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

St Vincent-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Norwich War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Battle of Hochkirch[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Image review

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Project SAINT[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Comments from Kees08[edit]

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

Yes check.svg Done.

« Return to A-Class review list

Curtis P. Iaukea[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

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

  • You only need one 'also' in "He also held numerous important positions ... also"
  • Maybe a footnote to explain what the aliʻI class is, to save having to go off to a separate article
  • Added a parentheses after first mention.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I am not sure of the correct grammar in American English, but in British English it would be "he was sent to an Anglican boarding school" (or "he was sent to boarding school").
  • I would give readers a clue who the "notable classmates" were (and drop the "notable" too), along the lines of "included Samuel Nowlein and Robert Hoapili Baker, both of whom were politicians in later life". (Or whatever they turned out to be)
  • Again, a brief footnote to explain what a kāhili is
  • To me that just seems extraneous.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • "awaiting for an assignment from the king" should either be "awaiting an assignment from the king" or "waiting for an assignment from the king"
  • The "in 1874" in the sentence "This unit was a voluntary military regiment originally headed by King Kalākaua in 1874" is a bit clumsy if "originally" is there. You could re-draft it along the lines "When King Kalākaua formed the unit in 874, he…" etc
  • Is the "and etc" part of the title? If not, get rid of it and say that the posts included, then the list
  • Change. There are too many to mention so I just mentioned the more important positions.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Was his title "Secretary of the Foreign Office" or "Secretary of Foreign Affairs" – I'm a bit confused
  • No it is just that. It was an assistant position to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I think you may need to tweak "the court tor the defunct monarchy" – I'm not sure that makes sense as it stands.

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

@The Bounder: Let me know if there is anything else.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

High Explosive Research[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

High Explosive Research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The third in the articles about the British nuclear weapons programmes, after Tube Alloys and British contribution to the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support High Explosive Research having just, last week, passed GA review I can't really find that much to provide in feedback, other than to note this is an exceptionally well-written, well-sourced, and interesting article. A few non-critical comments:
  • Adding ALT-tags to the images, which currently lack them, might be desirable.
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In the second sentence under Testing "fall back" (verb) is used instead of "fallback" (noun).
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if "British Mission" should, in fact, be "British mission"?
    Yes check.svg Done depitalised when it is not the actual title. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are some disambiguation page links [1] that may need to be DABed.
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Support and image review I closely reviewed this article at GAN earlier this month, and believe that it meets the A-Class criteria. I obviously checked the images at GAN, and believe the licensing is ok. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Tube Alloys[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Bernhard[edit]

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk)

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

Toolbox

Operation Bernhard is a fascinating tale of what could have been the Nazi's most powerful weapon of the Second World War, utterly wasted because of poor management in the confused and conflicting bureaucratic infighting in the German high command. A plan to counterfeit British currency to bring about the collapse of the strongest economy in the world was changed into a way to pay for intelligence operations (which it did), although it made some Germans extremely rich in the process. In and among the greed and mismanagement, the plan ensured the survival of around 150 concentration camp prisoners who were the ones forced to make print the money. A badly worded German order to kill them, and an engine failure of a truck, led to a last minute survival of the group, of whom one is still alive, I believe. This article has undergone a complete re-write recently and should reach the standards of A class. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth[edit]

Bounder, this looks like a fascinating subject. I can see why you were interested. I'm curious as to why you've circumvented the usual processes that articles go through before they reach A class assessment: initial assessment, good article assessment, etc. Although these aren't required per se, these are recommended. The article has grammatical and punctuation issues that would have been addressed earlier if you had gone through these steps. That said, let's see what we can do....
  • This article would benefit from another edit, this time, looking at some of the repetitive sentence structures and verb uses. Principally, The forgery unit was set up in Berlin; was headed by; was under the ; So many great verbs and we are stuck with "to be" I feel a bit like Hamlet.
  • There are some "moments" of confusion, such as these two... He duplicated the chemical balance with British water to make the colours match. He used British water? Or he found out the chemical comp of British water? or....? The operation was restarted because of a change in the aims of the plan. this is just awkward.
  • It's late here, so I'll have a look at tweaking them in the morning. Thanks for pointing them out. - The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • All tweaked. The Bounder (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are a vast number of comma faults By late 1940 Naujocks... s like this throughout.
  • That's not a fault in British English writing. (Some of the other punctuation issues may also be because of the differences between British and American English). – The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, just helpful. How do you want to proceed? auntieruth (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  • P.S. Also, on a side note, it would be helpful if you created a user page.
  • I don't think there's much of a need for a user page: it won't say anything interesting! :-) Many thanks for looking at the article, and I hope to deal with any further comments you may have. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • LOL I was being polite. Some things are the same in British and American usage: placing commas after introductory phrases and commas is standard in both. I also tweaked some other phrases, and verbs that were repetitive. See my edits here I'm in favor of user pages because it shows a modicum of commitment to the project. With a red link (meaning no page) you could be mistaken for a newbie. auntieruth (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I've removed some of the commas: they are not needed in formal British English, which is the language in which the article is written, but thank you for the other changes. I'm not a fan of user pages (and there are some long-term editors, such as User:JzG and User:Betty Logan, who still retain a red link), and they don't help articles get any better! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

