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.
  2. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  3. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
  4. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  6. Consider reviewing another article, either at peer or A-class review to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory).

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

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

There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.

Commenting

The new Milhist A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

After A-Class

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

edit

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Russian battleship Oslyabya[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Buggie111 (talk)

Russian battleship Oslyabya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Oslyabya had a very brief career before she became the first ship sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. She took about eight years to build and had only about two years of service before she was sunk. The ship was one of three Russian second-class battleships built to support their strategy of commerce raiding if war had broken out against the British. While not intended to stand in the line of battle, the Russians had no choice to use them that way once the Russo-Japanese War began. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous phrasings and any jargon that needs to be explained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I might mention in the lead that she was a second class battleship intended to support commerce raiders, and had a weaker main battery and thinner armor, since this is probably a significant factor in the ship's fate.
  • You might give a bit of context on the 2nd Pacific Squadron (you know, that the 1st Squadron had been wiped out during the actions in and around Port Arthur).
  • No dupe links. More to follow later.
  • Did the ship participate in the Dogger Bank incident?
  • I might give a bit more context on Tsushima
  • Check ENGVAR - looks to be US English but I see a "draught"
  • Standardize whether you include states/countries in refs. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik[edit]

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

Yugoslav destroyer Dubrovnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Dubrovnik was the only destroyer leader built for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia between the wars. She was captured by the Italians during the 1941 April War, and as Premuda was the most effective Italian war prize of WWII, being involved in convoy escort and troop transport to Africa. She was later captured by the Germans provided naval gunfire support, and conducted mining operations as TA32. Her last fight was the Battle of the Ligurian Sea. She was scuttled by the Germans in April 1945 as they withdrew from Genoa. She just passed GA (after previously failing GA and having a lot of work put into her), and I believe she now meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments Looking at the careers of these ships you're bringing to A-class makes my head hurt. I hope that you're quietly fixing up articles on deadly boring topics like Royal New Zealand Navy ships to stay sane! I have the following comments:

  • There's a bit of repetition of new country/new nation in the first para of the "Development" section
  • Have tweaked that with an abbreviation and some rewording, let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Do we know why Škoda guns were specified? (presumably for commonality with other weapons used by the country)
  • My assumption is that it was because Yugoslavia had close relations with Czechoslovakia in the 20's or because Skoda guns were commmonly used in the Austro-Hungarian fleet (familiarity), but there isn't anything I can find that explicitly says either of those reasons. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Did the ship try to escape the Italian invasion, or see any combat?
  • No, nearly all the Yugoslav ships stayed in port throughout, and were captured in situ by the Italians. There was a bit of minelaying and some planned operations against the Italian enclave at Zara by torpedo boats and minelayers, but Dubrovnik and her smaller destroyer companions pretty much stayed put. With the exception of one destroyer blown up by her officers, and a couple of torpedo boats and one sub that escaped, that was it. The navy rank-and-file and many officers were mainly Croats, and many of them had no stomach for fighting for the Serb-dominated regime. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Can you say why the Italians pressed this ship into service (to make good losses, make use of a high quality ship, etc).
  • Nothing specific, the Italians pretty much pressed the whole Yugoslav fleet into service, undoubtedly because they needed the ships, but I haven't seen a source that states that was the reason. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Support My comments are now addressed - nice work Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Marlborough (1912)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

