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

Kaiman-class torpedo boat[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Kaiman-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another article on a class of torpedo boat used by the Austro-Hungarians in WWI. This was a very successful type, and saw extensive service in the Adriatic during the war, engaging in shore bombardments, anti-submarine work and many other tasks. Most were scrapped after the war, but four saw service with the Royal Yugoslav Navy into the late 1920s. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Rossbach[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

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

Toolbox

Fourth of a four-part series on Frederick the Great's battles (others being Battle of Hochkirch and Battle of Kunersdorf, both which he lost miserably and both articles presently here for review, and Battle of Leuthen, which he won a month after this one. My drop down menu doesn't work, so I have to create this page manually. Hope I did it right. auntieruth (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Philip Baxter[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Philip Baxter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Together with Mark Oliphant and Ernest Titterton, he is one of the three "Nuclear Knights" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Ernest Titterton[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Ernest Titterton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Together with Mark Oliphant and Philip Baxter, he is one of the "Nuclear Knights" Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SMS Weissenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Weissenburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another old German battleship, I started tinkering with this article all the way back in 2007. Nearly ten years later, it's finally in shape to head to ACR (and hopefully FAC), after having been rewritten and expanded with newer sources. This was one of two German battleships sold to the Ottoman Empire in 1910, where it had a much livelier career, though not a much more successful one (she was also the longest-surviving German capital ship, being some 67 years between keel-laying and final scrapping). Thanks to those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Support with minor comments

  • "battleship C" - minor, but on many screens it is very hard to see the italic C - I first read this as saying the name was "battleship C", not "C". Any chance the article could put speech marks around the C?
    • Good idea
  • "Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe (Volume 5). Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ISBN 3-7822-0456-5", but "Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert; Steinmetz, Hans-Otto (1993). Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe (Volume 8) [The German Warships] (in German). Ratingen: Mundus Verlag. ASIN B003VHSRKE." - isn't the first Hildebrand volume in German as well? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
    • This is what happens when you copy refs from different articles, where one was fixed and the other wasn't, and you aren't paying attention ;) Thanks Hchc. Parsecboy (talk) 11:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Support also with minor comments

  • in the lead, the double reference to Turgut Reis is jarring...How about ... In 1910, Weissenburg was sold to the Ottoman Empire and renamed Turgut Reis, after for the famous 16th century Turkish admiral, Turgut Reis? or something like that....
    • How about piping the link to Turgut Reis to "Turkish admiral"? I'd like to keep the bolded name
  • You switch the reference around to Barbaros Hayreddin and Turgut Reis, and previously you've named Turgut Reis first
    • Fixed
  • A year later, on 29 September 1911, when Italy declared war on the Ottoman Empire. ....?
    • Probably something I rewrote a few too many times - removed the "when".
made some tweaks here auntieruth (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ruth. Parsecboy (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Llammakey[edit]

  • conversions - cm is abbreviated by the inches are not in the guns section - they are in adjectival form, should be hyphenated or abbreviated
    • Fixed
  • The torpedo tubes measurement needs a conversion
    • Added
  • Displacement, draft, knots, barbette, magainze, Wilhelmshaven, Wilhelm II, decommissioned, Allies, should be linked in the text
    • Done
  • maybe include Wilhelm's title at first mention so later in text, when you say the Kaiser, they know you're talking about this guy.
    • Good idea
  • in the section 1901-1910, Brandenburg class battleships needs to be hyphenated
    • Good catch
  • "The Ottoman navy..." - navy should be capitalized, suggest also removing the definite article before ship name, but not fussy about it
    • Both done
  • Is Nargara and Nagara Point the same place? (Italo-Turkish War section)
    • Yeah - removed the "Point" from the one instance
  • Not sure if the cruiser Mediciye is the same as the later Mecidiye - spelling is nearly the same and would remove a red link
    • Yeah, that's a typo.
  • Suggest converting the 1,500 meters in the "Subsequent operations" section
    • Done
  • Naval mines is overlinked in WWI section Llammakey (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Fixed. Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Support after changes. No prob! Llammakey (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Support: G'day, looks good to me, I just have a few minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

  • in the lead World War I is overlinked
    • Fixed, plus a few other duplicate links
  • in the lead "1904–05" should be "1904–1905"
    • Fixed
  • in the lead "with the Greek Navy — the Battle of Elli in December 1912" should have an unspaced emdash or a spaced endash
    • Good catch
  • there are a few other duplicate links: protected cruiser, Ottoman cruiser Hamidiye, SMS Goeben, Dardanelles, and Reichsmarineamt
    • Fixed as per above
  • I added a translation to "File:Map of the First Balkan War.png" to clarify its source, not sure if I got it right, though
    • I asked the original uploader, who is still active on Commons. As an aside, you edited via IP on Commons - don't know if it's a big deal to you but if so you might want to get that oversighted.
  • "File:SMS Weissenburg NH 88653.jpg": needs a US licence tag
    • Added
  • "millimetres" --> "millimeters"?
    • Should be fixed. Thanks AR! Parsecboy (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

RAF Lossiemouth[edit]

Nominator(s): Thx811 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

  • regretfully oppose There are some issues here that are too substantial to allow upgrading to A-Class at this time or which could be reasonably resolved during an A review, namely:
  1. sections of uncited text - excluding the table and list of section commanders (both of which are largely uncited), by my count, there are six substantial factual assertions that have no sources
  2. some close paraphrasing - not much, but a few short passages could be restructured [1]  Done Thx811 (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  3. maintenance tag on the article
Having said all this, I think this is a wonderful and comprehensive article that is right on the verge of WP:GAN and, from there, could be improved to A-class with only a modicum of effort. It is, mostly, well-sourced to RS, well-written, well-organized, and well-imaged. DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice and encouragement. The table of squadrons largely comes from Jim Hughes airfield focus book, with the exception of those entries post 1993. Would it be better to have a in-line citation for each entry or would it be better to have them only for those which don't come from the book (which is referenced at the top of the table)? In terms of the paraphrasing I think the original article was largely a copy of the RAF's own information on the airfield - those paragraphs identified must be leftovers from then. I'll make the recommended changes and resubmit as a nomination for good article - thanks again. Thx811 (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Is there a page range you could provide for the Hughes book? If so, and if it isn't too large a range, the current solution seems okay to me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)  DoneThx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, thanks for your efforts. I have a few suggestions for possible improvements, but echo the comment above that it would be best to take this through GA, before coming back to A-class. Anyway, good luck with improving the article further: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "of vegetation & buildings" --> "of vegetation and buildings"  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ". Group Captain P.E Maitland AFC MVO was the...": post noms are unnecessary here  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "2 (AC) Squadron building and flight-line" --> "No. 2 (AC) Squadron building and flight-line"  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "An Avro Shackleton AEW2 of 8 Squadron" --> "An Avro Shackleton AEW2 of No. 8 Squadron"  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "HMS Fulmar (1946–1972)": add italics for "Fulmar"  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "a week long operation to test" --> "a week-long operation to test"  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "In order to allow for the early retiral of..." --> "In order to allow for the early retirement of..."  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "A SEPECAT Jaguar T4 of 16(R) Squadron landing at Lossiemouth --> "A SEPECAT Jaguar T4 of No. 16(R) Squadron landing at Lossiemouth"  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • the referencing style seems a little inconsistent: compare Ref # 1 & 33 with #2 etc;
  • "KINEDDAR, THE CAPTAIN'S HOUSE (FORMER DRAINIE MANSE), GARDEN WALLS AND GATE-PIERS: decaps per MOS:ALLCAPS  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • same as above for "FORMER DRAINIE MANSE, KINNEDDAR"  Done Thx811 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • this needs referencing: "As of December 2016 construction has yet to commence."
  • this needs referencing: "Hangar K20 which was located beside the southern boundary of the airfield was demolished in 2010. One L-type at the north of the airfield and a Bellman type (hangar 5) were demolished in the 2000s."
  • this needs referencing: "No. 5 Force Protection Wing HQ provides operational planning and command & control to the two field squadrons attached to the wing, No. 51 Squadron RAF Regiment and No. 2622 (Highland) Squadron's (RAuxAF), whose purpose is to protect RAF bases at home and abroad from ground attack."  Done Thx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • this needs referencing: "The RAF have also provided photo opportunities for aviation enthusiasts during exercises such as Joint Warrior."  Done Thx811 (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • in the References there are quite a few "harvn" errors, which the clickable links don't link to the long citations in the Bibliography. If you instal this script, it helps more easily identify these errors: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js
  • watch out for overlinking. The duplicate link checker indicates the following duplicate links: No. 44 Squadron RAF, Supermarine Seafire, Fairey Firefly, Hawker Hunter, No. 15 Squadron RAF, RAF Honington, RAF Marham, No. 6 Squadron RAF, RAF Valley, Quick Reaction Alert,  Done Thx811 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