S-50 (Manhattan Project)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Kragujevac massacre[edit]

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

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

Toolbox

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

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS St Vincent (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS St Vincent (1908) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

St. Vincent 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. She was reduced to reserve after the war and was scrapped in the early 1920s. I've significantly expanded the article with more details on that monotonous training since it was promoted to GA two years ago 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) 01:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

Comments

  • I might add a note unpacking the "more powerful guns" bit - a casual reader might see that both classes had 12" guns and be confused. Up to you.
    • I dunno, to define that, I'd have to start talking about muzzle velocities, etc. Which I've done in the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I might also add a line about the rising tensions in late July 1914 with a link to July Crisis
    • Excellent idea!
  • Link to Action of 19 August 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for catching these, including the ones that I thought were already in it!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - I closely reviewed this article for GAN in December/January and consider that it meets the A-Class criteria. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of protected cruisers of Italy[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • I'm not sure that I buy US-PD for File:Italian cruiser Dogali.jpg as there's no publication info. I think the PD-USGov-Military-Navy tag is probably better since we can't prove publication before 1923.
    • Well, we don't know for sure who took the picture. See if the tag I changed it to seems fine to you. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it's good, but I'm still OK with the Navy tag as it could well have been taken by a naval attache or at least purchased by one from a commercial photographer.
  • I'm not sure what to do about File:Varo RN Basilicata.jpg as no publication info casts the PD-1923 tag in doubt. It's clearly out of copyright in Italy, so that part's OK. Time to call in a real expert. @Nikkimaria:
  • {{PD-1996}} is quite likely to apply, but we really need a publication date to confirm. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That was my assumption - until I can find a date of publication, which will likely be impossible, I'll just pull the photo. Thanks Nikki.
  • Watch your conversions for rounding errors.
    • I think these should all be fixed now - let me know if you see anything still wrong
      • All fixed, but a conversion is needed for Piemonte's guns.
        • Done.
  • Link squadron, North Africa, Arabian Peninsula, gunfire support, distilling ship, ship-breakers, observation balloon, gun battery, Australia, blockade, boiler.
    • All done
  • Explain /30 in armament or delete it.
    • Deleted, unnecessary in a list like this
  • Need a comma after scrap for the Etnas
    • Fixed
  • Is the bow section of Puglia still in existence? And shouldn't museum be capitalized in the Vittoriale degli italiani museum?
    • Yes - I see how the past tense might imply that it's gone. As for capitalization, I don't know - maybe @Dank: can answer for us?
  • Cambridge MA: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-81311-4 comma after Cambridge. Suggest spelling out states for those foreigners unfamiliar with US state abbreviations.
    • Removed the states instead.
  • J. J. Keliher & Co. XLVII. 1903. 8007941 Tell the reader that this last bit is an OCLC number.
    • Good catch
      • You must have gotten distracted ;-( Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Ah, I fixed one and didn't see the other.
  • Standardize your treatment of ISBNs; some have dashes and others don't.
    • Fixed
  • Add an ampersand for Marinelli in the bibliography.
    • Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Al-Mu'tasim[edit]

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Operation Grandslam[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it substantially covers Operation Grandslam, a decisive military action undertaken by troops of the United Nations Operation in the Congo that successfully quelled the Katangese secession during the Congo Crisis of the 1960s. It has already passed a GA review, and should hopefully be moved down along to the next step. I have read the A-class review guidelines and believe to the best of my knowledge that it meets most if not all the criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Support from The Bounder

An interesting subject about which I know a tiny amount (my late father was served there as part of a secondment to the Ghanaian Army, and a close friend of the family was a mercenary on t'other side).