HMS Marlborough (1912) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

A bit of a departure for me, this was the second command flagship of the Grand Fleet for much of the war. She had quite an eventful career, being in the thick of the fighting at Jutland, where she was badly damaged by a German torpedo. After the Great War she was involved in the British intervention in the Black Sea during the Russian Civil War and ultimately served as a target for weapons tests. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • Some redundancies in the displacement section in the infobox.
  • Change HMNB Devonport in the lede to Devonport Royal Dockyard. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't advise abbreviating yards. Yd looks very odd as you very rarely see it ever abbreviated.
  • group of battleships battering of the German light cruiser fix this.
  • German cruiser launched probably two torpedoes awkward.
  • knocking the shores loose Is that what they're actually called? I've always heard of them as props.
  • Might consider consolidating these into a single sentence: She was repaired by the Armstrong Whitworth shipyard at Jarrow. The work lasted until 2 August, and she thereafter departed for Cromarty, arriving on 5 August.
  • Second command reads oddly to me, even though I think that it's proper RN terminology. Perhaps assistant or deputy commander?
  • I think that you mean that the ship was re-commissioned in 1919.
  • Link to 4th Battle Squadron and kite balloon.
  • Add the ampersand command to the entry for Perry and Pleshakov.
  • Standardize publisher location data for state/country.
  • Stationery office.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • According to The Times Marlborough commissioned at Devonport on 2 June, 1914, and according to the Navy List completed to full crew on 16 June.
  • Marlborough joined the First Fleet of the Home Fleets, not Home Fleet, which was renamed Grand Fleet on the outbreak of war. Given she was already flying Sir Lewis Bayly's flag in the Fleet by 30 June then she was already "fully commissioned."
  • When she joined the Fleet she wasn't the flagship of the deputy commander - Bayly was junior to the Vice-Admiral Commanding the Second Battle Squadron, Warrender, on whom supreme command would have devolved.
  • Burney didn't become Second-in-Command of the Grand Fleet until August, 1915.
  • Post-War: Unless Marlborough was decommissioned then "recommissioned at Devonport" would be better.
  • 4th and 3rd Squadrons: 4th and 3rd Battle Squadrons presumably. Seems incredible Burt got that wrong. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) & Hawkeye7 (talk) & Gecko G (talk)

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think it meets all criteria. Just a list of campaigns that the U.S. Army served in, with a introduction to the U.S. army's campaigns in WWII. Found this about a week ago in a wrecked state (little more than a stub). Improved quickly, while Gecko G and Hawkeye7 helped me with formatting and prose. Passed a BL review several days ago. I hope this passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: G'day, good work. I only have a couple quick questions at this stage: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • in the References, the Center of Military History and Drea works appear to be missing years of publication. Would it be possible to add these in?
  • Worldcat.org provides 1992 and 1993 as the years of publication. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • the Dandocollins work appears to be missing a place of publication. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


« Return to A-Class review list

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. Part of my series of variants of the M3 Half-tracks. Created this article back in January. Sent it to GA last month and passed quickly. I would say this is short on coverage, but since the low amount of refs mentioning it, I'm stuck with what I have for know. Thanks for your responses for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a couple of suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "declared as substitute standard" --> do you mean "substandard"?
  • the first paragraph of the Service history section seems a bit abrupt. Perhaps it would be smoother if you discussed how it was generally employed first before providing a specific example?
  • "because of the reconstruction of infantry battalions" --> do you mean their reorganization?
  • in the Citations, should "Hoffman (2013)" be "Hoffman & Staary (2013)"?
  • in the Bibliography you mainly seem to abbreviate the states where the works were published, except for Hoffman. Please make this consistent
  • in the Bibliography Zaloga is probably overlinked
  • "limited standard" --> is it possible to clarify what this means? For instance, did it mean that only certain types of formations would receive the vehicle, or it would only be used in an emergency?
  • regarding the encounter where the vehicle was used against German tanks, is there any information that states that after this the vehicle wasn't used in this regard, or was used differently in some way? The reason I ask is it just seems to hint at this, without explicitly saying it.
  • do you know if the US leased the vehicles to the French during World War II, or after it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries, thanks for your efforts. I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

T48 Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

T48 Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. The T48 Gun Motor Carriage was a widely unknown tank destroyer produced by the U.S. on a Anglo-American requirement. It served with the Soviet Union (which accepted 650), United Kingdom (which accepted 30), and the U.S. Army (which accepted 1), with the rest (281) being converted at Chester Tank Depot.

