Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members
Requesting a review

To request the first A-Class review of an an article:

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (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.


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.


Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Osvetnik-class submarine[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

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


The Osvetnik-class was a class of two French-designed submarines built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy between the wars. Both boats were captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion, and after modernisation, they were utilised as training and experimentation boats. They were both scuttled in September 1943. I have nominated both submarine articles along with this class article to capture all the suggested improvements in one hit. If you review this article, please take a look at the two individual submarine articles to see if your feedback applies there too? Thanks in advance, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav submarine Smeli[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Yugoslav submarine Smeli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


This was a French-designed submarine built for Yugoslavia between the wars. It was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and saw service as a training and experimentation boat until she was scuttled at the time of the Italian armistice in September 1943. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Yugoslav submarine Osvetnik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Osvetnik was a French-made submarine built for the Royal Yugoslav Navy in 1929. She was captured by the Italians during the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941 and used by them as a training and experimentation boat until the Italian surrender in September 1943, when she was scuttled off Corsica. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Montreal Laboratory[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Montreal Laboratory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Latest in the series on the Manhattan Project. This is about the Canadian part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "They were temporarily installed in the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, where they made progress on the design of a nuclear reactor, but the MAUD Committee was uncertain as to whether their work was relevant to the main task of Tube Alloys, that of building an atomic bomb, but there remained a possibility that a reactor could be used to breed plutonium, which might be used in a bomb.": Ugh.
    YesY That is a long sentence. Split in twain. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • More later. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Got a stomach bug today. Please ping me when Maury's done. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


  • "They were temporarily installed" - thus starts a run-on sentence. Suggest full stops at "reactor, but" and "bomb, but"
    YesY Break inserted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "The Canadian government" - a minor ROS here. Perhaps break at "proposal" or "initially".
    YesY Break inserted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "and the laboratory was located in Montreal, initially in a house" - was this a lab, or just offices while they waited for the lab? The body text below is not detailed.
    YesY The problem is the two meanings of "laboratory". Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Two reactors were eventually built at Chalk River; the small ZEEP, which went critical on 5 September 1945" - as the second example is a separate statement, so should the one about ZEEP - remove the ";" and "which" basically.
    YesY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "was for a time was the" -was, for a time, the"
    YesY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Americans, and Anglo" - "Americans. As Anglo ... the Montreal Laboratory scientists were denied access to..."
    YesY Break inserted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "with paraffin wax" - what was the purpose of the wax?
    YesY It's another moderator. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "the dangers posed" - these don't appear to be "dangers", simply "problems"?
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "were captured" - "were captured in these materials", or perhaps "were absorbed in these materials"
    It's a technical term, linked earlier. "By these materials" might confused the reader into thinking that they were captured by these materials, rather than impurities like boron. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "180 kilograms"..."about 185 litres" - 185 l of D2O is about 205 kg. 180 kg of D2O is about 162 l. Something is wrong here.
    I noticed that, and I double-checked the sources. I think they already had some heavy water. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "and about French patent claims" - on what exactly? Are these the ones mentioned below? Perhaps all of this could be placed in a single statement near this location?
    YesY Added the following on the French patents: "These included patents on controlling nuclear chain reactions, enriching uranium, and using deuterium as a neutron moderator. There were also two patents applications in conjunction with Egon Bretscher and Norman Feather on the production and use of plutonium." Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Cambridge,[14]and" - missing space.
    YesY Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Howe cabled Sir John Anderson" - I suggest simply "Anderson" at this point and herein.
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "This had attractions from the perspective" - "This offered various advantages including"
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "cooperation to a standstill"..."come to a complete standstill" - perhaps a different term for one of these two?
    YesY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "1943, the Prime Minister" - worth adding Canadian here, "1943, the Canadian Prime Minister"
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "in the world.[36] With the passage" - this is out of place in a para describing the reactors. Move below?
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "light water.[37] By the end" - para break.
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "who secretly supplied tiny samples" - samples from and to whom?
    YesY Pavel Angelov. Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "but British hopes were disappointed" ...apparently by a... "full and effective cooperation on atomic energy" - it is not clear why they are disappointed here.
    YesY Added: "The British government had trusted that America would share nuclear technology, which the British saw as a joint discovery." Does that address your concern? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: Overall, looks quite good to me, Hawkeye. Just a few minor comments or suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • technical review: no dup links were identified; no dabs identified; ext links all work;
  • suggest adding alt text;
  • "File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": should have a description added to the image description page on Commons;
  • "File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": not a warstoper, but if there was any way to move the handwritten comments on the image, it would probably be a bit more visually appealing;
  • image licencing looks ok to me, assuming that the assertion on "File:NRX Pile Building and ZEEP Building- Cooling Tanks 1945.jpg" that URAA does not apply, means that no US licence is required. If this is not the case, it shouldn't be a drama: PD-US-1996 would be applicable in my opinion then.
  • "File:C.D. Howe, wartime.jpg": probably needs a US licence;
  • "File:Montreal Group.jpg": same as the above
  • "File:TrumanAtleeKing1945.jpg": US licence should probably be adjusted to "PD-US-1996"
    YesY All done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In the References, the Manhatten District History: is there an OCLC number that can be added here?
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • citation order: "...including J. Carson Mark, Phil Wallace and Leo Yaffe.[19][2]" --> "...including J. Carson Mark, Phil Wallace and Leo Yaffe.[2][19]" (this is a very pedantic nitpick...there are a couple of other examples that I could see elsewhere, too)
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • if there is a particularly iconic image, potentially it would enhance the visual appeal of the article if it were added to the lead;
    We could use the one of the Big Three? Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Anyway, that's all I've got. Once again, Hawkeye, thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav torpedo boat T3[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Yugoslav torpedo boat T3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