3rd Bengal Light Cavalry[edit]

Nominator(s): Exemplo347 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

  • there are a couple of "harvn" errors in the References: Hunter and Stafford. These do not appear to have corresponding short citations in the body of the article
  • for the two Amin works, "Defence Journal" should probably be in italics (not the website) as it is the name of the publication
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Illustrated London News", as above, should be in italics
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "mens'..." --> "men's..."?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "An information plaque containing..." --> "An information plaque listing..."?
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "Roberts went on to say "After careful..." --> "Roberts went on to say "after careful..." (you can probably just silently adjust the capitalisation here to conform with sentence case capitalisation).
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • suggest the addition of "Category:Military units and formations established in 1796" and "Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1857"
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • for an article on the unit itself (rather than just its involvement in the Indian Mutiny), I think its battle history should be expanded a bit more to cover what it did during the three wars it appears to have fought in (Second Anglo-Maratha War, the First Anglo-Afghan War and the First Anglo-Sikh War). Would probably only need a reasonable sized paragraph on each, I think
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • for A-class, I think it would be good to expand the lead a little more to potentially two paragraphs to summarise the regiment's pre-Mutiny battle history a bit more
 Done Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Thank you for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert: Sorry for the slow response. I believe I have addressed your concerns (as much as is actionable). Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Kodandera M. Cariappa[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Comments by Kees08[edit]

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

@Kees08: Fixed. Sorry for the delay. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, nice work so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

  • "...DAQMG of 10 Indian Division": move the link to the 10th to here from the later link
  • "He served in Iraq, Iran and Syria in 1941–1942 and then in Burma": link the various campaign articles here
  • this needs a citation: "In June 1923, Cariappa was transferred to the 1/7 Rajputs, which became his permanent regimental home."
  • "the courses he attended in Small Arms School (SAS) and the Royal School of Artillery (RSA)..." --> "the courses he attended at the Small Arms School (SAS) and the Royal School of Artillery (RSA)..."
  • the use of ordinal suffixes is inconsistent in the article, for instance "10th Division", but also "52 Rajputs" etc.
  • "...and the Fourteenth Army was placed under it": link Fourteenth Army
  • there is something missing here: "was appointed as deputy chief of the general staff with..." (after "with")
  • "worsening situation in Kashmir": link the conflict here
  • "... three subsequent attacks – Operations KIPPER, EASY and BISON": is there an article that could be linked here for these operations?
  • "...capture the Naushera, Jhangar, Poonch, Zojila, Dras, and Kargil areas": link the areas if they haven't already been linked.
  • "... Cariappa, Shrinagesh, and...": remove the link to Shrinagesh here as it has already been included in an earlier paragraph
  • "Though the National Cadet Corps was already formed in 1948..." --> "Though the National Cadet Corps had already been formed in 1948..."
  • inconsistent caps: "the Army" v. "the army"
  • "spread over an unscathed period...": I'm not sure what you mean by "unscathed" here
  • "During the 1965 war, his son K C Cariappa": remove the link to the son (as it has already been included earlier, but add a link to the article about the 1965 war
  • "General Ayub Khan himself contacted Field Marshal Cariappa": Cariappa was not a field marshal at that time
  • are there references/citations that could be added for the Awards and decoration section?
  • in the Citations (for example Citation # 9), "London-gazette.co.uk" should just be The London Gazette as that is the title of the work (i.e. it should be the same presentation as that used for instance with Citation # 7)
  • Currently the only book cited is that by Singh. For an A class article I would like to see more diverse sourcing. Is it possible to work in citations to some of the books in the Further reading section?
Will check on this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Citations, is there a publisher that could be added for Citation # 1?
  • in the Further reading section, is there an ISBN for the Seshagiri book?
  • in the Further reading section, Field Marshal Cariappa: The Man who Touched the Sky --> Field Marshal Cariappa: The Man Who Touched the Sky (title case capitalisation)
@AustralianRupert: Really sorry for the delay. I did not get a notification. Will work these up in a couple of days. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Roger B. Chaffee[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

I have some suggestions:

  • Make "Boy Scouts", "Education" and "Family" sub-headings, and remove "Purdue"
    • Agreed,  Done
  • Consolidate the last two sentences in "Purdue" into the last paragraph.
    • Funny, I did this when I did your previous suggestion. So,  Done
  • Under "family", per WP:BLP, I don't think we should have the birth dates of his children, as they are living and non-notable.
    • I think keeping the year is fine per WP:BLP, which I did, if you disagree let me know, otherwise  Done
  • Link Greenville, Michigan, Ordnance Corps (United States Army), Annapolis, Maryland, Dean's list, West Lafayette, Indiana, Oklahoma City, NASA Astronaut Group 3, NASA, Houston, Texas, Reno, Nevada, Gemini 3
    • NASA astronaut group 3 was already in there, and I did not see a good place to put the ordnance corps link. Otherwise,  Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • The article uses some dmy dates
    • More than happy to admit I am blind, but I only see mdy. Did I miss it? Kees08 (Talk)
  • Anything about his wife? Did she have a job or anything before they were married?
    • Homemaker, added it to the article  Done
  • Mention that Lake Champlain was an aircraft carrier
    •  Done
  • Why are some squadrons links by their name and some by the abbreviated form (eg VAP-62)?
    • Ignorance. I changed VAP-62 to be the squadron and did not see any others, let me know if I missed one.  Done
  • The A3D linked is twice
    • Fixed
  • "flattop or aircraft carrier" The reader may not know the former is slang for the latter; if they do, it is redundant; so delete "flattop or"
    •  Done (as an aside, I probably put that there because I did not realize at the time they were the same thing)
  • Any idea when he was promoted to Lt (jg) or Lt?
    • Looked really hard for this, did not see in his biography, did not find via google, and could not find by looking through old newspapers.
  • "During his Navy service he logged" should be "During Chaffee's Navy service he logged" Last name on first mention in a paragraph.
    •  Done
  • "1800 hours of flying time" should be "1,800 hours of flying time"
    • Fixed
  • Comma after Fairborn, Ohio
    • Fixed
  • "where he found a message" should be "when" unless he found the message on the hunting trip
    •  Done
  • Training: you might want to say why training in geology was considered important rather than, oh I dunno, learning to pilot a spacecraft
    •  Done - put a little excerpt on the rationale in the article
  • Why do we describe Wally Schirra as a "Mercury veteran" but not Gus Grissom?
    •  Done
  • Suggest removing the "Accident" heading and making "Aftermath" a major heading
    •  Done
  • The article should make it clear that Chaffee's death was asphyxiation by poisonous gases.
  • You say that "Grissom, White, and Chaffee got permission to name their flight Apollo 1" but "Shortly after the AS-204 fire in 1967, NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight Dr. George Mueller announced the mission would be officially designated as Apollo 1." Which was it?
  • Use a quote template for the quote rather than italics
    •  Done
  • I would like the article to mention the improvements made to the spacecraft as a result of the fire, and the fact that the mission was flown as Apollo 7 by Schirra's crew in 1968.
  • Delete the "see also section"
    •  Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, did not see this til just now, I will start working through them. Thanks for the feedback! Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

HMS Vanguard (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Image review

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

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

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

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

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

  • "war-time" should be "wartime"
  • "relaid" should be "re-laid"
  • "As might be expected the wreck" insert comma after "expected"
  • Link Paul G. Halpern and Antony Preston

Looks pretty good. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by PM[edit]

  • in the lead sentence, battleships
  • in the lead "in May 1916 several months later" - what was several months later?
  • suggest stating in the lead that she was salvaged before she was designated as a war grave and when that occurred
  • suggest linking St Vincent class in the Design and description section
  • suggest "ranged in thicknesses"
  • link Battle of Jutland at first mention
  • the eighth ship
  • suggest "such as that onethis"
  • do we know when Dick took command? Would be good to insert it in the appropriate spot in the narrative.
  • the casualties don't match the lead, 843 in the lead, 840+2 Aussies in the body. Unless the Japanese officer is also counted, which should be made explicit.
  • I think Lieutenant-Commander should be Lieutenant Commander
  • thrown out by the explosions
  • I think war-time should be wartime
  • suggest "As might be expected, the wreck,"
  • sources all appear to be reliable.