There is a little confusion in my mind over the language used. You seem to have US English with center, self-defense, preemptively etc, but you also have defence and a British date format. This should be consistent throughout.

  • It may be worth adding a description to "Thant sent Ralph Bunche" along the lines of "Thant sent the diplomat or negotiator Ralph Bunche" to aid the reader
  • Ditto for the Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak
  • It may be worth moving the sentence "Thant informed the UN Force Commander in the Congo that napalm was to be prohibited from use in combat.[3]" to before the end of the previous section (to follow Thant's instruction to "preemptively eliminate Katangese forces")
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "Prem Chand saw to immediately carry forward.": it may be worth clarifying slightly
  • "and reached east bank of the Lufira" -> the east bank?
  • "That same day" should probably be "The same day"

That's it: nicely put together article. My review is on prose only, as I don't know enough about the subject to comment on completeness etc. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Response:
  • Put his title as "Special Representative"
  • Done
  • Done, with some added context
  • Reworded as "Prem Chand decided to immediately carry forward with the UN's plans."
  • Done
  • Done
-Indy beetle (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • All good, and I'm happy to now Support. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:UN_inspects_Katanga_Harvard_Airplane_Wreckage_at_Kolwezi,_Congo_1963.jpg: per the tag, we need evidence this was published in the US before 1987. Same with File:UN_Armoured_Convoy_in_the_Congo,_1963.jpg, File:UN_forces_at_the_Lufira_River.jpg, File:UN_inspects_Katanga_Vampire_Airplane_Wreckage_at_Kolwezi,_Congo_1963.jpg
  • File:J-29_Tunnan_in_UN_service.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Response:
  • I have sent an email to the United Nations authority for rights on images and materials for clarification. I await their response.
    • I have successfully corresponded with the UN photo library, but for some reason, after relatively quick responses, they've failed to return my last email. I still await a formal response, but I have doubt that those photos will be free for use. @Nikkimaria: I have removed them and found one replacement photo of Swedish peacekeepers during the operation that is PD. The other photos cannot be used.
  • I believe I have added an appropriate US PD tag.
  • I have also added one additional photo which should work fine.
-Indy beetle (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments This is an interesting and well developed article. I have the following comments:

  • Give the date range when this military operation took place in the first sentence. Ideally this should also form part of an initial para rather than a single para sentence
  • Note in the current second para what the nature of the UN's involvement was - eg, diplomatic efforts, as well as the deployment of a peacekeeping force
  • "In December 1961 the UN initiated Operation Unokat" - what did this aim to achieve?
  • Note the countries which provided forces for UNOC, and the scale of these commitments earlier - the presence of Indians is first noted when they're potentially withdrawing, and the Swedish fighter aircraft when they first go into combat. An outline order of battle would be particularly helpful.
  • Similarly, information on the size and/or capabilities of the Katangese forces would be very useful.
  • "On 24 December 1962 Katangese forces openly attacked Ethiopian troops" - where the Ethiopians there as part of the UN force?
  • "Radio intercepts revealed..." - please note to whom this was revealed
  • Please explain what the overall plan for Operation Grandslam was either in the 'Prelude' or 'First phase' section (were multiple phrases always intended?)
  • "a Sikorsky helicopter" - can you say what type and who was operating it?
  • When exactly did the UNOC forces withdraw, and were they replaced by another UN mission? (it seems common these days for military dominated UN missions to be replaced by police or aid dominated UN missions as the situation is stabilised)
  • "Rhodesian operatives assisted in smuggling the gold reserves out of the country" - Southern or Northern Rhodesians? (Southern, I presume)
  • "Many Katangese people hoped the UN would, in light of their role in ending the original secession, help resolve the situation" - did the UN ever intervene in this area again?

