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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenting

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

After A-Class

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

edit

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Ahmad ibn Tulun[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine

Ahmad ibn Tulun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

In many ways this is a complementary article to an earlier nomination, Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid; Ahmad ibn Tulun was the first of the famous Turkish slave-soldiers to found his own dynasty, encompassing Egypt and the Levant, thereby beginning the process of fragmentation of the Abbasid Caliphate, even though he consciously imitated Abbasid models in statecraft and architecture, and never quite brought himself to breaking entirely loose from it. His example found many imitators (including al-Ikhshid), and as the first (virtually) independent ruler of Egypt since the Ptolemies, he also set a pattern for future Egypt-based regimes with his wars in Syria. The article was built by cobbling together a number of sources, as I don't have access to the still definitive account of the Tulunid dynasty, Zaky's Les Tulunides. Nevertheless, to my knowledge the article is the most complete English-language account of Ibn Tulun's life and times whether online or in print. Constantine 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Biography and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest (eventually). - Dank (push to talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

2/5th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/5th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another Second Australian Imperial Force infantry battalion. This one formed part of the 17th Brigade, which formed part of the 6th Division; it was only of only two Australian infantry battalions to fight against all the major Axis powers during the war. The article has recently passed a GA nomination and I would like to improve it further through the ACR process. Unfortunately, I only have the battalion history book for another three or four weeks, so I'm hoping to try to conclude the review in that time. Thank you to all who stop by. Thank you for your time. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: I copyedited down to North Africa, Greece and Syria 1941–42. Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Anotherclown, Ian Rose, Nick-D, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67, Parsecboy, and Zawed: G'day, all, sorry for the ping. I have to return my main source for this article in three weeks, so I'm hoping some of you might be able to review? @Anotherclown: I have expanded the post war details a bit, based on your comment at GAN. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks for your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments -- I've just had a go at the lead and infobox, will try and return later this w/e for further copyediting/review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Ian. I appreciate your time. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Spotchecked the rest of the article for consistency of "it" (the battalion) vs. "they" (the personnel), and made other prose tweaks. I don't feel comfortable supporting without reading every word but if the other reviewers are happy, coords pls don't hold up promotion on my account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Ian, I think it still has a while to run. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
  1. Link Puckapunyal in the lead
  2. Put (2nd AIF) after Second Australian Imperial Force
  3. The four rifle companies are hardly a nucleus, as they make up most of the battalion
  4. Link Port Melbourne, Victoria
  5. "the majority of the prisoners... The majority of the battalion," Overused phrase
  6. We can also afford to lose a "subsequently" or two
  7. "totaling" should be "totalling"
  8. "Due to the entry of Japan into the war, the battalion was subsequently ordered to return to Australia following a request by the Australian government as they were needed for the fighting in New Guinea." This is not correct. The British government decided to send the 6th Division to defend Indonesia. See Long, Greece, Crete and Syria, pp. 549-550
  9. "In early July, the battalion finally received orders to return to Australia, as the threat passed," -> "had passed"
  10. "the 17th Brigade was despatched to relieve Kanga Force" No, the 17th Infantry Brigade was sent to reinforce Kanga Force.
  11. "where they embarked on two Liberty ships, the Charles Steinmetz and Barsfontein". While the former was a liberty ship, the latter was not. It was a Dutch ship chartered by USASOS. And you have the name wrong too; it was the Boschfontein Here's a picture of it.
    FWIW, the 2/5th Battalion War Diary called it the "Bos Fontein". Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  12. "In 1948, the Citizens Military Force was re-constituted" Should be Citizen Military Forces