That's me done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Cho Ki-chon[edit]

Nominator(s): Finnusertop (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

  • "may have spared him his reputation" spared from what negative assessment?  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: would you be happy with the wording I added in this edit: "may have spared him his reputation from that loss of official recognition. With the exception of a period in the 1970s when Cho's name was barely mentioned in official publications, his legacy has benefited from continued popularity in North Korea."? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lingzhi: What about you? Are you happy with the article after the improvements below (and those done by you; thank you for that)? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 03:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorta stepping away from doing any content review at the moment. I hope things go well for you A-class review... sorry...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by DarjeelingTea[edit]

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

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

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

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

« Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav torpedo boat T5[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

Support Comments

  • I spy one duplicate link for Durrazo.
  • Same comment about context on the Szent Istvan sinking as T3.
  • Ditto for scout/light cruiser description for the Saidas
  • Ditto again for links in the ref section.
  • Link displacement, propeller, drifter
  • All these done.
  • Hadn't thought of this for the other review, but were any of these boats involved in the Cattaro mutiny in any way? The Halpern article cited in SMS Novara (1913) mentions that 14 of the 250-ton boats were in Cattaro at the time, but does not state which boats were present.
  • Per that review, the torpedo boats were not seriously affected by the mutiny, Bell & Elleman also don't give the designations of any torpedo boats involved.
  • Wouldn't Zadar have been Zara at the time?
  • Good catch, fixed.
  • Nothing on what the vessel did in 1944 and 1945? Parsecboy (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • No, the navy in exile was based on Malta, so I suspect it was based there, but it probably wasn't up to much given its age. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, on that and the mutiny points - worth a look, I guess. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support
    • All tool checks ok (i.e. no dabs, external links work, no citation errors, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [2]).
    • Image licencing, caption and alt text look fine.
    • I made a couple of minor edits [3], otherwise I couldn't see any issues after reading through it. Anotherclown (talk) 03:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Leuthen[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

  • there is some inconsistency in presentation of page ranges, forex "p. 212–215" v. "pp. 233–235" fixed
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be at the top of the last section in the article (it just needs to be moved up slightly) moved up.
  • "The monument was dynamited during World War II..." --> by whom? don't know. source didn't say. probably the Russians.
  • in the References, is there an OCLC number for the Bodart book? no
    • Added it for you. These can be found at worldcat.org. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • in the References, same as above for Lindsay? done
  • in the References, suggest translating the titles of the foreign language works
  • in the References, " S. 745-746" --> "pp. 745-746"?
  • in the References, same as above for "S. 75"
  • in the References, "Band 3" --> "Volume 3"?
  • I typically don't translate, although I know some of the templates do. I find it makes the article and notes too cumbersome. I could be persuaded. auntieruth (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Not wedded to translating titles, but I feel the peripheral items like page numbers and volume numbers should be changed to make it more reader friendly. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • is this missing something after "by": " See Josef Wuk, Technisches polyglott-onomasticum: Oder Wörterbuch in sieben ... by , 1864"? Fixed.
  • in the infobox you have 167 and 210 guns, but I couldn't find these numbers in the body of the text (the Aftermath has "250 Austrian cannons", though...is this correct?) fixed
  • is there a word missing here: "invaded his ally's territory of Duchy of Hanover" --> "the Duchy of Hanover"? fixed
  • "captured another 2000 men and baggage..." --> "captured another 2,000 men and baggage" fixed
  • "File:Frederick the Great and his staff at the Battle of Leuthen by Hugo Ungewitter.jpg": suggest right aligning this image to avoid stacking two images together and so that the subjects face into the article fixed
  • "He secured the Nippern with eight grenadier..." --> "He secured Nippern with eight grenadier..."? companies. It was there....?
  • missing word: "the wing ended at stream and the village of Gahla..." --> "at the stream"? fixed
  • typo: "win the only weeks earlier at the Battle of Rossbach..." --> "win only weeks earlier at the Battle of Rossbach" fixed
  • "Prince Charles and Daun..." --> I don't think Daun has been formally introduced yet, I suggest using the full name and appointment here
  • "critical point could turn the tide of battle..." --> "critical point could have turned the tide of battle"
  • "26th Infantry" --> is there a wikilink that could be added for this unit? no it is not the same as 26th_Infantry_Division_(Wehrmacht).
    • I was thinking more about whether any of these articles might relate: Category:Units and formations of the Prussian Army, or indeed if it should be redlinked? Regardless, is "26th Infantry" a division or regiment? If possible, I'd suggest making it clearer, e.g. "26th Infantry Regiment" or "26th Infantry Division", whichever is correct. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • divisions are a Napoleonic era addition to nomenclature. A regiment was typically a collection of companies or squadrons, from 1-5 or six, under command (nominally at least) of a colonel and specifically a lieutenant colonel. It's likely that a full regiment wasn't there. the names of the regiments changed when the colonel/proprietor changed. Frederick started giving them numbers and subsequently historians always numbered them. The list in that categories is mostly 19th century. I will eventually organize this, if I can get a friend to help. auntieruth (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Additional thoughts on this: actually the 26th infantry is 19th century nomenclature added by Showalter. Although I'm sure it's correct, I've adjusted the text. auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the Schweidnitz water" or "the Schweidnitz river"? it was called the water.
    • No worries. I note that the maps in the article say "Schweidnitz River", though. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • hmmm, the sources say Weisstritz water, or Weistritz river, and it runs into the Schweidnitz, and then out of it, and then back into it. I adjusted this auntieruth (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "showed the world, meaning Europeans..." --> probably simpler to just say "showed Europe..." fixed

:hmmmm I have an Order of Battle. Should I add it? auntieruth (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually think an order of battle would be a good idea, although if it is large making it a separate article might be a good idea. For instance, see Battle of Milne Bay order of battle as an example (although there are certainly many other ways of presentation etc.). There are many other example here: Category:Orders of battle. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It's fairly big. I could probably shorten it, but I've only found one source, and I'm not sure...Tempelhoff has his issues. So I think I might let it up. auntieruth (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • In the second paragraph presumably the diversion was on the right and the surprise attack was on the left, but it would help to say so. fixed
  • "After Rossbach (5 November), the French refused" As it was before Leuthen, I would say "had refused". well, I couldn't find it. But actually it is right. After Rossbach, the French refused to fight an open battle against the Prussians. After Leuthen, the Austrians couldn't fight--at least until they had rebuilt their army over the winter.
  • "Laying between the Oder river and the foot of the Sudeten Mountains" I think it should be "lying" rather than "laying"
  • "They were hardly hills, more like hillocks, but they were high enough to provide a screen for his troops." This contradicts the earlier statement that the area was too flat for hiding manoeuvres. fixed
  • "Unfortunately for the Austrians, 40 squadrons of Prussian cavalry waited by Radaxdorf, commanded by Hans Joachim von Zieten, charged their flank;" The grammar is not right here. fixed
  • "Although he had grossly under-estimated the size of the Austrian force" You have not said this earlier - unless I have missed it. took out only in one source'
  • "in both polite and general circles" Is "general circles" a euphemism for lower classes? fixed
  • I would delete the words after "Prussia". actually, there were many kings, but he was King of Prussia. This made a difference. 17 years earlier, he was only King in Prussia.
  • A very good article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Benbow (1913)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Comments Support from Iazyges[edit]