Please note that I'm going to be travelling over the next week, so it may take me a while to respond to your responses. Nick-D (talk) 05:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Response:
  1. Done. Also mildly revised with added sentence "The Katangese forces were decisively defeated and Katanga was forcibly reintegrated into the Congo."
  2. Added "In addition to a large body of troops (20,000 at its peak strength), a civilian mission was brought in to provide technical assistance to the Congolese government."
  3. Added "to ensure ONUC personnel's freedom of movement and reassert their authority in Katanga."
  4. I've done my best to address this. The information available is quite limited. I have yet to find a source that even specifies how many UN troops were in Katanga at the time. The best I have is what Dorn provides about air strength.
  5. Done. Listed under "Opposing forces" section.
  6. Changed troops to "peacekeepers". The Ethiopians were indeed there along with ONUC.
  7. Done. Now reads "Radio intercepts revealed to the UN..."
  8. Done. I'm not really sure what the intention on operational phases was, though it does seem to me that the first phase was more structured than the second phase. What I mean to say is, I think the first one had concrete goals for ONUC to achieve while the second was more of a follow up to ensure the defeat of Katanga's forces. So I would conclude that ONUC commanders probably assumed they would go through multiple phases, but left the latter stages of the operation open to developments.
  9. Mockaitis does not specify what variant of Sikorsky helicopter it was or who was operating it. However, it is known that in 1961 UN forces were using the S-55 in Katanga, as shown here. They were still in ONUC's use in 1964, as evidenced here. There is also this UN photo dated 01 January 1963 (probably generalized) showing UN troops trying to cross the Lufira river with the assistance of a helicopter...could be an S-55. Still, this is mostly original research and I'm not prepared to explicitly state that in the article. Perhaps I should just wikilink it?
  10. Added section titled "Fate of ONUC". Might add more information, should it be forthcoming or necessary.
  11. Othen does not specify.
  12. _
-Indy beetle (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

15th Tank Corps (Soviet Union)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Image review

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

York City War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

York City War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

No prizes for guessing what this one is! Following a brief hiatus over the holidays and while I worked on another article, this one follows on directly from the North Eastern Railway War Memorial which passed an ACR at the tail end of last year. As always, all comments are gratefully received. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Bounder.
  • I'm not sure of the wording "the council tasked the war memorial committee to consider" I think it should either be "the council tasked the war memorial committee with considering", or "the council instructed (or similar) the war memorial committee to consider".
  • I'm not sure of the wording "complete its characteristic ..." is there a missing word?

Excellent work as always, cheers – The Bounder (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I've addressed both of these now. My apologies for the delay (real life got in the way, alas), and thank you very much for the review, The Bounder. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Another nice piece of work in an increasingly impressive series. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 12:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments

Good work, just a few comments for your consideration:

  • 'Lead': The lead seems overly long given the overall length of the main body of the article; I suggest condensing the first and second paragraphs particularly, the third is OK in length.
    • Fair point; trimmed.
  • 'Lead': There are cites in the lead; is there a reason for this as generally they aren't required as the lead is just a summary of the main body and thus is fully cited anyway?
    • A hangover from when I first wrote the article; they don't harm anything but they're not really necessary either.
  • 'Lead': Also in the lead (and in the 'History and design' section): should "grade II" be title case?
    • I generally don't put it in title case (we don't use title case for "listed building" so it looks odd to me). Some people do and I don't care enough to fight over it, but I don't think there's a firm rule.
  • 'Inception': "The committee gave Lutyens a budget of £2,000 (1920)" Maybe make more explicit we are referring to £2,000 at the time?
    • Do you have a suggestion for this?
      • I had thought that adding some sort of a conversion £2,000 in 1920 into the pound of today would be useful to better appreciate the value ofthe work involved but thinking about it, this could cause maintenance/update issues in years to run. I will make it a suggestion for your consideration only instead, and add my support. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • A few dupe links: Historic England, North Eastern Railway War Memorial, River Ouse.
    • Removed, except for the NER Memorial, which is important enough to be linked in two places.

That's all from me. Cheers. Zawed (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, Zawed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Support