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Hawkeye7: Thanks, Hawkeye, I think I've got these. These are my edits: [1]. Please let me know if there is anything else you think needs work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs, external links check out / no dead links, no duplicate links, all images have alt text, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [2] (no action req'd).
    • Images all seem to be PD and have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look ok (no action req'd).
    • Should the lead mention Crete? (I think I mentioned this in the GA review but don't think we ended up doing so - was there a reason for this? If so then disregard of cse).
    • Prose here is a little repetitive: "After the battalion's personnel had assembled, between November 1939 and April 1940 the battalion..." ("the battalion" twice seems a little redundant).
    • There are a couple of longish paragraphs you might consider splitting:
      • The second paragraph of the "New Guinea 1942–45" section (perhaps break at "The battalion did not take part in any fighting")
      • The last paragraph of the "New Guinea 1942–45" section (perhaps break it at "Finally, late in the war...")
    • "Consisting primarily of small unit actions which inflicted proportionately heavy casualties..." do you mean "Consisting primarily of small unit actions which inflicted proportionately heavy casualties on both sides..."? I was a little confused on the exact meaning of this sentence. Perhaps clarify?
    • "The battalion was subsequently disbanded in early February 1946 while at Puckapunyal in Victoria..." Although you mention Puckapunyal in a few places earlier in the text this is the first time you mention that it is in Victoria. You should probably do that at first use I'd suggest instead.
    • The Bn's total casualty figures as per the AWM of 216 killed and 390 wounded are a little different from those available in Johnston The Proud 6th, p. 242 which states "149 KIA, 39 DOW, 5 DOAS, 401 WIA, 115 POW" - perhaps include these in a footnote to acknowledge the different information available?
    • Also you might consider including the casualty figures available in Johnston The Proud 6th for each campaign the bn was involved in (where you don't already have overall campaign figures). These are as fols:
      • Libya: 26 KIA, 6 DOW, 60 WIA (p. 242)
      • Greece: 18 KIA, 2 DOW, 28 WIA, 55 POW (p. 243)
      • Crete: 2 KIA, 1 DOW, 3 WIA, 58 POW (p. 243)
      • Syria: 9 KIA, 5 DOW, 28 WIA, 2 POW (p. 243)
      • Wau-Salamaua: 77 KIA, 15 DOW, 2 DOAS, 165 WIA (p. 244)
      • Aitape-Wewak: 27 KIA, 10 DOW, 2 DOAS, 116 WIA (p. 244)
    • I fixed a typo and a duplicate link and added a wikilink, these were my edits [3]. Anotherclown (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
      • @Anotherclown: Thanks for the review, AC. I think I've dealt with these issues. Please let me know if there is anything else that you think needs adjustment. These are my edits: [4]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
        • They look fine to me, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • I might swap "battle" and "combat" in the last line of the first paragraph in the formation section. Something about "battalion into battle" grates on my ears.
  • HMT Ettrick is probably worth a red link - seems to have been a liner, so the ship should be notable.
  • What happened to the remainder of the men who were sent to Crete? About 70 men were sent, and the casualty total only accounts for 64.
  • "ailing to Port Moresby from Milne Bay on the MV Duntroon, an advance party of two companies from the battalion was flown into Wau on 24 January to hastily reinforce the small force around Ballams, with the remainder – totalling about 450 men – arriving on 29 January, after which they secured the airfield, which was now under direct Japanese fire, as the two companies that had arrived earlier were pulled back from Ballams" - this is overly long and should be split. I'd probably put the break "..the small force around Ballams. The remainder &ndash totalling..."
  • Made a few tweaks - please check them for accuracy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

X-10 Graphite Reactor[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

X-10 Graphite Reactor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The world's second nuclear reactor, after Chicago Pile-1/Chicago Pile-2. The X-10 Graphite Reactor was part of a plutonium semiworks, a pilot plant for for the larger production facility at the Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I recently reviewed this article for GA, and consider it meets the A-Class criteria. I have reviewed the images, and consider they are all appropriately licensed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: Looks excellent to me. Not a lot leapt out. I made a couple of incredibly minor tweaks, and have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  • images seem appropriately licenced (no action required);
  • coverage and referencing look ok to me (no action required);
  • "construct the first atomic bombs" (move the link for atomic bomb from here to the first mention in the previous section);
  • "clad in aluminium" --> In US English, should it be "clad in aluminum"?
  • caps: "creating an Implosion-type nuclear weapon" --> "creating an implosion-type nuclear weapon"?
  • in the Notes: "National Historic Landmark summary listing" --> "National Historic Landmark Summary Listing"?
  • in the References: is there a place of publication for the Holl, Hewlett & Harris work?
    Yes check.svg Done All points addressed. Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert. I've copyedited down to Site selection and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Pećanac Chetniks[edit]

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

Pećanac Chetniks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This organisation was a collaborationist irregular force in the German-occupied territory of Serbia during 1941–1943. Its leader, Kosta Pećanac, was a famous Chetnik leader during the Balkan Wars and World War I. The article on Pećanac himself was one of the first articles I developed to FA back in 2013. This article passed GAN in late 2014 and I have recently made some tweaks to bring it up to the A-Class criteria. All suggestions for its improvement will be gratefully received. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, good work as usual. I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • in the infobox: "1941–1943" --> "1941–43" per WP:DATERANGE
  • irregular caps: " Association against Bulgarian Bandits" --> " Association Against Bulgarian Bandits";
  • "Pećanac was requested by the Yugoslav Ministry of the Army and Navy to prepare for guerrilla operations" --> "...the Yugoslav Ministry of the Army and Navy requested that Pećanac prepare for guerrilla operations..."?
  • "...reputation he had developed in the Balkan Wars and World War I." I wonder if a little bit more of Pećanac's previous service could be briefly mentioned in the Background?
  • "Nothing is known of Pećanac's activities..." --> "Nothing is recorded of Pećanac's activities"?
  • in the References is there a page range that can be provided for the Newman chapter within the Gerwarth and Horne book?
  • in the References: "Cornell UP" --> "Cornell University Press"
    • Thanks for the review Rupert. All done (there are my edits), just check the new first para of the Background section for more info on what he got up to earlier. Good pick-up BTW, reading it now, I can't work out how I thought that would be adequate... Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
      • No worries, those changes look good. I made a couple of minor tweaks; please check you are happy with those and feel free to adjust if not. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Formation and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, as always, Dan! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