This steam-powered torpedo boat saw service in both WWI and WWII, finally being sunk in early 1945. She was one of the 250t-class torpedo boats whose class article I took to ACR in August last year. This article successfully went through GAN in May last year, and has had a couple of tweaks since then. All constructive criticism taken on board. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Support - Article has no obvious issues and appears to meet the A-class criteria. Kges1901 (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

No. 37 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

No. 37 Squadron RAAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


A belated follow-up to GAN/ACR/FAC noms over the past few years for other RAAF transport squadrons, namely Nos. 33, 34 and 36 Squadrons. For 40 years, Nos. 36 and 37 were the RAAF's twin C-130 Hercules squadrons, until the former converted to C-17 Globemasters in 2006 -- No. 37 is expected to continue flying its C-130Js until 2030, and after that who knows? The C-17 may be superior in range and payload, the new C-27 Spartan might be able to get into smaller landing grounds, but no aircraft has spelt "disaster relief" in Australia and the region like the RAAF's Hercs, not to mention their combat support role from the Vietnam War onwards. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: Great article, I don't see any obvious issues. Kges1901 (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this article recently for GA and have reviewed the changes made since. I am of the opinion that it meets the A-class criteria and am happy to offer my support. Great work, as always, Ian. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Couldn't find anything either, so I thought I'd do an image review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Image review: All images are appropriately licensed. Was a bit surprised to learn about the Dakota in the picture. "On 6 July 1945 this aircraft flew the body of the late Prime Minister of Australia John Curtin from Canberra to Perth for burial" I would have added that to the caption. But it's up to you. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Tks very much for all that, Hawkeye -- yes, fair point about the caption, I might just corroborate the AWM with the squadron's unit history or some such first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Prince Romerson[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Prince Romerson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe this article can be considered an A-class article but may need extra peer review to get it there. The ultimate goal is to get this to feature article status as a very short featured articles along with a few other articles on Hawaiian and Pacific Islander combatants in the American Civil War. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:USSMercedita.jpg: is any further information about the source available? Author, record details, etc? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • No I am not sure. I wasn't the original uploader. Should it be removed? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Can the information be found to verify the given license? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I can't find it, so I added another image.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a quick comment at this stage. In the citations you have "Manning & Vance 2015", but in the References "Manning, Anita; Vance, Justin W. (2014).". I assume 2015 is a typo. Can you please confirm? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Correct, it is a typo.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Changed the format for the reference format 2015 NPS book based on advise from Trappist the monk on FAC review page for Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, no worries, but it seems there is now a citation error due to the presence of the "National Park Service 2015, pp. 142–145" citation, without a corresponding long reference in Bibliography section. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed that as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • the subject's approximate date of birth should appear somewhere in the body of the article (it is currently only included in the lead and infobox)
  • " He died on March 30, 1872": do the sources specify what caused his death?
  • "...need to remember "our boys from Hawaii" --> not sure about the inclusion of the quote here, as it isn't really attributed in text and seems to add a little point of view. Perhaps this might work better, "...need to remember the military service of Hawaiians"?
    • I see merit to keeping this,KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Understood. For FAC, I'm of the opinion that there might be a smoother way to utilize the quote, most likely by directly attributing it to a person at a time and place (e.g. "During an interview and so stated..." or "During a campaign statement, so and so stated..." or "In an article published by and so said..." That said, it's a minor point, and if my opinion is in the minority I won't stand in the way of promotion. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • inconsistent capitalisation: "under Anglicized names" v. "under anglicized pseudonyms"