All looks good to me. A surprisingly interesting article on what at first glance seems to be an unexceptional memorial. The memorials in Britain are similar to those in Australia. Given the choice of having a functional memorial or a pile of stone, the Great War generation chose stone. Whereas memorials to the Second World War come in the form of either adding "1939-45" to Great War memorials (many of which now also sport "Korea", "Vietnam", "Iraq" etc) or the purely functional ("memorial library/swimming pool/squash court" etc). My only quibble with the article is that I had no idea what a Grade II or II* listed building is; I turned to listed building with little hope but found it there. Do you think it would work to add the definitions here? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the memorials are intricate and beautiful and remarkable in their own right, but more often than not it's the stories behind the lumps of stone that make them interesting, and deeply poignant. Some of the most moving memorials, in my experience, are the ones in small towns ad villages (there's something very distressing about seeing more names on a war memorial than houses in a village), and of course the proliferation of them is itself deeply poignant. I agree with your suggestion wrt listing statuses and I've had similar feedback on my ongoing FAC so I've added it in to both articles and I'll go through the others and add it to them later. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok [i.e. no dabs, no repeat links, external links work] (no action req'd)
    • Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase or copy vios etc [2] (no action req'd)
    • I tweaked a comma [3], but otherwise prose looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, AC, and I agree with your comma tweak! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Image check the memorials depicted in the photographs are all PD-UK, because the sculptor died before 1947, but my query is about whether they are PD in the US. They can't be PD-US-1923-abroad due to the dates they were completed. Nikkimaria, could you take a look and advise please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:52, 22 February 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)

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?
  • 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)
  • 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)

Comments: 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.
    • (Genealogists work by feeling around the family tree until they find a line researched by someone else. He was with Robert of Normandy's contingent. Another relative fought in the Third Crusade.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • 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

  • 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

  • "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.
  • 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)

« Return to A-Class review list

5th Mechanised Corps (Soviet Union)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

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

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

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Year ranges need to conform to the new requirement of MOS:DATERANGE
  • Done
  • The space between the commanders in the infobox can be removed by changing the breaks to bullet points like I did with the years of formations.
  • Done
  • Link Komdiv on first use.
  • Done
  • On 11 June 1934 the corps delete the years since we know it from the previous sentence.
  • Done
  • Vickers 12-ton!? I think that this is a typo for the Vickers 6-ton which was sold to the Soviets.
  • Russian Vickers 12 tons are mentioned in this book [4] Kges1901 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Can you explain Crossing 76 and 77 a little. I suspect that they were related to the Trans-Siberian RR, but would like a bit more info.
  • Done
  • Link flamethrower,
  • Done
  • On 1 July the corps was still with the 16th Army and consisted of the 13th and 17th Tank Divisions and the 109th Motorised Division We already know the composition of the corps from the previous paragraph.
  • Done
  • On the same day, the corps was reported to be fighting in the Liady and Syrokorenye region, 60 kilometres (37 mi) west of Smolensk. It was reported to be retreating to the Gusino crossing, 45 kilometres (28 mi) west of the city. This is kinda confusing, what's the sequence here?
    • Still needs clarification
  • Done
  • The 1st Motor Rifle Division was attached to the corps in the Smolensk Pocket Is there a date for this, if not, then delete "in the Smolensk Pocket" since we already know that it's there.
    • And this.
  • Why was the corps disbanded in August? Down to Third Formation, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Done
  • German encirclement line delete line

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

  • city outskirts. The corps was thrown back by German reinforcements This last sentence should probably be tied in directly to the preceding one by replacing the period with a comma and "but"
  • It fought in Operation Gallop Link this better to the preceding sentence to make the text flow better. Try something like "Almost immediately afterward, it was committed to fight in..." Also be sure to note that Gallop happened in 1943.
  • What happened to the 49th Mech Brigade between 1 April and 1 May?
  • and in the Spas–Demensk Offensive of the battle This bit links back to the 2nd Battle of Smolensk immediately before it.
  • It was relocated from Kirov to the 10th Army's sector of the breakthrough towards Vorontsovo. The corps became part of the 10th Army. Combine these two sentences.
  • By the time it attacked, the German troops' resistance had stiffened. It engaged in heavy fighting in the Tyagaevo area, subject to air attacks which destroyed many of its Lend-Lease tanks. Until 16 August, the corps advanced 5–10 kilometres (3.1–6.2 mi). On that day there was a heavy air raid which caused significant losses resulting in the transfer of the corps to front reserve. These are awkward with little to no transitions between them. Recommend consolidating them into two sentences.
  • The corps was moved back to Ukraine after being replenished from Naro-Fominsk in December 1943. what does this mean, replenished?
  • You have a bad had of saying "the corps did this, and then the corps did something else" Mix it a bit by rewording things and using pronouns.
  • Down to Korsun, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of Indian naval air squadrons[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