The article underwent a GA Review earlier on this month, while after the GA review it underwent some recent copyediting. It is currently undergoing a DYK, and I hope this passes this review. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The original design had a gun shield taken from the T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" - should "T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" be red linked?
  • "Learning from experience with the M3 Gun Motor Carriage, demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood" - this is a bit unclear: what was this experience, and why was deformation of the hood a bad thing?
  • "but by the time they arrived" - when was this?
  • Over what period was this vehicle produced? Is it possible to provide a breakdown of when deliveries took place?
  • "while some of these brigades took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" - given that it's earlier been said that only two brigades used the type, this is unclear (were they issued to other units?) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence reading "When the M3 Gun Motor Carriage was rushed into service, hoods were deformed in the Phillipines, which while it was tested after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, was fixed with demountable headlights" is rather over-complex, and not very clear: I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of these units took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" is still unclear: these operations occurred pretty much simultaneously, and you've only identified two units here. Was it one brigade per campaign, or where other units equipped with these vehicles? Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I could not clarify if it was used by one of the brigades in the Berlin offensive and one in the Prague offensive, since this is what Zaloga states on p. 36:

The first of these to see combat was the 16th Separate Tank Destroyer Brigade which went into action during the Dnepr River offensive in August 1943. The 19th Brigade fought during the Baranow bridgehead battles in August 1944, and some of these units served in the Berlin and Prague offensives from April to May 1945.

  • I'm surprised that the usually very precise Zaloga wrote that; it must have slipped through Osprey's rather hit and miss editing. The problem is that it doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I might have clarified it a little bit with an addition of two sentences about another unit it was used in, although it still may not make sense. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that text unfortunately still doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The American requirement was dropped later." Does your source give any indication as to why?
    • Sorry, but it does not state why it was dropped.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was intended solely for Lend-Lease, the T48 was never officially type-classified." Do you think that should have a ";" instead of a comma?
  • "The gun on the pilot model had a traverse of 27.5 degrees" Consider wikilinking "traverse" to Gun laying. People without a military background might not know what a traverse is.
  • "the British had already won the war in the Western Desert and the appearance of the 75 mm gun," I'm sorry, I don't understand where this 75 mm gun has come from.
  • Wikilink "Dnepr River"
    • I addressed all of the issues except the first one.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I had a go at copy editing. It might still need a little work, though. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Inconsistent: In the lead “Britain retained 31…”; compare this with the body of the article which says “Britain accepted 30”
  • “The U.S. Army also accepted one…” this seems inconsistent with “The US retained 281 vehicles”
    • @AustralianRupert:This is not inconsistent, since the U.S. retained 281, but 280 were converted, while one was accepted into the U.S. Army
      • I've reworded it slightly because it wasn't really clear, IMO, what the intention was. Please check you are happy with my change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there any details about what units employed the British and US examples, and where they were used? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've done a Google search and a Google books search of all of it's possible names and I couldn't find anything that tells about it's service with the U.S. or Britain.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was developed further following its GA review (copyedited once more by GOCE) and I think it meets A-class criteria Tomobe03 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "made no explicit reference to Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.": The text should explain the relevance of these chapters.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment - a brief explanation is added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Changed to "would have permitted" (which is best if that's correct). Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Are there more images you could add?
  • Could not find any that specific to the topic. Generic images of UN peacekeepers are available, but none of UNCRO specifically.
  • Several external links are dead or have connection issues.
  • Updated a couple of UNGENSEC reports urls, and rescued the rest from wayback machine. All urls reported fine by checklinks now.
  • Please try to use American or British English, not both (ex. centred or criticize)
    I think I got them all now to BE (except one in references, reflecting exact source wording)
  • No DAB's
  • No bad citations
  • May want to seperate ORBAT
  • Give the size of the mission info, I'd rather not - if it is not a dealbreaker here.
Thank you for the comments, cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: good work, this looks pretty good to me, although I am not a subject matter expert so I couldn't really check it for content etc. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • in the order of battle table, I suggest adding the year to the month as it is not clear whether it is March 1995 or March 1996 you are referring to;
  • Added
  • I found the first paragraph of the "Response to Croatian offensives" a bit awkward. I had a go at copy editing, but wasn't really able to come up with anything better, so it might need another set of eyes, sorry;
  • Had another go at ce of the paragraph - could you have a look to see if it is any better now?
  • in the References, some works have place of publisher and some don't. For instance compare O'Shea with Ramet. If possible, please make this consistent.
  • All book sources now have the location parameter.
Thanks for your comments. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review: where did you get the data reflected in the map? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

From Balkan Battlegrounds, Map I: National Battalions in UN Forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Early 1993 - I just added that info to the file description at the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)