  • for consistency, is there a place of publishing that could be added for the Moniz work in the Further reading section?
  • in the Bibliography, compare "Washington, D. C." with "Naperville, IL" (inconsistent presentation of the secondary location)
    • This is how Washington, D.C. is written in publishing location. States are not punctuated.
  • "Norwood, MA: Printed at the Norwood Press" suggest changing to "Norwood, MA: Norwood Press"
  • "Honolulu: Printed at the Hawaiian Gazette Office" suggest changing to "Honolulu: Hawaiian Gazette Office". AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I think it should remain this way because this is a periodical and the publisher isn't clear.KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      • No worries, it's not a warstoper for me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment -- copyedited a little but in general I found the article well-written and easy to comprehend. It's brief, but I can see you've mined many sources and appreciate there may not be a huge amount of detail on the subject. I note Nikki's image review above, but would prefer to see a source review from her if possible (more for reliability than formatting) before I support, especially if the article's ultimate destination is FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Source formatting is quite inconsistent, but I'm not seeing any significant reliability concerns. Looks like Bookhaus has subsequently gone out of business(?), but from what I can tell it appears to have been reputable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The inconsistency lies in the fact that news and web sources can't be cited with Harvard referencing style. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
G'day, actually they can. Either harv or sfn can be used to produce these results, you just have to include a ref tag within the cite web or cite news template so that the short citation can be anchored to it. There's an example at Australian Flying Corps if you want to see the html mark up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Western Area Command (RAAF)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Western Area Command (RAAF) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Parallel to the ACR for North-Eastern Area Command, I present one on the longest-surviving RAAF area command, which operated from 1941 to 1956 and covered most of Western Australia. Geography meant that its prime focus was maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, so its story was never going to be as action-packed as its northern cousins but, unlike North-Eastern Area at least, it did get to control an RAAF B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadron, No. 25, which still exists as the non-flying "City of Perth" squadron. FWIW, this will probably be my last area command ACR for a while, until more of the others' operational records are digitised... :-) Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Support: just a few minor suggestions/comments, otherwise fantastic work as always, Ian: AustralianRupert (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  • tech review: alt text present, no dabs, ext links all work;
  • the article is well referenced, and the prose seems fine to me;
  • suggestion: perhaps mention something about the post war drawn down (to clarify why units were disbanded in the aftermath of the war, or something about demobilization). It wouldn't need much more than half a sentence, probably;
  • "File:OperationHurricane.png": also needs a US licence;
    • Hmm, yes, it probably does but PD-1996 wouldn't apply in this case and I'm not sure offhand what would. @Nikkimaria: this did get through FAC when I used it in William Hely a while back but I'm wondering about it now (I wasn't the original uploader)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Is there anything to the trade agreement mentioned in the description? I haven't seen that raised before that I can recall. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
        • I really don't know anything about it, Nikki, I guess I just assumed at the time (for Hely) that being on Commons it was fine to use. According to the user page the uploader has died so we can't ask him. I'd love to use this if you think there's a way but if not then I guess I'd better remove and find something else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
          • You could use the print only, omitting the photo? Copyright on that would only have been 25 years. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
            • Tks Nikki, I thought I'd go with a PD image from the AWM -- not quite as interesting as the newspaper front page, but then again a relief map of the area is no bad thing and it it does relate to the atomic test. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • "Labuan-Brunei": probably should have an endash instead of a hyphen;
  • "D.E.L. Wilson": Wilson's full name was Douglas Ernest Lancelot Wilson. Refs: [1] and [2] (suggest maybe just calling him "Douglas Wilson" in the article)
    • All done except for the image question. Thanks as always Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Looks to be in really good shape, as expected. I have a few minor queries.