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

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

Comments by Llammakey[edit]

  • I suggest linking pre-dreadnought and mines.
    • Done
  • Battlecruiser and light cruiser should be linked earlier at first mention.
    • Both done
  • fleet should be capitalized in Mediterranean fleet at first mention.
    • Fixed
  • Suggest rewording of final sentence, such as "sold for scrap in January 1931 and broken up in March 1931..." to avoid repetition of the word scrap.
  • In the section "Later operations", the turret names need their "".Llammakey (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Good catch. Thanks Llammakey. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Support after changes. Llammakey (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

M32 Tank Recovery Vehicle[edit]

Nominator(s): Randomness74 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

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

  • "It was phased out after the introduction of the M74 Tank Recovery Vehicle" - can you provide an approximate date range here? Done
  • I think that the 'specifications' section should start from first principles in describing this vehicle. For instance, the reference in the first sentence to its length "when the boom was fully extended" is confusing as it's not previously indicated that the vehicle had a boom, or what it was used for. Done
    • It was actually previous mentioned in the lead, but I have made it more clear what a boom is in the body.--Randomness74 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
      • This really does need to go back to first principles: start with a description of what this vehicle was before giving readers its dimensions. Assume that they don't have a clue what a tracked tank recovery vehicle is. Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC) Done
        • This isn't done at all. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the engine varied between which variant of the M4 Sherman it was based upon" - ditto - please explain why these variations existed (because the M32s were diverted from the standard M4 production lines?)  Done
  • "The Ordnance Department needed armored recovery vehicles for the D-day Invasion. However, they did not desire to use the British armored recovery vehicles, because they didn't prefer with the modifications the British made with M4 Sherman tanks, such as the AVRE or the BARV" - the grammar here is awkward. Also, the US Army didn't procure vehicles only for the D-Day landing: its entire operating model was to ruthlessly standardise its fleets, with vehicles intended to be general purpose and suited for varying conditions across entire campaigns. Presumably the M32 was intended to support the fleets of M4s in European conditions, and presumably also built on lessons learnt by the US Army in North Africa as well as British combat experiences Done
  • Why was the M4 selected as the basis of this design? (presumably to simplify its production and ensure commonality and the availability of spare parts in combat zones) Done
  • What was the role of the M32: was it intended to support units equipped with M4s, or was it used more widely?
  • "They also converted 298 M32B3s" - what vehicles were converted? Done
  • The service history section should discuss how successful this vehicle proved to be: what were its good and bad features? Did it prove suitable for its intended purpose? Do historians regard it as having been a success?
    • I would have added much more, but there are no sources for this...--Randomness74 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
      • Update: I've found a few sentences on this. I would be able to find more if anybody could find a place that has the United States Army Combat Forces Journal.--Randomness74 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
        • Given that Pershings weren't introduced into service in any significant numbers during the war, the claim that it was considered unsuccessful as it couldn't move them is questionable. The use of these vehicles for mine clearance is also missing: Chamberlin and Ellis discuss this. Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
          • @NickD:I have made clarifications on the statements about ratings in quality to avoid confusion. Also, Which page does it mention mine clearance? I could not find it when I searched through the book.--Randomness74 (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
            • Please see page 121 Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Please explain the purpose of the vehicle's armament: this was presumably for self defence only as the M32 wasn't a combat vehicle. Done
  • Was the US Army the only operator of the M32, or were they exported to Allied countries? (as was common with M4 variants)  Done

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

Comments by Hawkeye7

Oh dear.

  • "The M32s were used after 1944, such as during the D-Day and the European Theater" makes no sense. Done
  • "It had between 0.5–2 in (13–51 mm) depending where the location of the armour is" makes no sense either. Done
  • "they didn't prefer with the modifications the British made" ditto  Done
  • "However, some remained in service during the Korean War after the type was officially replaced by the M74 in 1954" but the Korean War ended in 1953.  Done
  • "The M32 had a 30-ton winch, 18 ft boom, and an A-model jib." Add convert template to convert feet to metres. Done
  • "It weighed either 64,300 lb (4,590 st) (M32, M32B1, and M32B3), or 67,600 lb (4,830 st) (M32B2) depending on the model" Why on Earth are we converting from pounds to stones? Convert to kilograms. Done
  • " It had was equipped with an A-frame jib, a 30 short tons (27 t) winch" Use adj=on in the convert template, and delete "had" Done
  • "The armament were used only for self-defense, as it was only a recovery vehicle and was not to be used in combat" This could be phrased better. Done
  • "They served in the Italian Campaign (World War II), Operation Overlord, and many other battles during the European Theater." Disambiguate the Italian campaign, and change "during" to "in" Done
  • "They also converted 298 M4A3 Shermans into M32B3s from May to December 1944." Delete "also" and change "from" to "between"  Done
  • "the horsepower of the engine were insufficient to pull large tanks" Change "were" to "was" Done
  • "it was never put on the production line" should be "it was never put into production " Done
  • FN 12 is incorrect, and missing a closing parenthesis  Done Fixed this one for you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Link A-frame, synchromesh, winch Done
  • Change category "Armoured recovery vehicles" to "Armoured recovery vehicles of the United States" Done
  • Delete category "Military recovery vehicles" Done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes, including adding locations where they were missing, adding some links, and correcting the spelling of Ian V. Hogg's name.

  • The infobox says that 1,582 were produced, but it doesn't say this in the article. The numbers in the Production history section add up to 1,670, which indicates that something is wrong. Correct the error, and add the total to the Production history section. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: Thanks for your efforts so far. I have the following observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • the infobox says "In service: July 1943 to May 1945", however, it seems it should include Korean War service also? Equally, the body of the article provides 1944 as the in service date, so it is inconsistent with the infobox
  • provide an indicative date here: "The Ordnance Department needed armored recovery vehicles in order to use in combat..."
  • "because they did not prefer the modifications the British": what was their objection to those variants?
  • this seems quite awkward: "The reason the engines varied depending on the variant of the M4 Sherman the vehicle was based on because M32s were either directly converted from M4 Sherman models or were made from M4 Sherman chassis before the turret was added."
  • "OCM 21553 standardized..." what is OCM 21553?
  • seems awkward: "They instead made another variant of the M4 Sherman, so the Ordnance Department made several prototypes."
  • seems repetitive: "The M74 Tank Recovery Vehicle replaced the M32B1A1s after the Korean War[8] after the production of heavier tanks such as the M46 Patton. They remained in service during the Korean War. Soon after the war, the type was officially replaced by the M74 in 1954."
  • in the lead "used by the United States during World War II and the Korean War", but the infobox says it was also used by UK forces
  • the crew should be mentioned in the specifications, mentioning their roles
  • "The M32 entered service with the US Army in 1944": what units was it issued to, and on what scale?
  • the See also section is probably redundant as the M74 is already linked in the body of the article
  • the Production history section should mention the total number produced, as Hawkeye has suggested above
  • I did some copyediting, but to be honest I think it still needs work. I will try to come back with fresh eyes later, but suggestion maybe placing a request at the WP:GOCE

« Return to A-Class review list

Rochdale Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

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

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

Comments by Linghi[edit]

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

Support by auntieruth[edit]

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

Not quite a support yet[edit]

Looking good; not quite a support from me yet, but all minor issues, listed below:

  • "pylon" - this is technically a correct term, but - particularly in the lead - will probably mislead the average reader, as the most common BritEng usage is "electricity pylon". Is there an alternative word that could be used?
  • "A public in meeting in February 1919" > "A public meeting in February 1919"?
  • "a consensus for both a monumental memorial, a fund for the families of wounded servicemen, and the appointment of Lutyens to design the monument." - feels like three thing, rather than the two that a "both" would imply?
  • "adjacent to the Town Hall " - as written, should definitely be in lower case I think (and is indeed in lower case later on)
  • "and Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby unveiled" > "and Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby, unveiled "
  • "The memorial today is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed." could simply be "The memorial today is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection"."? No need to describe what happened to the other memorials in the lead for this one...
  • "Lutyens designed the Cenotaph on Whitehall in London, which became the focus for the national Remembrance Sunday commemorations; the Thiepval Memorial to the Missing, the largest British war memorial anywhere in the world; and the Stone of Remembrance, which appears in all large Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries and in several of Lutyens' civic memorials, including Rochdale's." - the article has some dating issues here. It is a background section, and the next section begins in February 1919. The Cenotaph hasn't been built by then, the Thiepval Memorial is a decade away etc., but the style implies that it has already happened (as background) by 1919.
  • "almost three months to the day since the armistice," - this implies it was deliberate, but not sure if that is correct?
  • " which involved the demolition of Manor House to be replaced by a cenotaph and a Stone of Remembrance" - "to be replaced" felt awkward here
  • " Standing on the plain first tier" > " Standing on the plain, first tier"?
  • " second smaller tier" > " second, smaller tier"
  • "The flags stand to either side of a second smaller tier with a semi-column at either end, which culminates in a yet smaller plinth supporting a catafalque on which lies a sculpture of a draped human figure, a similar design to Lutyens' Midland Railway War Memorial in Derby." - becomes quite a long sentence by the end
  • "They were rejected for Whitehall's Cenotaph in favour of fabric flags" - rejected by whom?
  • "made by the readers of the Rochdale Observer" are the italics correct here?
  • " The earl was a descendant of a local family which had been involved in local politics for generations, and he himself served in various public offices during the First World War, including Director General of Recruiting, and later Secretary of State for War, before being appointed Britain's ambassador to France at the end of the war. " - another quite long sentence
  • "noting its visual relationship" capitalisation
  • "about 92% " - I think the MOS would prefer "92 percent"
  • "Amery, Colin; et al. (1981)" - I'd expect the "et al" to be specified/expanded here (or Amery to be defined as the editor, etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! I'll get to these over the bank holiday weekend. I've got some other tinkering I need to do here as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

John Glenn[edit]

Nominator(s): Kees08 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

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

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

Sounds good, I have been working to address this comment. I believe the biggest elephant remaining in the room is the book citations, and I will try to take care of those in the next couple of days. Kees08 (talk) 05:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: All of the book citations are now the same, and I expanded several others. Were there any other major, overarching problems with the citations? Kees08 (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
You're italicizing a lot of things that shouldn't be. I'm also still seeing a lot of inconsistencies - some books include locations and others don't, some newspapers include publisher and others don't (it's not necessary), several web sources include only title and URL, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I am working on these comments, do you have examples of what should not be italicized? Kees08 (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
School names or NASA. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: In those cases, they are the publisher and should be italicized. In general they are not, but when they are the publisher they are. Still working on the other comments. Kees08 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
No, publisher names should not be italicized. Italics are for work titles - books, journals, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I do not mean to be daft, and the CS1 templates are not gospel, but the templates automatically italicize website names. Can you provide me any documentation saying that I am wrong, and that in general it looks like the template is wrong? Kees08 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Er... {{citation|publisher=Somewhere University}} produces , Somewhere University  Missing or empty |title= (help), {{cite web|publisher=Somewhere University}} produces . Somewhere University.  Missing or empty |title= (help); , etc. You are correct that website names are typically italicized, but website names and publishers are not the same thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
And the two were totally jumbled in the article. I made two passes over the references, making them consistent at least. I've also added access dates where they were missing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that. I will take a look as well. I still do not really understand the difference between the website and publisher fields. When would I use the website field? Just want to know for future articles. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
My rules of thumb are: (1) use it only on {{cite web}}; (2) use it if and only if you can't figure out who the publisher is; (3) It has to be a domain name, and not an organisation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Now that a more experienced A-class article creater has gone through it, are there any more specific reference concerns? I would be happy to address them. Kees08 (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • We need sources for the Awards and honours. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7: Done. Was not really sure on the last one, I could not find a citation for what was there, but I found information on the astronaut badge. Kees08 (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

This sentences is confusing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Monte Bello map (and is it Monte Bello or Montebello?)
    • Yeah, good point about the name, Nikki, I've seen both used in sources but the article seems to use Monte Bello elsewhere. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
      All the old sources used in the article use Monte Bello, but the recent stuff generally uses Montebello. The two seem to be used interchangeably. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Several 1940s/1950s images include the PD-1923 tag or don't have any US tag (File:Op_hurricane.jpg) - some of these should use PD-1996, others it's unclear what their status would be in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
    None of the images are using the PD-1923 tag; they are just using the US-PD tag. All Australian images from before 1 January 1955 are in the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    In Australia, yes. On what basis are they PD in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    The images are owned by the government, and the government has released them into the public domain world-wide. Per the 2004 Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry to be dense, but I'm not seeing that provision in the agreement - do you know which specific section it's in? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    What I got said: The effect of the application of Article 18 of the Berne Convention, referenced in Article 17.4.5, is that there is no obligation on Australia to enact retrospective protection of copyright material that has already fallen into the public domain. The magical date therefore became 1 January 1955. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    In Australia. But unless there's a similar provision on the US side, they generally would have restored copyrights, and that provision wouldn't seem to affect that. (Also, something like OperationHurricane.png would seem not to have been government-owned). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    The British and Australian governments assert that the expiry of crown copyright applies worldwide. US law apparently does permit material to be put into the public domain. (Whereas in Australia, only the government is allowed to do that.) I have removed the newspaper. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
    Okay, I've seen the British assertion but not the Australian - do you have a link? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
    I've asked the Attorney General for one. Last time we got bogged down in the US government's intention to abolish the public domain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    I've sent off another ministerial request to Senator Brandis. This could take a while, so I would like to withdraw this nomination, and resubmit when the required paperwork is in hand. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: Are you saying you want to close the A-class review? That seems a little extreme if it's just an image licencing problem but it's certainly your prerogative. Let me know what you want to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    If the images will block promotion. I cannot remedy the problem quickly, except by removing the images from the article, but I can always re-submit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Support Comment: looks excellent to me. The only suggestion I have is to convert the Hill and Maryan & Bush citations to sfn refs like the others. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham[edit]

Nominator(s): Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

Comments from The Bounder[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final comments

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

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

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

Comments by Lingzhi[edit]

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

 DoneO Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

comments from Auntieruth[edit]

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

Will do more later.  :) auntieruth (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


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

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

Image review[edit]

 Done- possibly. This is effectively a foriegn language, so forgive me if I ned to be spoken to very slowly in a very loud voice. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Not quite a support yet - Hchc2009[edit]