2/48th Battalion (Australia)[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2/48th Battalion (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 2/48th Battalion was a 2nd AIF infantry battalion that was primarily recruited from South Australian volunteers. Fighting in the Middle East where it saw action at Tobruk and El Alamein, the 2/48th was part of the 9th Division and is considered to be Australia's most highly decorated unit of the war, with four members receiving the Victoria Cross for their actions during the war. I took this article to GA about five years ago, and having recently obtained a copy of the battalion history (temporarily through an inter library loan) I would like to improve it through the ACR process. Thank you to everyone who stops by. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments Great work taking this key topic on and developing the article to a high standard. I have the following comments:

  • "the battalion was formed around a nucleus of four rifle companies—designated 'A' through to 'D'" - is it possible to say when the support company was added?
  • The sentence starting with "Upon arrival in the Middle East" is a bit lengthy
  • "Shortly after this, the Germans landed forces in Africa to reinforce the Italians and the British forces in Libya were forced " - the Commonwealth (not just British) forces needed to retreat because the Germans went on the offensive, not that they landed
  • The half para starting with "The 26th Brigade was moved south" is a little bit unclear - swapping the order of the two sentences might help
  • "The 2/48th commenced their attack" - following on from the above, a bit more context would be helpful: I presume this was a counter-attack on Rommel's forces?
    • This actually relates to the previous paragraph; I've combined them now to hopefully make this a bit clearer. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Can anything be said about how (and when) the battalion was rebuilt after El Alamein?
  • "after which parades were held in every capital city" - did the 2/48th parade through Adelaide?
  • "after which he was commissioned and returned to the battalion as a lieutenant" perhaps note that this was highly unusual?
  • "the 2/48th was in the vanguard of the attack, leading the brigade in at 07:15 hours" - while I'm not sure of the exact timing, the 2/48th and 2/23rd Battalions landed alongside each other, so the 2/48th wasn't really the "vanguard"
  • "Throughout May and into June as the Australians pressed towards the island's airfield" - the airfield (and other low ground on the west coast) was captured within a few days of the landing: the main challenge was capturing the interior of the island
  • "mountain ranges" - while the terrain was very difficult, the island's interior is usually described as being hills
  • "the drive on Fukukaku" - perhaps tweak this to note that that Fukukaku was the main Japanese position Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D: Thanks for the review, Nick. I think I've addressed all of these points. These are my edits: [5]. Please let me know if you think anything else needs work. Regards AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work with this article 10:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Actions in North Africa and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • SupportComments - this article is looking very good, a few minor (mostly prose) points though:
    • All tool checks ok (all images have alt text, no dabs, external links check out, earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [6]) (no action req'd)
    • All images appear to be PD and have the req'd licences (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • "A unit of the all-volunteer Second Australian Imperial Force" - perhaps introduce the abbrev "2nd AIF" here (which you use in a note).
    • Repetitive prose here "The following month, the battalion marched through the city of Adelaide prior to its deployment overseas, and the following month..." ("following month" x s)
    • Some minor inconsistency in the presentation of ranks using hyphens (for instance you use "Lieutenant-General" and " Lieutenant General" and "Lieutenant-Colonel" vs "Lieutenant Colonel")
    • Wikilink Oakbank, Dimra, Mersa Matruh, Fuka (see Fukah), Trinity Beach, Henry T. Allen (see USS Henry T. Allen (APA-15)), Jivevaneng (which you have misspelled I think as "Jivevenang", Kalinga (see Kalinga, Queensland or Wooloowin), HMS Empire Spearhead,
    • Wording here seems a bit awkward: "The defence system at Tobruk..." perhaps instead consider "The defencive system at Tobruk..."
    • "... pushed five miles south..." perhaps use the convert template here?
    • "In late June 1942, Axis forces commanded by Erwin Rommel..." perhaps add Rommel's rank.
    • "As the Allies went on the advance, the battalion was withdrawn from the front and moved back to Tel el Eisa...", perhaps simplify to "As the Allies went on the advance, the battalion was moved back to Tel el Eisa..." (you've already mentioned it was withdrawn so doing so again seems a little repetitive to me)
    • "...had finally agreed to provide the necessary shipping to make this a reality..." consider something like "...had finally agreed to provide the necessary shipping for this to occur."
    • "The convoy carrying the battalion put into Fremantle in mid-February..." - this has already been mentioned in the final sentence of the last para so seems redundant. Perhaps lose the first instance?
    • "...as the Japanese launched a counteroffensive on the Australian lodgement..." consider instead: "...as the Japanese launched a counteroffensive against the Australian lodgement..."
    • Is there a missing word here: "being withdrawn back to Finschhafen, campaign..."
    • Move the wikilink for Manoora to here: "the battalion embarked upon the HMAS Manoora..." (you link it later on)
    • Wording is a little repetitive here: "Their next major engagement came in late May when the 2/48th was engaged..." ("engagement" and "engaged"). Perhaps reword one? Anotherclown (talk) 04:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
      • @Anotherclown: Thanks for the review. I think I've gotten everything. These are my edits: [7]. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Yes those changes look good, I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