  • perhaps it is worth explicitly mentioning that Kormoran sank Sydney and was scuttled as a result of the battle. Without that context, locating the crew of the Kormoran doesn't really make sense.
  • suggest By end of that month, headquarters
  • I assume the difficulties with identifying the aircraft flown by the various squadrons at various stages also apply here? I note that you have done this in later parts of the article, but I mean in the early bit.
    • Many tks PM, I'll look at these later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Tweaked the first two. Re. the third, yeah, the initial mention from the unit history doesn't mention types but I've added something soon afterwards that should do the trick. I figured it wasn't worth going into detail for Nos. 452, 457, 18, 31, and 120 Squadrons during the March 1944 scare, as the units were never used in anger in the West and soon returned to the home bases. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Source review All sources appear reliable and are properly formatted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Mark XIV bomb sight[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Mark XIV bomb sight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Mk. XIV was Bomber Command's primary bombsight for much of the air war over Germany, equipping the thousands of heavy bombers that grew to dominate the UK's air fleet. Although not nearly as famous as the US Norden, The Mk. XIV is still one of the most advanced designs to see service, and had a number of unique features that made it more useful than the Norden in many roles - notably low-altitude attacks where it was used by Mosquitos in several famed raids.

The article has been extensively researched, illustrated by ORTS-released images directly from the surviving units in the RAF Museum, and has been stable for some time now. It's time to take this through to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day Maury, interesting article. Overall, seems like it meets the criteria, although I can't really judge the content. I only have a few nitpicks, which should hopefully help you on your way to FA with it: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  • "Working with Henry John James Braddick..." could we get away with just saying "Henry Braddick" here?
  • "An image of the Mk. XI is available at this page." --> I think this would be better presented as a lettered note rather than a citation
  • for consistency, the Zimmerman citation should also use the short citation format
  • "File:462 Squadron RAAF Halifax bombsight AWM P01523.007.jpg": also needs a US licence in addition to the Australian one. "PD-US-1996" should work here, I believe;
  • Bibliography: probably should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname;
  • Bibliography: titles should use title case capitalisation, e.g. " A forgotten offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's anti-shipping campaign" --> " A Forgotten Offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's Anti-shipping Campaign"
  • per WP:LAYOUTEL ("Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates...") the "External links" section header should be removed and the sister links box moved up to just below the Bibliography header.
All complete except for the image tagging - is that something I can do or does it have to be the original uploader? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries, anyone can do it, but I've done this for you now. One thing I missed, this appears to be unreferenced: "In other respects the basic operation of the CSBS was considered fine as it was, there was no demand for greatly increased accuracy for instance." Is there a citation you can add for this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find it quickly so I just removed it. It's certainly not a loss to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments -- Been through about half the article so far, copyediting as I went, so pls let me know any concerns there. As far as the content goes, I know a lot more about British bombers of WWII than their bombsights, but I should be able to do a bit of fact-checking as I go. None of the info so far sounds problematic though; it also reads quite well and seems to be comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail. Will try to return soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent edits Ian! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Returning to complete copyedit plus source review -- as always, pls let me know if any concerns with my edits...