  • The uses of "king" need to be checked against the MOS (where it is referring to a specific king, it should be "King")
  • "£1200" but "£5,000" - need to be consistent with commas in the money figures
  • Quotes take "..." in the MOS, rather than the '...' used here.
  • "The group are considered by English Heritage and the BBC to be sufficiently authentic in their portrayals to have been employed by them in such a capacity." - not supported by the reference given
  • "It has been suggested that Thomas Malory" - suggested by who?
  • Bibliography: Needs a bit of tweaking on capitals: "Cardinal Beaufort: a study of Lancastrian ascendancy and decline" should be "Cardinal Beaufort: A Study of Lancastrian Ascendancy and Decline", for example.
  • Bibliography: There's no need really to give the day and month that a book was published, as the year is almost always sufficient (e.g. "Biancalana, Joseph (27 September 2001). The Fee Tail and the Common Recovery in Medieval England: 1176–1502. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-43082-1.") but if you're going for that style, then you need to be consistent (e.g. "(e.g. "Bernard, G. W. (1992). The Tudor Nobility. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-3625-5." just uses the year) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done Cheers Hchc2009; I've done all that exc. the k/K-ing, and the done the bibliog. The bibliog was done by someone else :p My style, whilst idiosyncratic, is always consistent. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 18:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the later Hundred Years' War and in the early years of the Wars of the Roses." - for the lead, I'd lose the "later" and "early years"; would make the prose smoother.
  • "A great-grandson of King Edward III on his mother's side, he inherited his father's earldom of Stafford at an early age and, through his marriage to a daughter of Ralph, Earl of Westmorland, was not only related to the powerful Neville family, but many of the leading aristocratic houses of the time." - A long sentence for the lead. I'd recommend breaking at "early age".
  • "he had a reduced income in his early years" - reduced from what? (I'm not sure this is essential to this bit of the lead, btw; it could be combined with the increase in income bit in the next para)
  • "from earl of Stafford to duke of Buckingham. " "the earl of Stafford to the duke of Buckingham"?
  • " His lands covered much of the country" - as written, could mean "much of the country was covered by his lands" (i.e. a high % of the country belonged to him) or that his lands stretched across much of the country (i.e. he had national interests)
  • "the crown" > "the Crown" (and worth linking)
  • "Buckingham was responsible for York's defeat in 1459" - "the duke of York" would be clearer here
  • Why the " the duke of Gloucester" but "Richard, Earl of Warwick"? Hchc2009 (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "which gave the Staffords royal blood and made them cousins to the King Henry" - as written, suggests that this applied to the whole family; surely it only applied to Humphrey, rather than his dad etc.
  • "and so became 6th Earl of Stafford " - "so he became"
  • "although over two-thirds of his estate was still occupied by his mother," - sounds odd this way around; "although his mother still occupied over two-thirds of his estates" or "although over two-thirds of his estate was still controlled by his mother," ?
  • "who had been married by then to two previous earls of Stafford- Edmund the fifth earl, and Edmund's elder brother, Thomas, the 3rd earl, with whom she had had no children." - I had to think twice when reading this one! How about: "He immediately inherited a large estate with lands in more than a dozen counties. Before his mother Anne had married Edmund, however, she had previously been married to his older brother, Thomas. As a result, she had accumulated two dowries, each comprising a third of the Stafford estates, and she continued to occupy these lands for the next twenty years."? Hchc2009 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "and was placed under the control of Henry IV's queen Joan of Navarre" - comma after queen?
  • "and did not impose a fee to be paid into his Exchequer for doing so, as was usual." - unclear who "his" is in this context
  • "(not quite a full Protector)" - is the capitalisation right here?
  • "By 1424, the rivalry between Gloucester, as Protector, and the Bishop of Winchester, Henry Beaufort (from 1426, Cardinal)" - the Cardinal bit gets repeated later
  • "Lieutenant-General of Normandy,[18] governor of Paris, and constable of France" - capitalisation doesn't feel consistent here
  • "Count of Perche," - ditto
  • "it has been suggested" - by who?
  • ""bore so much of the brunt of the war at this time,"" - quote needs attributing (although I'd question whether it could just be paraphrased?) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1953, English historian K.B. McFarlane estimated" - unclear why it matters which year McFarlane did the estimate in
  • "In the words of one historian" - we need to say who (although I'm not sure the quote is needed here)
  • "which were worth about £1,500, and his mother's half of the Bohun inheritance (around £1,200)." - why the brackets around the second figure?
  • ""His landed resources matched his titles... the Stafford family estates were scattered throughout England, Wales and Ireland"" - I'd expect the quote to be attributed inline. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:17, 27 May 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?
  • Rationale #3
  • File:Vasily_Koptsov.jpg needs a better FUR and more info on its original publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Can't find that information. Kges1901 (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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

  • I suggest adding a list of commanders to the body of the article, including (if possible), the years of their command
  • in the lead, "and the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Lozovsky..." --> explain very briefly who Lozovsky was
  • link BA-I here: "and 30 BA armored cars"
  • "Lawrence, KS, USA": spell out the abbreviation "KS" and remove "USA" for consistency
  • I suggest putting the citations into columns to reduce the amount of whitespace
  • Tried to using {{reflist|30em}} but display appearance has not changed. Kges1901 (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Might be your browser; the columns are displaying on mine. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • if possible, an image in the infobox would help improve the visual appeal of the article
  • I was unable to find a relevant image on the internet. Kges1901 (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • inconsistent date format, compare "29 December 2016" with "2016-12-27"
  • Citations 26 & 27 should also have accessdate/retrieved dates
  • "During its first formation, it helped take the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest, and finished its formation at Wilno and Soleczniki...." --> "During its first formation, it helped take the city of Grodno, Augustów Forest, and finished its service at Wilno and Soleczniki"?
  • "of up to 3,000 Polish officers, gendarmerie forces, and volunteers..." --> "of up to 3,000 Polish officers, gendarmes, and volunteers
  • "...the other corps of the army..." --> by "army" do you mean the 3rd Guards Tank Army? If so, it is probably best just to say this.

@Kges1901: Any progress? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

Comments by Krishna Chaitanya Velaga[edit]

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

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

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

  • Section 2; (sub-sections included)
    • On the first day, 14 January; both are redundant to each other, perhaps the former is better
    • use conversion template for 20-kilometer
  • Done
    • Pavel Rybalko; mention the rank
  • Done
    • use conversion template for 25 kilometers
  • Done
    • rank of Filipp Golikov
  • Done
    • In section 2.3, use the acronym of "1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler"
  • Done
    • promoted to Major General on 7 June -> later major general; the dates of promotion are out of context
  • Done
    • Maintain consistency between numbers or wording numbers, for example; 209 tanks and sixteen self-propelled guns
  • Made (or at least most) consistent using AP Stylebook which recommended spelling out 0-9 and then using numerals for higher numbers.
  • Section 3;
    • (promoted to Major General 7 June); out of context
  • Done, added year
Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Support, as all my comments are addressed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:40, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • "During its first formation, it and other Red Army units captured the city" - would "During its first formation, it participated in the capture of the city" read better? (would avoid repetition of Red Army, and might read more naturally)
  • Done
  • "and fought in the Rzhev-Sychevka Offensive, Third Battle of Kharkov," > "the Third Battle..."
  • Done
  • "resulting in the death of Koptsov and the promotion of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Lozovsky, its chief of staff. " - the word "promotion" is ambiguous, and the main text doesn't reinforce it, only noting he was made the acting commander of the unit.
  • Rephrased, does this work now? Kges1901 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "The corps was formed in 1938 from the 5th Mechanized Corps as the 15th Tank Corps, with the honorific "named for (Konstantin) Kalinovsky", who was a Soviet military theorist." - read rather oddly to me. Is it saying that it was formed in 1938 as the "named for (Konstantin) Kalinovsky 15th Tank Corps"? Or the "Kalinovsky 15th Tank Corps"? (I'm a bit confused)
  • Literal Russian word order would be "15th Tank Corps named for Kalinovsky", although the phrase "имени" could also be translated as "in the name of" Kges1901 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "the corps included the 2nd Light Tank Brigade (formerly 5th Mechanized Brigade)" - unclear what the "formerly" means in this context. Could it become a footnote, with some sort of explanation? (it would read more easily)
  • I meant for it to say that it was previously known as the 5th Mechanized Brigade. Kges1901 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • "with headquarters in Borisov" > "with its headquarters in Borisov"?
  • Done
  • "By the end of the day motorcycle units" > "By the end of the day, motorcycle units"?
  • Done
  • "a large number of small arms, a mortar, and an anti-aircraft gun" - worth linking these
  • Done
  • "On 10 October, corps headquarters and the tank brigades were stationed at Wilno" > "the corps headquarters"
  • Done
  • "included 150 tanks, broken down as follows:" - when I first read this, I assumed "broken down" related to the tanks; any alternative language options?
  • Switched the sentence around.
  • "On the same day, the 105th Brigade became a separate unit and soon transferred to the 5th Tank Army." - "was soon" would keep the tense consistent
  • Done
  • "The 88th Tank Brigade joined the corps on 30 October,[10] and in December the 52nd Motor Rifle Brigade became part of the corps. " - any way of avoiding repeating 'the corps'?
  • Rephrased
  • "The 15th rested and refitted for the next several months" - refitted as what? (similarly when refitting is mentioned later on)
  • Explained the apparent jargon at first mention
  • "German troops from the 4th Panzer Army counterattacked the Southwestern Front's exploiting forces " - an "exploiting force" I know, but the reader may not...
  • Rephrased, does it work now?
  • "The corps fought in the Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh Offensive from 14 January," - when introducing a new section, I'd expect to see the year defined in the date, e.g. "14 January 1942"
  • Done
  • "before dying of the severe wound" - you don't need to repeat "severe" here (its clear from the sequence of the paragraph)
  • Done
  • " 16 self-propelled guns" - worth linking
  • Done
  • "On 26 July 1943, the corps was converted into the 7th Guards Tank Corps[11] along with the other corps of the 3rd Guards Tank Army, becoming part of the elite Soviet Guards, for its actions in the offensive." - could this be a final paragraph? Would make it easier for the reader to spot what finally happened to the corps. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Done for the last suggestion, but now it is abnormally short since the new paragraph is only a sentence (albeit long). Kges1901 (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • Why is the article not simply 15th Tank Corps? I don't know if there are any other claimants to the primary location here.
  • Moved. Initially I had the disambig attached because of the UK Tank Corps and the AEF Tank Corps, however I realized that only the Soviet Union had numbered tank corps. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "...ended with only 200 tanks remaining in the army." - there's no context for this figure, can you add something like "out of 'X number' assigned." or something similar?
  • Done, found additional information in Forczyk Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The corps fought in the Ostrogozhsk–Rossosh Offensive from 14 January 1942..." - should this be 1943?
  • The link goes to the right unit, and in Feb 43 the corps was called just the SS Panzer Corps, as according to its article it didn't become II SS Panzer Corps until June 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, should have thought to look for that. Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "...fighting in heavy street fighting..." - this is a little redundant, can we replace one of the "fighting"s?
  • What makes warheros.ru a reliable source?
  • The sources for the Warheroes.ru biographies referenced in the article are the Soviet-era biographical dictionaries listed at the bottom of each page. Kges1901 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's good enough - several years ago, several of us advanced the same argument in favor of navweaps.com, and the consensus at WP:RSN was that if those references support the material on a self-published site, we ought to just use those references directly. Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem with removing warheroes is that now the information isn't really verifiable because these books cited on warheroes would be even harder for English Wikipedia users to obtain than the battleship reference books cited by navweaps. Kges1901 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is the thread I'm referencing - in it, somebody made basically the same argument (actually with regard to Russian language sources) and it was discounted. Granted, that was 7 years ago, but I don't know that the policy on self-published sources has changed in that time. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kges1901: - is there any way warheros.ru and tankfront.ru can be replaced? I don't think we can promote an article that includes self-published sources. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I will work on replacing the websites with references to the sources they used. Kges1901 (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ditto for tankfront.ru Parsecboy (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Information on tankfront is from the following sources:
  • for the assignment of each unit on the first day of a month: Combat composition of the Soviet Army
  • Strength figures: sources listed next to the information on the page
  • transfers/formations: presumably, the relevant orders mentioned on each tankfront page
  • Anything else: sources listed on the bottom of the page or in the sitewide bibliography page Kges1901 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 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)
  • @Dank:—Hi Dank, nearly five months in and the article now has 3 supports and no objections. Is there anything else needed from your prospective? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, I won't have a chance to get to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