List of Indian naval air squadrons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this list for A-Class review. With the first squadron commissioned in 1959, Indian Navy currently operates twenty-one squadrons. From the previous A-class reviews I have faced, I constructed this list with care and consistency. All the ranges are per the MOS, and also everything is referenced. Unlike the FA, FL criteria allows citations in the lead if it is not the summary of the immediate tables. So there are a few citations in the lead and all the uncited sentences are the summary of the table, in the which they are completely cited. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, nice work as usual. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH. For instance, "another Sea King squadron — INAS 339 — was commissioned..." should be "another Sea King squadron—INAS 339—was commissioned..."
  • there are probably too many images in the lead, as it seems a bit cluttered
  • the header "List of squadrons" should probably just be "Squadrons"
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be in the last section of the list, which in this case is the External links section
Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • there is one dab link that should be resolved: "Britain"
What is the dab in there? Britain directs to United Kingdom, it is correct. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It was fixed with this edit: [5]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • in many cases the nicknames and aircraft do not appear to be cited
The end citations in "Established" column covers all the data in the row. I have changed the format of the table so that the end citations covers the entire row. The aircraft are covered by the citations for their operation period. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • some of the grammar should be revised, for instance: "The squadrons commissioned until 1971, saw action in 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, especially the ones stationed on the aircraft carrier Vikrant".
  • given that the lead does not wholly replicate the list below, I would submit that each paragraph should end with a citation to meet WP:V
@AustralianRupert: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks good; I've made a couple more tweaks, and have added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments I really like the formatting of this article, but it needs some more work to reach A-class status:

  • I'm a bit concerned that globalsecurity.org is used as a reference: this isn't a reliable source.
  • Many previous discussions have concluded that it is not a RS. Given that globalsecurity.org largely copies and pastes its content from elsewhere, it should be able to be replaced. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Please list the UAV types operated by 342, 343 and 344 squadrons for consistency with the other squadrons
  • Done
  • The "role" column probably needs separate rows to make the changing role of squadrons as their aircraft changed clearer
  • There was only one such, INS 310, changed it. The others, even though the aircraft changed, the role remained the same.
  • Given that there's an "established" column, shouldn't there also be a "disbanded" column to provide the dates for the units which are no longer active?
  • All the squadrons are active.
  • OK, I missed that. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It would be helpful to explain the squadron numbering conventions: it appears that frontline units are 300-series, and training units (mainly) are 500-series. Do we know why 300 and 500 were selected?
  • There is no specific reasoned mentioned in the sources
  • "The concept of naval aviation in India started with the establishment of Directorate of Naval Aviation at Naval Headquarters (NHQ) in early 1948" - surely it was a legacy of the Royal Navy, which had aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean for most of the period after 1942.
  • Yes, the Royal Navy operated, but not the Royal Indian Navy, which did not have any aircraft carriers. The Royal Navy did not have any connection with India. RIN was later rechristened as Indian Navy upon independence. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's right to be honest. The Indian Navy was obviously greatly influenced by the RN during its early years, and the concept of investing in naval aviation wouldn't have come from out of the blue. The Royal Australian Navy and Royal Canadian Navies also established air arms at about this time due to their wartime experiences and the influence of British doctrine (not the mention the easy availability of affordable aircraft carriers and aircraft from the UK). Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nick-D: So what do you suggest on your last comment? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nick-D: G'day, I had a crack at addressing this with this edit: [6]. Not sure if that resolves your concern at all... Please feel free to revert if it doesn't work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes it does: I was waiting for a response from the nominator. Anyway, I'm now happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nick-D: I haven't replied cause I am OK with Rupert's edit. Are there any concerns? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nick-D: I assume "not" was typo and intended to be "now"? Just checking because it rather changes the meaning of the sentence! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes it was a typo :) Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of frigates of India[edit]

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail)