  • You should probably use the convert template for your various measures, e.g. altitudes.
  • Citation for end of second para under Operation?
  • Source review:
    • Might be worth putting "SD719" in the Armament, Volume I; Bombs and Bombing Equipment entry of the Bibliography to make the connection between citation and source clear.
    Added... but is there a better way to do this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Looking again, and checking its entry in WorldCat, where does SD719 come from anyway? I think the citation should simply be "Air Ministry 1952" and leave SD719 out of things entirely (by the same token the "A.P.1730A 1943" citation should probably be "Air Ministry 1943", to also follow the usual author and date format). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Done! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    • FN14 link seems to need updating, it just goes to the front page of the RAF site.
    Indeed... it's a bit surprising that the RAF didn't keep this around themselves. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • What makes Henry Black a reliable source?
    I'm not sure how to answer that... although the website in question is simply a personal one, the original article is published in a source that has been used in many places on the Wiki. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Can you clarify which source and point me to some of the articles, Maury? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The source is the Bomber Command Association newsletter. One can find other articles from this source in RAF Bomber Command and night bomber, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's it for now, I'll try and return to do some spotchecking of sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - this looks good to me, only a few minor cmts / suggestions:
    • "...was to fly at night, which was taken up as the primary goal of Bomber Command..." was it a goal or would it be more accurate to describe it as a tactic or method of operation?
Indeed it would, this is a much better term. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Minor inconsistency in presentation here " AC Spark Plug" vs "A.C.'s" and "A.C. Spark Plug" (i.e. use of fullstops in the acronym - I suggest adopting consistent style at the least, although my reading of MOS:ACRO is that stops should generally avoided but I'll leave it up to you to determine).
I'll take your suggestion, all stops removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This might be potentially unclear: "bombing altitude be increased from 20 to 30,000 feet." I'm assuming "20" here means "20,000" and not "20" but perhaps it should be clarified?
Actually I should have used the convert tag on these, and now I have. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • "...proved almost useless for operations in jet aircraft, as the limited distances visible through the sight from high altitudes made it almost impossible to aim before the aircraft had already passed the drop point." The implication here, as I interpret it, was that this was due to the increased speeds at which jets flew but I wonder if this might need to be spelt out for some readers?
Absolutely, see what you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Question / suggestion for further development: I'm unsure if its relevant or usual for inclusion is such articles (which I admit I'm not all to familiar with), but I wonder if the article would benefit from some mention of just how in-accurate bombing was overall during this period. Most of our readers probably would be surprised at how limited the technology actually was in comparison to the "precision" bombing that is used today (this limitation arguably necessitated the use of area bombing etc). I'm not suggesting a detailed discussion (which would be undue weight), but perhaps a short sentence in the first part of the article mentioning this might provide some context. Also did the development of improved bomb aiming (i.e. through the Mk XIV etc) have an impact on tactics during the war etc? And is there any assessment of the Mk XIV's impact / performance in general etc?
Well there is some of this covered in the bombsight article itself. But certainly a comparison to the Norden would be useful here, and especially the CSBS. Unfortunately, I have not found any really good source on the accuracy of this sight. I think it's the case that all of them were so bad that the accuracy wasn't improved so much as the ease of use. I'll poke about though, I agree it's useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
And of course Google's ever improving Books makes a liar out of me, there are now several references available on the topic! I've added a section on the topic and it is indeed a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Overall, the article reads well to me although there are some places where the prose could potentially be tightened with more economical wording. Although this might come up at FAC it seemed a very minor issue to me.
If you have any prose suggestions, by all means, suggest away. I'm here to improve the article, not to gain badges (not that those hurt...) Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Other than this I added some information to a reference but didn't see any obvious issues. My edit is here [3]. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service[edit]

Nominator(s): Hammersfan (talk)

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has been updated and amended since achieving GA status and I wish to take it to the next level along in the hope of eventually obtaining FA status Hammersfan (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: good work on this. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