27th Infantry Division Savska[edit]

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

27th Infantry Division Savska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Elements of this largely Croat-manned Yugoslav division began to mutiny before German units crossed the Yugoslav border in force, and even took over a city before it completely disintegrated in the face of the German assault. Recently promoted to GA. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this for GA, and I believe that this meets the A-class criteria as well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I've copyedited down to Structure and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. - Dank (push to talk) 20:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dabs, external links check out / no dead links, no duplicate links, all images have alt text, no issues with ref consolidation, Earwig tool reveals no issues with close paraphrase etc [8] (no action req'd).
    • Images all seem to be PD and have the req'd information (no action req'd).
    • Captions look ok (no action req'd).
    • Perhaps add the article to a few more categories (e.g. Category:Military units and formations established in 1935 and Category:Military units and formations disestablished in 1941 - assuming these dates are correct).
    • Are there some words missing here: "who refused to resist Germans they considered their liberators from Serbian oppression during the interwar period."? For instance this might be better: "who refused to resist the Germans which they considered their liberators from Serbian oppression during the interwar period."
    • Are casualty figures for the division provided by the sources available? I'm assuming from previous reviews of other Yugoslav formations that they are not but thought I'd ask just in case.
    • Likewise with the pre-war activities of the formation. Is there anything available on this? Anotherclown (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the review, Ac. Added a category and reworded as suggested. Casualty records were apparently shambolic, and none of the sources I have access to even give an indication. The key sources concentrate on the lead-up to war, and I am yet to locate a source in any language that talks about the Army in the 20s and early 30s in any detail. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
        • No worries, I've added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Günther Lützow[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Günther Lützow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it should be close to the criteria. Günther Lützow served in the Spanish Civil War and was the second pilot to claim 100 victories. He was killed in the final days of the war in Europe, his exact fate remains unknown. I hope you enjoy the read. Thanks for any feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments:

  • Good work on this. I made a few tweaks, but also have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • he really looks angry in the infobox image; I guess I don't like having my photo taken either! (no action required)
  • photo shop? I guess nothing I can do here to make him smile. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "including two victories flying the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter, one of which was a four-engined bomber" --> "including two victories—one of which was a four-engined bomber—flying the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter"
  • "an older sister, Liselotte (Elisabeth Charlotte), a younger brother, Hildegard, and the youngest brother, Joachim..." --> "an older sister, Liselotte (Elisabeth Charlotte), and two younger brothers, Hildegard and Joachim..."
  • reworded, but not exactly as requested MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Looks good, I'd wondered about that, but I wasn't sure about German names. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "He and 29 other trainees attended what was called Kameradschaft 31..." --> "He and 29 other trainees were part of Kameradschaft 31..."
  • "flew in the navigator position..." --> " flew in the navigator's position"
  • "Lützow volunteered for service with the Condor Legion, a unit composed of volunteers from the Luftwaffe and from the Heer which served with the Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War." --> "During the Spanish Civil War, Lützow volunteered for service with the Condor Legion, a unit composed of volunteers from the Luftwaffe and from the Heer which served with the Nationalists."
  • "aircraft, and shot down on 22 August 1937..." --> "...aircraft, which he shot down on 22 August 1937"
  • "World War II in Europe began on Friday 1 September 1939, when German forces invaded Poland." This seems a little ineligant. Did Lutzow participate in the invasion of Poland? If not, I suggest making this a bit clearer.
  • "This act ensured Lützow got in trouble with the SS and the NSDAP". I wonder if this could be explained a little more. In what way did he get into trouble? Was he investigated?
  • " The behavior of Lützow and the other leading pilots was regarded as mutiny by Göring". Perhaps this could be clarified. What did they do? Did they refuse to fly?
  • I added more context, please check if this helps. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • " An examination of U.S. records indicates that Lützow's..." who examined these records? e.g. "According to Smith, an examination..."
  • "Unable to recover from this dive, the American pilots observed the Me 262 crashing into a small hill. This Me 262 may have been piloted by Lützow" v. "and Second Lieutenant William H. Myers then jointly went after another Me 262 which went into an even steeper dive. The Me 262 was seen crashing into the ground and exploding. The Me 262 chased by Mast and Myers was Lützow's and had been flying furthest to the south". One sentence seems to speculate, and the other seems to state the conclusion categorically.
  • Good point, reworded 2nd sentence to reflect the fact that this was one possible outcome. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am happy that this meets the A-class criteria, so I've added my support. Good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Legion-Condor-Badge-2nd-Squadron-Fighter-Group-88.jpg: for completeness, should include a copyright tag for the original design as well
  • Can you assist? Not sure how you want this done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • File:Operation_Barbarossa_corrected_border.png: don't think this is sufficiently changed to warrant a new copyright from the original
  • File:Messerschmitt_Me_262A_at_the_National_Museum_of_the_USAF.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what exactly the ask is. Do I just remove the link? Sorry for asking MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No worries - if possible, you should replace the link with an updated one. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
  • done, there is another link to a high res version. Please let me know if this is okay now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Recently, I've been doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Spanish Civil War and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Support I reviewed this article for GA, and with the above mentioned improvements I consider it meets all the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