List of frigates of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. After my first list, List of destroyers of India, has passed the A-class review, and eventually a featured list. This list of frigates from the Indian Navy is constructed on par with the destroyers list. The GOCE edit was also complete, so I think there wouldn't be much MoS issues. Kindly suggest any further improvements required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this list. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Indian Navy is overlinked in the lead, and the duplicate link script reveals a number of other examples which should be reduced
  • per MOS:LEAD there should be a maximum of four paragraphs in the lead
  • "File:HMIS Hindustan SLV Green.jpg" needs a US licence in addition to the Australian one, and the source link should be adjusted to link to the image if possible
  • the Reference list should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname
  • in the References, is there a date of publication for the Raymond source? Also, is there an ISBN or OCLC number that can be provided?
  • is there a place of publication for the Conway sources?
  • is it "Conways" or "Conway"?
  • is there a citation for Hooghly being scrapped?
  • the sentence ending "... capable of countering modern Western naval assets" appears to be unreferenced
  • same as above for the sentence ending "...was the only Anchusa-class sloop used by India"
  • same as above for the sentence ending "...two Godavari-class frigates in service are scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years."
  • same as above for "...Eight ships of this class served in the Royal Indian Navy"
  • same as above for "...Two ships from this class served in the Indian Navy"
  • same as above for "The Type 41 or Leopard class was a class of anti-aircraft defence frigates built for the Royal Navy (4 ships) and Indian Navy (3 ships) in the 1950s.
  • same as above for "A total of ten ships from two different projects, Project 17A and Admiral Grigorovich classes, are expected to be commissioned into the Indian Navy. Most of these ships are in the planning phase."
  • are there decommissioning dates for the Whitby and Leopard class ships?
  • hyphens should mostly be endashes when spaced, for instance in citation # 4 and others
  • is there a citation for Baluchi being sold for scrapping?
  • is there a citation for Elphinstone being wrecked on the Nicobar Island
  • there are minor inconsistencies in the referencing format, particularly around the publisher/newspaper/website names displayed in italics
@AustralianRupert: I have addressed all your comments from 1–9. Regarding 10–14, is it necessary to cite these sentences as they are the summaries of the immediate tables following them, anyway, if it is a must, I'll add the citations. Unfortunately the decommissioning dates for the Whitby and Leopard class ships are unavailable. Regarding the last one, respective templates are used for news sources and web sources differently. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think they should be added. Regarding the citations, I would suggest at least converting the "colledge" template to the "citation" template for consistency then, or the "citation" templates to "cite book/web/journal" etc as there are subtle differences with commas and full stops. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: All done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, I've cropped one of the images for you and added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • Starting a list article "This is a list" is generally discouraged as it just repeats the information in the title. The second and third sentences are vague. I suggest deleting this paragraph and starting the second paragraph with something like "Frigates, which are naval vessels intermediate between corvettes and destroyers, have had a significant role in the naval history of India." Other information could be relegated to a note.
  • The fact that sloop is the former name for a frigate is too important to be relegated to a note.
  • "Later, sloops of the Black Swan," It would be better to specify the period - in the 1930s? A similar comment applies to "Last" in the final sentence in the paragraph.
  • "The Shivalik class is the heaviest of the frigate classes presently serving with the Indian Navy." "with the Indian Navy" is superfluous.
  • "stealth warship" Could this be linked? (I see stealth is linked below but it should be when first mentioned).
  • Comments about ships still being in service should specify as of 2016 as they will become out of date.
  • 'Ships currently in commission' 1. It should be "in commission" as of a date. 2. The comments in the first paragraph of this section are repeated below. It should be deleted (or revised to avoid repetition).
  • "currently being developed" and "are projected" As said above, comments which may become out of date should be as of a date.
  • "reduced radar cross section" Could this be linked?
  • No date for when INS Tarkash was laid down. Is this not known? If so, it would be better to say "unknown" as you do elsewhere.
  • ""Flower class" (which were also referred to as the "cabbage class", or "herbaceous borders")" This is stated under Anchusa and repeated in Aubretia.
  • "The two Godavari class frigates in service are scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years." Another comment which will become out of date.
  • No decommissioning dates are given for Whitby and Leopard class.
  • No information on Godavari class?
  • There are two error messges in the references. 1. Colledge is not used in the references. 2. Access date wrongly given for Conway as this should not be supplied for print sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert and Dudley Miles: Sorry for the delay. Done the edits. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:37, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Some "as of" dates have been added, but there are still several places where they have not been added to comments such as "currently" and the vague "scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years". you need to check through the article thoroughly. Also you have not dealt with my last comment about error messages. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Done, thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Further comment

