomplete. He acted on ground of his enemy's choosing, not his own. His enemy expected him to attempt the oblique order attack, so effective at Rossbach and Leuthen, was no longer a surprise."  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Things are looking good. I'm confused by the Miracle. The Miracle is mentioned in this article as though it were immediately after the battle, but the Miracle article says that the miracle was Elizabeth's death perhaps 3 years later. This article also says E's death saved Prussia. So... why didn't the Russians press their advantage? It doesn't seem to be because of E's death...?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day Ruth, nice work. I have the following suggestions/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

  • inconsistent caps, compare "allied" v. "Allied" ooops, fixed
  • in the Bibliography, is there an ISBN for the Asprey work? fixed
  • is there an OCLC for the Bodart & Kellogg, Laubert, Petersdorff works? no. Laubert was a dissertation, Petersdorff also I think
    • This is all i could find: Die Schlacht bei Kunersdorf am 12. August 1759. Von M. Laubert. Berlin, Mittler u. Sohn, XII u. 131 S. mit 3 Karten.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest translating the foreign language titles (the cite book template has a field for this if you wishing to use it: |trans_title=
  • "Germany at War: 400 Years of Military History [4 volumes]: 400 Years of Military History" --> I'm not sure about the second "400 Years of Military History", looking at the front cover, I think this might be a typo yes, this appears to be a harvtext hiccup
    • Small error. Easy fix.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • yes, I fixed it.
  • the year of publication for the work by Clark appears to be missing a digit fixed
  • suggest in text attribution for this quote: "It was actually more than that. "...[S]eldom in military history..."" hmmm, it is already fixed.....
  • a couple of terms appear to have duplicate links: Carl Heinrich von Wedel, Battle of Rossbach, Battle of Leuthen, and Battle of Hochkirch
  • "regiment reported the following: Dead are Major von Heinicke, Rittmeister von Frankenberg, Lieutenant von Möllendorf, Kornet Offenius. Badly wounded, Rittmeister von Reitzenstein, Lieutenants von Schenk, Korshagen, von Gröben, von Bohlse, and von Schulz, and the Kornet von Schulz. Lightly wounded are nine others; 21 officers are out of action. Of the non commissioned officers and hussars are 140 dead or wounded. 109 horses dead, 65 wounded, 20 missing. Geschichte, p.133"... Not sure of the grammar/tense here, specifically "Dead are" and "are out of action" etc." it was a letter/report was written at the time, so it's dead are, but ....
  • typo: "reconnaissance had be incomplete..." --> "reconnaissance had been incomplete"? fixed
  • typo: "Seeing, through his telescope, a some wooded hills..." --> Seeing, through his telescope, some wooded hills..." fixed

Linghzi persuaded me to try to the harvard text, and I'm unconvinced. I'm certainly not convinced about translating titles into english. Seems to me to make it unnecessarily long. Especially since some of these German titles are already 50-80 words long....auntieruth (talk) 14:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

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: Support

  • 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: Support

  • "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)

@MisterBee1966: @Hchc2009: changes you've suggested have been adapted and adopted. auntieruth (talk) « 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

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)
@Nikkimaria: Now that a more experienced A-class article creater has gone through it, are there any more specific reference concerns? I would be happy to address them. Kees08 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We need sources for the Awards and honours. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: Done. Was not really sure on the last one, I could not find a citation for what was there, but I found information on the astronaut badge. Kees08 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 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)
    @Hawkeye7: Are you saying you want to close the A-class review? That seems a little extreme if it's just an image licencing problem but it's certainly your prerogative. Let me know what you want to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    If the images will block promotion. I cannot remedy the problem quickly, except by removing the images from the article, but I can always re-submit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment: looks excellent to me. The only suggestion I have is to convert the Hill and Maryan & Bush citations to sfn refs like the others. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 22 April 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)


@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Any progress on this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @HJ Mitchell: Blimey! Thanks very much for the ping: for some reason I didn't have the page watchlisted, and had totally forgotten about it. Okay- what's my next move-? I can do Auntieruth's corrections (sorry for making it sound a bit Sunday school there, AR!), and by the look of it I've got to do something (not sure what) to the Cockayne refs too. What's the actual A-class review procedure, if I may ask? I couldn't see it described anywhere. Let me finish of another page I'm working on (luckilly, shouldn't be long- he's just about to by it!) and I'll jump back over here ASAP. Cheers for the heads up. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 15:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: Right- I have finished most of the suggested edits, aware of the excellent contributions of Lingzhi and The Bounder too. There's couple from Auntieruth55 which I'm afraid are slightly criptic for me- his mother being 100 etc- and others, e.g., the lede being too jumpy- that I would probably want advice on how to repair, if that's allowed. — O Fortuna velut luna... 15:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Can you mark off the points you've done so we can check them and see what's left? The lead I would save til last. Ironing out the creases in a few paragraphs of summary is likely to be the easy part. I had a skim and it looks like there's some fairly heavy copy-editing needed but I'm up for a challenge. I might go through it tomorrow but I have an article of my own I was hoping to get written this weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 7 April 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...

 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.