M3 Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk)

M3 Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it seems good enough for the rating. It has gone through a GA review , a major rewrite and is currently pending at DYK. It is a a (relatively) well-known US half-track that was designed in the summer of 1941 as an interim design for a tank destroyer. It was used in the defense of the Philippines and North Africa. Production was halted in 1943 due to release of better TDs, like the M10 GMC. I hope this passes. Thanks for you comments before hand,Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions. Regards: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • The name in the infobox is different from the article title;
    • why the scare quotes here (in the lead): in "tank destroyer battalions" - these probably aren't necessary;
    • inconsistent caps: "M3 Half-track" v. "M3A1 half-tracks";
    • "pilot vehicles" --> "prototypes";
    • I suggest moving Production out of the "American use" section;
    • I suggest creating an "Operational service" section, with "US" and "Allied" subsections;
    • per the MOS, do not start sentences with numerals;
    • caption: "A picture of the M3 Gun Motor Carriage" --> this sounds more like alt text, than a caption. I suggest tweaking.
      • All done. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
        • G'day, I made a few more tweaks. These are my edits: [9]. Please check that you are happy with these changes. I've added my support now as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentSupport
    • Tool checks all ok (alt text, external links, dabs, no duplicate links, Earwig tool reports no issues with close paraphrase [10])
    • Does File:The British Army in Italy 1945 NA22387.jpg need a PD-US tag?
    • The first two sentences of the lead seem a bit repetitive. For instance is there a need to repeat "M1897A4 gun on the M3 chassis"? Perhaps reword the first sentence?Yes check.svg Done
    • These two sentences in the lead should probably be merged: "The T12/M3 first served in the Philippines Campaign in 1942. It served with the Provisional Field Artillery Regiment in the anti-tank and the fire-support role." For instance it might work better like this: "The T12/M3 first served in the Philippines Campaign in 1942 with the Provisional Field Artillery Regiment in the anti-tank and the fire-support role."Yes check.svg Done
    • In the lead "It was used ineffectively in the Battle of Kasserine Pass and a few others..." suggest instead "It was used ineffectively in the Battle of Kasserine Pass and a several other engagements..."Yes check.svg Done
    • Also in the lead "The M3 GMC also served in the Pacific theater, starting with the Battle of Saipan..." perhaps mention it served with the US Marines in this theatre (otherwise the implication might seem to be US Army by omission).Yes check.svg Done
    • Wikilink self propelled artilleryYes check.svg Done
    • "The Japanese captured a few vehicles and used them in the defense of the Philippines." Perhaps add a year(s) for context?Yes check.svg Done
    • "By 1942, M3 GMCs became part of tank destroyer battalions, which...." This paragraph is (initially) referring to the North African campaign; however, it doesn't state this and I think this would not be clear to some readers. Perhaps mention this?Yes check.svg Done
    • Is there an article for the M10 GMC? If so it should be wikilinked, if not probably should redlink it as I imagine it would be notable. Anotherclown (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
      • The majority of my points have been addressed so I've added my support. The only outstanding concern I have is the tagging for File:The British Army in Italy 1945 NA22387.jpg. @Nikkimaria: or @AustralianRupert: - if either of you have the time would it be possible to get your opinion/s as to whether this file needs some sort of PD-US tag? I've no clue about such issues. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Gordon Gollob[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Gordon Gollob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Gollob was the first fighter pilot to claim 150 aerial victories, was appointed wing commander, and succeeded Adolf Galland as the last General der Jagdflieger. I hope to have captured his biography sufficiently to qualify the article for A-Class. Thanks for the review MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Support I recently reviewed this article at GA, including an image review, and did a light c/e. I believe it also meets the A-Class criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Comments: G'day, I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
    • "Due to a fear that he would be killed in action, Gollob..." --> "Due to concerns that he would be killed in action, Gollob..."?
    • "In preparation of Operation Barbarossa..." --> "In preparation for Operation Barbarossa..."?
    • "At the time, II. Gruppe primary objective was..." --> "At the time, II. Gruppe's primary objective was.."
    • "claimed two I-61 and..." --> "claimed two I-61s and..."
    • "claimed three I-16, one Pe-2 and one I-61..." --> "claimed three I-16s, one Pe-2 and one I-61..."
    • "credited with three R-5 and..." --> "credited with three R-5s and..."
    • "wingman" is potentially overlinked
    • in the Bibliography, "Mechanicsburg" --> which state/country is this?
    • "File:Theresianische Militaerakademie DSC 6487w.jpg": probably needs a freedom of panorama licence also, per [11]
    • "File:Geschwaderwappen Jagdgeschwader 77.png": not sure about this one, but I think it should probably have a PD-Shape licence
      • Thanks for the review, I addressed all your comments above. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
        • No worries, I've added my support now. Good luck with taking this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
          • @AustralianRupert: for the record, @P e z i:, commons:user:P e z i has reverted your request for a freedom of panorama licence on "File:Theresianische Militaerakademie DSC 6487w.jpg" MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
            • No worries, I'm not sure I understand the editor's reason for this, but I wouldn't worry too much about it. Bottom line is, I believe, that the image is ok to use, so it's all good as they say. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
              • No need for worries. The image is OK: This building dates back to the year 1752 - which kind of copyright should there be? IMO the FoP license makes sense with recently constructed building but not with ancient architecture. BTW, thanks for using my pic! :) Cheers --P e z i (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • Substitute "he" for "Gollob" when "he" wouldn't be ambiguous, except after breaks and mini-breaks.
  • I've copyedited down to World War II and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, do I have to take action here? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Theodore Komnenos Doukas[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine

Theodore Komnenos Doukas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

One of the most energetic, ambitious, and indefatigable of the post-Fourth Crusade Greek rulers, Theodore captured Thessalonica from the Latins and almost succeeded in recovering Constantinople too and restoring the Byzantine Empire 30 years before it actually happened. He was then captured by the Tsar of Bulgaria, released when the latter became his son-in-law, deposed his brother to regain Thessalonica, and ruled it via his sons for several years before it was captured by the Empire of Nicaea. In a final act of defiance against Nicaea he urged his nephew the ruler of Epirus (whom he had deposed at the beginning of his reign) to launch a joint attack, which failed. All in all, he could have been an exemplary character from Game of Thrones... The article was thoroughly rewritten using several high-quality sources (Varzos' biographical work in particular), and is quite complete and comprehensive. It passed GA yesterday, and I'd like to take it to FA eventually. Constantine 15:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Support: Good work with this one, it looks like it meets the A-class criteria to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • tool check: there are no dabs, the ext links all work, and alt text is present (no action required);
  • the duplicate link checker tool identifies the following links as duplicates: Despotate of Epirus, Macedonia (region), Thessaly, Baldwin II of Constantinople, Battle of Klokotnitsa, Alexios I Komnenos, and Maria Petraliphaina;
  • the article appears to be well referenced to reliable sources and uses a citation style that appears to be consistent (no action required);
  • in the Sources section, could the foreign language titles be translated (you do this for Varzos, but not the others)?
  • "File:Theodor I. Despot von Epirus.jpg": needs a US licence also on the image description page;
  • "File:Stefan the First-Crowned, fresco from Mileševa.jpg": seems to be missing quite a few details on the image description page and the description probably should be translated into English; additionally, I think that the PD-Art licence needs adjustment to include a licence parameter;
  • "File:Peter 2 of Courtenay.jpg": needs a US licence;
  • "File:John III Doukas Vatatzes.jpg": the PD-Art licence needs adjustment to include a licence parameter;
  • "File:Tsar Ivan Asen II cropped.png": needs a US licence as well. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks a lot AustralianRupert for taking the time to review this. The issues you have raised have been addressed. Per the usual question, aside from the narrow ACR criteria, is there anything you'd like to see improved? Were you able to follow the article or should more background info be provided somewhere? Constantine 21:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
No worries. Yes, it seemed fine to me in those regards. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