  • in the lead, "...a number of different roles including air defence, close air support, low level strike and tactical reconnaissance." I wonder if some of these roles can be linked?
  • "RAF Leuchars, the UK's most northerly air defence base": the article on Leuchars itself says that the base was the second most northerly. Was Leuchars the most northerly at the time? If so perhaps say " RAF Leuchars, which was the UK's most northerly air defence base at the time";
  • in the Variations section, I suggest trimming the subheadings a little to remove the word "Between";
  • "AAM" - the abbreviation probably should be formally introduced on first mention, i.e "air-to-air missile (AAM)";
  • slightly redundant wording: "compared to the then current US Navy carriers of the period..." --> "compared to the US Navy carriers of the period";
  • there are a few terms that appear to be overlinked, for instance "English Electric", HMS Hermes (R12), De Havilland Sea Vixen, HMS Eagle (R05), HMS Ark Royal (R09), Aeroplane and Armament Experiment Establishment, Touch-and-go landing, RAF Leuchars, Royal Air Force and Royal Navy...are a few examples. If you install this script (User:Ucucha/duplinks) it will help you find the duplicate links so you can work out if they are totally necessary.
  • the citation style is a little inconsistent. For instance compare "Buttler 2000, pp. 118–119" with "Richardson, Doug (1984). "Chapter 3: Propulsion". Modern Fighting Aircraft F4. London: Salamander Books. p. 26. ISBN 0861011333." (There are other examples).
  • per MOS:ALLCAPS: " "Part 15. ROYAL AIR FORCE – Role & Operations. BATTLE ATLAS of the FALKLANDS WAR 1982 by Land, Sea and Air" --> " "Part 15. Royal Air Force – Role & Operations. Battle Atlas of the Falklands War 1982 by Land, Sea and Air";
  • the citation to "Legendary F4 Phantom jet fighter comes ashore in Larne" should have date, work or publisher and access/retrieved dates";
  • in the Further reading section, the word "since" probably should be capitalised in the titles to conform with the style of title case capitalization;
  • "lost a total of 9 of their..." --> " lost a total of nine of their..."
  • "1966–1969" --> "1966–1969" per WP:DATERANGE;
  • suggest linking "No. 229 Operational Conversion Unit RAF";
  • this probably needs a citation: "As a consequence, it was then decided to further reduce the FAA's Phantom fleet to just 28 aircraft. The remaining 20 aircraft were then allocated to the Royal Air Force."
  • same as above for: "The overall changes to the aircraft led to the two variants being given their own separate series letters, with the FAA version being designated as the F-4K and the RAF version as the F-4M."
  • as above for: "Eventually, the Tornado accounted for the two FG.1 squadrons at RAF Leuchars (43 and 111 Squadrons), plus two FGR.2 units (23 Squadron and 29 Squadron), with 56 and 74 Squadrons remaining with the Phantom."
  • as above for: "The Phantom's versatility was such that, in the RAF and Royal Navy, it was the direct replacement in squadron service for a total of four different aircraft types, with nine separate variants amongst them. In turn, when the Phantom was replaced in service, its major roles required three separate aircraft."
  • as above for the table in the "Aircraft replaced by and replacing the Phantom" section.
Gone through list and dealt with all above areas. Hammersfan (talk) 23:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
G'day, thanks, your changes look good. Thanks for your efforts. Please don't strike my comments, though, as it makes it harder for others to read. I've added my support, but have a couple more suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • this sentence is still unreferenced: "The Phantom subsequently served as the RAF's primary interceptor for over a decade until the introduction into service of the Panavia Tornado F.3 in 1987."
  • The "Basic specifications" table probably should be cited
  • The Further reading section should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks good on a quick run-through. Added a {{who}} tag. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Reworded this sentence slightly. All other issues attended to Hammersfan (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments -- I started copyediting with a view to a full review but it looks like other changes are happening simultaneously; pls ping me when done and I'll see about getting back to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please go ahead - I will hold off making any changes for now. Hammersfan (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:UK_F-4_Phantom_3-view.png: what is the original source of this image and what is its copyright status? The given source is not a reliable one. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Unable to find original source, so have replaced image with self-created one Hammersfan (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)