  •  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

  •  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

  •  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

  •  Done

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

  •  Done

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

  •  Done

Maybe try 'rendering it inoperable': making it useless

  •  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)
  • @Kees08: As you are the last of the three, would you mind taking another look at this? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I did a couple of minor copy edits. I was looking through a source I sent you, "A Falling Star: SAINT, America's First Antisatellite System," and it seems like there is information there that would help polish the article. For example, it gives specific reasons and numbers for the choice of the booster (it was based on reliability numbers). It also has a more thorough listing of potential sensors and equipment that the system would contain. Additionally, it gives an estimated length and mass of it. This is all on page 3, or PDF page 46 of the document. The next page discusses how the weapon would specifically operate, such as the large delta-v changes down to how fast it would be approaching the satellite it would be inspecting. These are just examples of things I think would really make the article standout more. As I have never done an A-class review before, if these comments are out of the scope of the review, please let me know and I will stamp a support on it. If these are the sort of comments you should be getting, then definitely take a look at that document and the other documents I sent to see if there is good information like I pointed out above. That was more of an example of the good information available, and not an all-inclusive list of what I would expect to see. After you take another go at including all of that, I'll skim the sources and make sure the major, relevant project details are all included. I hope this is helpful! Great article so far, I am fascinated by the ASAT programs. Kees08(Talk) 19:35, 23 April 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.
     Done
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (at the time called Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA)) Just name and link Advanced Research Projects Agency
     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?
     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"
     Done
  • Other sensors included infrared, gravimetric sensors to ascertain the mass of the other satellite, while Replace the comma with "and"
     Done
  • It was planned to the launch four satellites in December 1962. Delete "the"
     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")
     Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

  • Support: G'day, not a lot stood out to me. Just a couple of nitpicks, but overall seems pretty good to me, altogether the content is over my head:
    • "fas" --> "Federation of American Scientists"
    •  Done
    • "metres"" --> "meters"
    •  Done
    • "kilometres" --> "kilometers"
    •  Done
    • is there any explanation as to why a station was needed in Rhodesia? (I assume it was due to rotation of the Earth or something similar?)
      Presumably, but I have nothing I can cite for that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    • in the infobox it says the role was "Satellite killer", but from the text I get the impression that it morphed more into a satellite inspector?
    • Fixed
    • in the infobox it says "Duration – December 1962", I wonder if this should include some sort of start date? Possibly March 1961, or even "c. 1957" if the exact start isn't known?
    •  Done
    • "operators in the USSR, or else if it sensed that it was being scanned..." ("else" probably isn't required here)
    •  Done
    • "with possible ASAT use", probably need to define this acronym (I assume anti-satellite)
    •  Done
    • "A wing of the Program was called...", "program" probably doesn't need caps here
    •  Done
    • the images seemed appropriately licenced to me (no action required)

« 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?
  • Rationale #3
  • File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg needs a better FUR and more info on its original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Can't find that information. Kges1901 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Support 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
  • Tried to using {{reflist|30em}} but display appearance has not changed. Kges1901 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Might be your browser; the columns are displaying on mine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • if possible, an image in the infobox would help improve the visual appeal of the article
  • I was unable to find a relevant image on the internet. Kges1901 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 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)

Continuing review: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  • link "chief of staff"
  • suggest splitting the paragraph starting "The corps fought in the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939", as it is quite long
  • spell out the abbreviation "NCO"
  • "Rossosh-Alexandrovka-Rovenki highway": the hyphens should be endashes
  • quite a few sentences begin "The corps..." (at least 21 that I could count), is it possible to try to vary this a little more?
  • Adressed all completely except the last, for which I changed a number of sentences. Kges1901 (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga[edit]

Good see the Russian military articles every now and then. Good work Kges, here are my comments.

  • Lead and infobox
    • During its first formation, it helped take "to takeover" the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest; Also the sentence ends in vague, mention who did it help and from whom is the city recaptured.
  • Done
    • The corps was formed a "for the" second time, link Major General
  • Done
    • Surrounded during the Third Battle of Kharkov; by whom?
  • Done
    • change 1938–40 (1st formation) and 1942–43 (2nd formation) in the infobox to 1938–1940 (1st formation) and 1942–1943 (2nd formation) respectively, per MOS:DATERANGE
  • Done
  • Section 1;
    • Mention the modern equivalent for Komdiv in braces.
  • Done
    • Replace "the former" with "formerly" in every case
  • Done
  • After reading MOS:TIME, I think that 24 hour is acceptable, with the added colon in the middle. Kges1901 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Some time later -> Later; cut-off "Some time", "Later" says it all
    • By 1900 -> By 7:00 pm, per MOS:TIME
    • Mention the full name of "Major Chuvakin" on the first instant
  • Added his initials, which are all that I could find Kges1901 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Section 2; (sub-sections included)
    • On the first day, 14 January; both are redundant to each other, perhaps the former is better
    • use conversion template for 20-kilometer
  • Done
    • Pavel Rybalko; mention the rank
  • Done
    • use conversion template for 25 kilometers
  • Done
    • rank of Filipp Golikov
  • Done
    • In section 2.3, use the acronym of "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler"
  • Done
    • promoted to Major General on 7 June -> later major general; the dates of promotion are out of context
  • Done
    • Maintain consistency between numbers or wording numbers, for example; 209 tanks and sixteen self-propelled guns
  • Made (or at least most) consistent using AP Stylebook which recommended spelling out 0-9 and then using numerals for higher numbers.
  • Section 3;
    • (promoted to Major General 7 June); out of context
  • Done, added year
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Support, as all my comments are addressed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:40, 14 April 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)
  • @Dudley Miles:—Do you think you can have another look through, Dudley. I have added some content on the key Muslim beligerants which I feel adds to the context. Runciman while respected in a literary sense doesn't seem to carry the weight he once did amongst historians and the old unity/disunity argument for the ebb and flow of the conflict doesn't seem so compelling, at least to Asbridge. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

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)
  • There now appears to be the start of an edit war here, so not sure what to do. auntieruth (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Less an edit war, more some low level vandalism being reverted by other editors. This article seems to attract it from time to time, it will dies down soon. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • good. What's the story on the GOCE? auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Auntieruth55:—number 26 in the queue today, I have tried a previous copyeditor but he is too busy to repeat the effort. I think we will just need to be patient. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)