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

  • " In the event": Avoid this phrase; it will confuse most English speakers.
  • "In ca. 1210": Around 1210
  • Recently, I've started doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. I've copyedited down to Ruler of Epirus and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a problem at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
As usual, thanks for your improvements. I've replaced "in ca." and "in the event", although regarding the latter (and similar cases in the past) I must confess it always puzzles me why a perfectly fine English phrase, which I learned from English books, should be changed for being "confusing" to English-speakers... Anyhow, looking forward to the rest of your copyedits :) Constantine 11:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
G'day, from my perspective I think the term has gone out of favour in professional writing recently. I'm in my early 30s now (on the cusp of Gen X and Gen Y), and I certainly grew up reading books that included the term, and was comfortable with what it meant. However, of late I've not seen it used much. I don't really know why, but I suspect that younger readers wouldn't understand what it means, having probably never come across it. Dan will no doubt be able to explain the reasons better than me. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
That's one great reason, AR, thanks for that. The other reason is that, for most English speakers, "in the event" means "in case", and they've never made the connection to the other meaning. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Dank, I realize the reason behind your recommendation, and my comment above was not meant as criticism in any way. It was just an attempt to voice my unease with the line of argument "let's abandon something because nobody else recognizes it", at least in language use (and in utter antithesis to my RL job as an engineer). I've always considered it fun to encounter new/weird/archaic words or phrases, and IMO, language shouldn't be simplified; quite the reverse, one should struggle to keep it as rich as possible. Consequently, pruning it to remove phrases that are now beginning to fall out of use strikes me as unconstructive. "In the event" is IMO a very handy phrase, and replacing it with "Finally", or "In the end" is not quite the same. However, perhaps this is just the opinion (and frustration) of someone who actually enjoyed learning Ancient Greek at school, and I realize many people probably don't share my enthusiasm... (Rant over). Constantine 13:38, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Nike-X[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Nike-X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is one of a series of articles on US Army anti-ballistic missile efforts spanning the 1950s to 1980s. Perhaps one of the least known among these efforts, Nike-X was by far the most technically advanced and capable. It was "defeated" largely by its cost-exchange ratio, not technical problems, and the logic behind this decision illustrates the underlying problems with the entire ABM concept. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Looks like a quality article. I'm doing less at A-class these days, but I'll be happy to tackle it at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 06:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Should I just take it there @Dank:?
At least two Milhist reviewers tend to review here rather than at FAC, and lots of people review at A-class off and on. A-class reviews tend to be helpful and on-target, but occasionally there's a long wait to get 3 reviews. Your call. It's all good. - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Then I'll just let it roll! Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Update: starting today, I'm doing the same things at A-class that I've been doing at Peer Review, and not supporting or opposing. So, here's your peer review: I've copyedited down to Zeus problems and skimmed the rest, and I don't think prose issues will be a stopper at WP:FAC, if you want to take it there after you're done here. At FAC, I'll be happy to support on prose and copyedit the rest, although I may wait until you get one or two supports first. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • use re-entry vehicle and ARPA in full at first mention, then abbreviate
Done, although I only found a single RV.
  • threat tube, cost-exchange ratio, ad hoc, atmospheric filtering, decluttering, He later added that, harden, clutter fence, types, pulse chain, Search Signal Processor, Video Pulse Converter, surveillance mode, threat verification, engagement mode, space array, shouldn't be in italics per MOS:ITALICS
"A technical term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted."
  • suggest using ABM in full the first time it is used in the body
Done.
  • would not eaffect the operation
Done.
  • jammers is mentioned, but nothing about what these were
Good point.
  • ability of the U. S. has an errant space
Fixed.
  • what the offence would do, suggest opposition
Agreed, reads more smoothly.
  • 6-to1 needs an extra dash
Fixed.
  • US Army needs some periods for consistency with U.S. Route 70, and ability of the U.S. as do others. I know the Chicago MOS deprecates the periods, but I think the curent reading for WP is that we aim for consistency within an article.
I went the "other way" instead, as I've had complains about U.S. in previous articles.
  • I don't think redlinking "see also:"'s is kosher ie HIBEX etc
I'm loath to remove this because I have an article on that in prep.
  • suggest argued against such a system using a model in which both the Soviets and the U.S. have 100 ICBMs. the current formulation is conversational
I could not find an easier way to explain this though, and similar formulations similar to this appear in Kaplan.
  • An even greater existential threat to whom? I assume the Soviets? Suggest The U.S. Navy's Polaris missile fleet posed a far greater existential threat to the U.S.S.R. than Soviet missiles posed to the U.S., because it was largely...
Fixed - and no, the threat was to the Air Force. Polaris could do everything Minuteman could, but was essentially invulnerable to attack.
  • allowing a small number of Sprints to defend
Fixed.
  • suggest force any counterforce jars a bit
Agreed.
  • suggest the tense is a bit patchy, Unfortunately, this also leads being current tense, preceded by the idea was simply
I have this problem in much of my writing, largely because I write it over long periods. If you see more examples, let me know.
  • fighting broke out seems a little colloquial in this context. Perhaps disagreements arose, while specifying between whom
Better?
  • suggest replacing would have to have with would require
Done.
  • worth pointing out that Rostow was NSA, and Rusk was SECSTATE
Indeed.
  • at the same Ccomplex
Changed, but is this the right case? It is both a description and a proper name.
  • re-entry is rendered as reentry at times, aim for consistency with hyphenation
Removed hyphens, following the RV article.
  • no alt text on images (this is an accessibility issue for screen readers, but is not required at ACR)
  • checklinks comes up with 403 (dead link) errors on Ritter 2010 and Reed 1991, and timed-out on Moeller 1995
All fixed.