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

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

Quick comment[edit]

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

Comments by Dudley[edit]

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

Further comments

  • "Many modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the Crusaders under Papal sanction." This reads a bit oddly. I would delete the word "many" and "under Papal sanction". Also the comments you cite are all criticisms of the Crusaders, whereas from the first sentence the reader would expect examples of disagreements among historians.
  • Green tickY—done, also joined the two paragraphs to give pro and anti view Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Constantinople was sacked during the Fourth Crusade, rendering the reunification of Christendom impossible." Was reunification in prospect at that point? Was not the key result of the sacking to weaken Byzantium so much that it eventually fell to the Turks?
  • Green tickY—removed clause on that basis, although it is sourcable to Davies. I don't think the idea that this led to the fall carries so much weight these days due to the two have centuries between events. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • ""Crusade" is not a contemporaneous term" Yet you say crucesignatus dates to the end of the eleventh century. This is the time of the Third Crusade, which seems pretty contemporary.
  • ""Croisade" appeared in English [[:Category:|Category:]]1575, and continued to be the leading form until [[:Category:|Category:]]1760." Eh?
  • Green tickY—dob't know who put the template in but it doesn't work!! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Giles Constable describes four different perspectives among scholars:" It would be helpful to reference this as much of the detail below is referenced to other scholars.
  • "The resulting unified polity in the 7th and 8th centuries" I am not sure "unified" is the correct word in view of the civil wars and Sunni Shia split.
  • "Following the Gregorian Reform, an assertive, reformist papacy attempted to increase its power and influence." As you have just been discussing the East-West Schism I would add for clarity "over the laity".
  • "The majority ecumenical view was that non-Christians could not be forced to accept Christian baptism or be physically assaulted for having a different faith" This seems dubious as crusades were partly about forcibly converting heretics and pagans.
  • Green tickY—removed this, probablt amounts to an article on its own Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "Historian Paul Everett Pierson" If I remember correctly, reviewers have complained when I wrote "Historian" instead of "The historian". Dan do you have a view on this?
  • "In addition to the motivations of the landed classes" I do not know what this means in the context of the People's Crusade. Delete?
  • The use of the term "apotheosis" is confusing. In the lead you define it as forgiveness of sins and link to the article on apotheosis. However, the apotheosis article defines it as glorification of a subject to divine level, and says the term is not used by the Catholic church. It gives "Main article: Divinization (Christian), and in the main text you pipe apotheosis to Divinization (Christian), which does not mention apotheosis but gives a similar definition to the apotheosis article. These definitions are different from the one you give in the lead. I think you need to look further in your sources and maybe just explain what the poor crusaders were hoping for and avoid using a term like apotheosis which is defined differently in your source to the Wikipedia article you link to.
  • Green tickY— Both the source and OED agree on a definition of ascension to heaven. Changed to match to avoid confusion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Normans resisted for hours before the arrival caused a Turkish withdrawal." The arrival of the main army?
  • "the sultan of Baghdad sent a relief force" I think it would be clearer to say a force to recapture the city rather than relief force, which would normally mean a force to prevent the crusaders from taking the city.
  • "No assistance was provided by the Byzantines" Obviously assistance to the crusaders, but you should say so.
  • "surprised by the motivation of the Franks" motivation does not seem the right word. Maybe "vigour" or "sudden attack by the Franks".
  • Green tickY—changed to committment and dedication Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "the narrative did much to cement the Crusaders' reputation for barbarism" What narrative?
  • "Al-Afdal's relief force at Ascalon" Who was Al-Afdal?
  • Green tickY—vizier to the Caliph of Egypt, added this and linked Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "The Crusaders considered their pilgrimage complete" I would say most of the crusaders? Is there any estimate of how many returned?
  • Green tickY—gone for most, I can't find any relaible figure for the numbers that returned. I don't think it is known. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
  • "A second Crusade known as the Crusade of 1101 followed in which Turks led by Kilij Arslan defeated the Crusaders in three separate battles.[55]" This is confusing as you describe the Second Crusade of the mid 12th century below. I would delete if you only think it is worth this brief mention.

*More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[edit]

  • "smaller scale Crusading continued around the Crusader States in the early 12th century" I do not think "Crusading" should be capitalised, and what does it mean - attempts to expand the territory of Crusader States?

Green tickY—elaborated, but this is covered in the list Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Governance fell to the caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier. From 1121 the system fell" Rrepetition of "fell" and the first sentence does not sound right. I am not sure of the best wording but maybe "The caliph's chief minister, the vizier, was dominant in the government." Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "After a life-threatening illness" A date would be helpful here.

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Saladin lured the force into inhospitable terrain with water" with no water?

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Pope Urban III died of deep sadness on 19 October 1187 on hearing of the defeat.[75] Pope Gregory VIII issued a papal bull" I would say "His successor, Pope Gregory"

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "For the first time, reigning monarchs not only swore their support to the Crusades but endeavoured to take part in them." But Louis VII and Conrad III had taken part in the Second Crusade.

Green tickY— correct, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "before judging that he lacked the resources to successfully capture the city." The version I read was that he thought he could capture the city but not defend it. However, that may not reflect current scholarly opinion.

Green tickY— Generally it looks like Richard's motivations are unclear, but reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "most of the Crusaders returned to Germany when Henry died." When?

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Large groups of young adults and children spontaneously gathered, believing their innocence would enable success where their elders had failed." Did any of them travel to the Eastern Mediterranean?