  • "Later, during World War II, several frigates of the River class were commissioned." You just said that the first frigates were commissioned in 1945 and later transferred to the Pakistani navy, so how can WWII be later? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Fixed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • have had a significant role in the naval history of India, have had a significant role in the naval history of India. typo
  • Link frigate, sloop, corvette, destroyer, lead ship, Kolkata, cruise missile, Shivalik Hills, CIWS, torpedo, sonar
  • Though the Maratha Navy, the naval branch of the armed forces of the Maratha Empire, used Grabs and Gallivats to project naval power, the concept of frigates or sloops (Earlier, frigates were called sloops, and only later were reclassified as frigates) was introduced by the British. I do not understand this. AFAIK, the Marathas aren't really relevant for this list and the parenthetical note needs to clarified to cover modern warships only.
    • Still needs to be done.
  • The Royal Indian Navy was expanded significantly during the Second World War. HMIS Clive, HMIS Lawrence and HMIS Cornwallis of the Aubretia class, which served in World War II, were some of the early sloops commissioned into the Royal Indian Navy during the 1920s. This needs to be chronological; start out with the introduction of the RIN ships in the 1920 and '30s and then mention the expansion of the RIN during WW2 with the wartime classes like the Black Swans and Anchusas.
    • Still needs to be done.
  • Fold the second para into the first one and be sure to mention the ship classes in the order that they were put into service by the RIN.
    • Still needs to be done.
  • Be sure to talk about the shift from British ships to Russian/Soviet ones in the lede. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Still need to explain why the IN shifted to Soviet designs.
  • The Shivalik class is the heaviest of the frigate while technically correct, we think of ships in terms of size. Change heaviest to largest.
  • Mazagon Dock Limited, Mumbai, change to "in Mumbai" delete the commas and do the same for the builder in Kolkhata later in the paragraph.
  • Hyphenate VLS launched and guided missile frigate.
    • Throughout the list.
  • What kind of missiles are Barak 1s? and what kind of rocket launchers are the RBU-6000s? It's always useful to tell the reader what the function or type of a weapon is when mentioning it for the first time. Same thing for ships.
    • Specifically for the Igla-E and RBU-6000 rockets. What is their function? Same with the Shtil-1. Make sure that this is handled throughout the entire article.
  • 8 × VLS launched Klub In the interest of saving space, consolidate these a little by using "8 × VLS-launched Klub, anti-ship cruise missiles or BrahMos..."
  • 1 × OTO Melara 76 mm naval gun slightly redundant, delete "naval" More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Done, thanks for the review. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Hyphenate and link surface-to-air missile; hyphenate medium-range missile
  • Delete "naval" every time you see "naval gun"
  • Link cruise missile, torpedo tube
  • Move "BrahMos, anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles" to the first mention.
  • This is kinda frustrating as I'm citing specific examples as problems and you're not realizing that I mean that they're only examples of larger problems.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Firstly sorry for the trouble, actually this list was copy edited by guild, but all the issues were not taken care. Anyway, changes done, have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Once again, Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The chronology in the lede is still messed up. Why hasn't this moved to the second para? The sloops HMIS Sutlej and HMIS Jumna, of the Black Swan class, took part in Operation Husky, the Allied invasion of Sicily.
  • And this contains some redundancies: The Royal Indian Navy was expanded significantly during the Second World War.[4][5][6] In 1945, HMIS Dhanush and HMIS Shamsher, of the River class, were the first frigates, so-called, commissioned into the Royal Indian Navy. During World War II, several frigates of the River class were commissioned.
  • Still need to briefly discuss switch from British designs to Soviet ones.
  • And why does the Talwar class get special love in the third para? If exceptionally important, then that needs to be explained.
  • This is redundant to the last sentence of the lede: As of February 2017, Fourteen frigates from four different classes are in active service with the Indian Navy
  • I'm going to oppose until these issues are fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Sturmvogel 66: Sorry for the trouble. I've done all of them, but except the about switch from British designs to Soviet ones. Because there is no significant reason for that. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure what you want HJ Mitchell. I have supported. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
My apologies, somehow I missed that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Images all check out, but it seems that two of them ought to have attribution directly in the article (File:HMS Andromeda, 1970 (IWM).jpg and File:Адмирал Григорович.jpg), per the terms of their license. Perhaps Nikki could give us a more definitive answer, but that's my interpretation of the license. I'm not sure a caption would be appropriate in the table, so perhaps you could add a note to the column header that provides attribution. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@Parsecboy: I have attributed the images, have a look whether it is in the place. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)