Green tickY— not many, if any Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • You say that all Byzantine territories were conquered by the Fourth Crusade, but this is wrong. Some areas were not conquered.

Green tickY— qualified to European territoryNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Frederick was the most Muslim of Christian monarchs" This does not sound right - most knowledgeable about it or sympathetic to it?

Green tickY—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Louis IX's brother Charles of Anjou." Presumably Charles was the leader of the Crusaders at that time, but it is worth saying so.

Green tickY—no, Louis led the crusades, Charles was attempting to build a Empire in the Med Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "leaving only Prince Edward" I would say that he was the future King Edward I of England.

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Most remaining Latin Christians left for destinations in the Frankokratia". According to the article on Frankokratia it means the period of Latin rule over parts of the former Byzantine empire rather than an area. The term is in any case better not used as few people will understand it. What happened to those who did not go to Byzantine areas - did most of them return to Europe?

Green tickY— or rather Cyprus Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[edit]

  • "In 1322 the king of France suppressed the Knights Templar, ostensibly for sodomy, magic, and heresy, but probably for financial and political reasons." This is wrong. In 1307 King Philip IV of France had the Templars arrested, tortured and some burned at the stake. In 1312 he pressured the Pope into suppressing the order.

Green tickY—date corrected and sentence expandedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "The Wendish Crusade of 1147 saw Saxons, Danes, and Poles enforce Catholic control over the tribes of Mecklenburg and Lusatia, Polabian Slavs (or "Wends")." I suggest "tribes of Mecklenburg and Lusatia, who were Polabian Slavs"? Also, "enforce Catholic control" is euphemistic. According to the article on the Wendish Crusade it was an unsuccessful attempt at forcible conversion.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "The Livonian Knights were defeated by the Lithuanians," You should make clear that Livonian Knights is another name for the Brothers of the Sword. A date would also be helpful.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "The order also came into conflict with the Eastern Orthodox Church in the form of the Pskov and Novgorod Republics." I would delete "the form of"

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "they defeated the Livonian Order itself" Why "itself"?

Green tickY— removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Cathar culture was brutally suppressed" The Cathars were brutally suppressed, not just their culture.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "against the Bosnian Church and was depicted as a campaign against Catharism (Bogomilism)" I suggest "against the independent Bosnian Church, which was accused of Catharism".

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Sigismund advised the Crusaders to focus on defence when they reached the Danube" I am not clear what this means. Was Sigismund suggesting that they join the defence of a town or area against Turkish attack?

Green tickY— reworded - suggestion was for a cautious defensive approach rather than frontal attack Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "a 1456 Crusade to lift the Siege of Belgrade." I would specify "by the Turks"

Green tickY— gone for Ottoman Empire Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • " In April 1487 Pope Innocent VIII called for a Crusade against the Waldensians of Savoy, the Piedmont, and the Dauphiné in southern France and northern Italy."What were the Waldensians etc accused of?

Green tickY— heresy, amended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "The final end of the Crusades, in an at least nominal effort of Catholic Europe against Muslim incursion," This is confusing. I read this initially as referring to the last Crusade, but from what follows it appears to refer to a Christian Moslem alliance which put an end to Crusades. Which does it mean, and if the latter why should it have put an end to the Crusades as there had been such alliances before? Also, "final end" is tautologous.

Green tickY— final removed. Slightly reworded, the point is that the Franco-Imperial conflict was the primary concern, along with the wars of religion. Crusading ended and became part of wider politics across faiths Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Textual sources are simpler, and translations made in Antioch are notable but considered secondary in importance to the works emanating from Iberia and the hybrid culture of Sicily. In addition, Muslim libraries contained classical Greek and Roman texts that allowed Europe to rediscover pre-Christian philosophy." I would say "Moslem Spain" rather than Iberia. Also, I do not see the relevance of these comments to the Crusades. The Crusaders had no interest in book learning and played no part in transmitting it to Christian Europe.

Green tickY— some editors have raised the transmission of culture via the Crusades so it is useful to put into context. It is considered secondary but still significant due to the two centuries of the Outremer and the resulting trade etc Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "The Muslim world exhibited sustained disinterest in the Crusades" I would prefer "The Muslim world showed no interest in the Crusades". This paragraph partly repeats what is said above under 'Legacy'.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles:—Thank you for the detail run through, I think I have addressed your comments and I hope it meets your satisafaction. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A few more

  • "The term Crusades itself is early modern English, modelled on Middle Latin cruciatae" This contradicts what you say in terminology.

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "Under the papacies of Calixtus II, Honorius II, Eugenius III and Innocent II On a smaller scale," The grammar has gone wrong here.

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "the King of Portugal, Afonso I, re-took Lisbon" Had he held it before?

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • "the ruthless Baybars" You spell is Baibars above

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC).

  • "allowed Europe to rediscover pre-Christian philosophy." - and science and medicine?

Green tickYNorfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. thanks for the effort you have put in to making this a first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth55[edit]

  • I've read/reread this several times, over time. I agree with many of the comments above, especially Dudley's. And it's definitely improving as you incorporate reviewer's comments! This is an overview article, so it should have, specifically, an overview of the Crusades: all of them, their general problems, opponents, purposes, challenges, and commanders. I don't think it needs to go into a lot of detail, but it should link to other articles that do. Allusions to an issue, for example, need to be directly explained. Not in massive detail, but clearly enough to cover the issue. I'd like to be able to refer one of my students to this article and have them come away with a broad overview of the Crusades: time frame, goals, opponents, campaigns, general outcomes, etc.
  • one specific thing: footnotes should probably be called Notes. The section you call "references" is structured the way foot notes usually is in printed material.
  • The above said, this is a massive project, and thank you for tackling it. auntieruth (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This article has appeared on the GA list of nominees, and I've asked the editor to get someone from GOCE to have a look at it. I agree with above that it has some ways to go, and I think the editor is willing to put in the effort. It has good "bones" and Norfish is dedicated, so can we put all this either on hold or be patient, while the GOCE people have a look? Thanks. auntieruth (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • There now appears to be the start of an edit war here, so not sure what to do. auntieruth (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Less an edit war, more some low level vandalism being reverted by other editors. This article seems to attract it from time to time, it will dies down soon. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
  • good. What's the story on the GOCE? auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Auntieruth55:—number 26 in the queue today, I have tried a previous copyeditor but he is too busy to repeat the effort. I think we will just need to be patient. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

() I've passed this through Good Article. It's had a serious copy edit by the GOCE and we should have a look at it again. auntieruth (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Auntieruth[edit]

  • I've gone through and these are some initial edits. Please revert or adjust as you see fit. auntieruth (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • did a little more in run through, especially under historiography. Linked authors, etc.
  • you mention rise of nationalism in 13th century, I think. That would have to be cited. I really doubt that anything existed that could be construed as nationalism that early. There would be pride in your ruler's conquests, certainly, but I think what you're talking about is kingdom building. auntieruth (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Green tickY—I don't think the entire paragraph worked, it looks largely sourced from the Charles I of Naples article, which is also uncited. I have rewritten based on Asbridge. I think it looks a lot better now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Auntieruth55:— Hi Auntieruth, nearly five months in and the article has 3 supports and no opposes, anything else needed from your prospective? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • I've emailed the editor for this information. It should be in there regardless of whether the article is going on to additional assessments. auntieruth (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sources appear to be:
  • It doesn't need to be in the article itself, just on the image description page. Have a look at the other maps in the article, they all incorporate reference details. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Norfolkbigfish: - can you add the source details to the map? I think that might be the only thing holding this up from promotion, now that the article has 3 supports and no pending comments. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @Parsecboy:— I have looked at this again and deleted the image in case this was all that was holding up promotion. I was looking at the wrong image by mistake when I thought I could source this. @Auntieruth55: did try to email the author but I haven't heard anything so I assume there was no luck there. I don't think the image/map really added much of use so it seemed better to remove. What happens now regards to promotion? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • No problem at all, everything looks to be in order now. I posted the review on the Coordinator talk page, so it should be promoted within the next day. Great work on such a gigantic topic. Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)