Wow Maury, an incredibly detailed article on what I found to be quite a hard to grasp subject, but I was low-tech soldier, an AN/PRC-25 radio dazzled me... Jokes aside, there are lots of tech-jargon, initialisations and acronyms which all affect readability. The article also exceeds 9,500 words, making it a very long read. So, readability is definitely an issue, and I would seriously consider spinning off some sub-articles and leaving a summary in their place in order to make it more readable, especially if you want to take this to FAC. I also suggest alternating the images left and right to break up the text a bit more, rather than have them all on the right. I'd also add a few more images if you retain the article at this length. Make sure all the sources that have a numerical identifier like ISSN, OCLC etc have one. If my MOS/prose comments are addressed, I'd still be keen to support promotion on that score, but the readability issue is a real concern, and I think it might be an obstacle at FAC. Well done for a very comprehensive article on a technical and complex subject. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well this is bad. I spent a significant amount of time trying to ensure I explained every term and give clear examples of how the various tradeoffs worked out. My impetus for writing this article is that in spite of studying this issue since I was a kid, there is no single article on the topic that really explains how it is that the US figured they were better off with no defense. That is a mystery worth explaining, IMHO. Yes, it is complex, and it was even moreso for the people actually involved, but that, to me, argues for a long article that really explains it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too miz, Maury. I'm just one reviewer, and I wouldn't be opposing at FAC, I just wouldn't support at this length. I think there is plenty of scope for a 2–3 spinoffs that would trim the content of this article down a bit. Just a reminder about the ISSNs for the magazines, and alternating the images left and right per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
The only things holding up my support here are sources lacking numerical identifiers, some sort of response to my point about alternating images, and perhaps a few more images given the article length. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I've added any numerical identifiers that I could find. Hope this helps. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions: this is an impressive article, Maury. Thank you for your efforts. I wasn't able to get through the full article, as I am out of my depth with something this technical, so I can't comment on those aspects. But I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  • at five paragraphs, the lead is too long per WP:LEAD; it may be possible to merge a paragraph somewhere;
Fixed.
  • as an American topic, I believe the article should use US English variation; however, I spotted some British English, e.g. “kilometres” and “defence”. Mainly these are in the convert templates – you can force these to use US spelling by adding “|sp=us” to the template ;
Neat trick, added.
  • “would still die in an all-out exchange…” --> I suggest potentially rewording this slightly to make it clear that this didn’t happen, maybe: “would still have died in the event of an all-out exchange”?
Removed that section.
  • the page range presentation in the References/citations appears inconsistent;
Sorry, can you be more specific? Or is that leading to...
Sure, an example of the inconsistency is "p. 2-17" v "pp. 37–38". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ahhh, yes, this is actually correct. The Bell reference uses section-dash-page numbering style. It's confusing, I agree. Open to any suggestions here.
  • the citation style appears slightly inconsistent, with the majority being short citations but some using longer form, e.g. Holst, Clearwater, Cochrane etc.
I use a simple rule: if I'm using the reference in a single para or block I use an inline, if I refer to it all over I use a redirect. This makes both the edit-text and references block easier to read and understand, IMHO.
Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • “File:East oblique of missile site control building - Stanley R. Mickelsen Safeguard Complex, Missile Site Control Building, Northeast of Tactical Road; southeast of Tactical Road South, HAER ND-9-B-9.tif” – this would probably be more visually appealing if the border were cropped. I can do this for you, if you would like;
Feel free, by all means! And do you have move permissions? The file name is a bit ridiculous.
Had to upload a new version as my computer doesn't like .tif. New file is here: File:Stanley R Mickelsen Safeguard Complex Missile Site Control (cropped).jpg. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
  • “and President Johnson didn't ask for it” --> probably best to avoid contractions;
Fixed.
  • “there simply isn't enough” --> as above;
Done.
  • “system simply wasn't worth deploying” --> as above;
Done.
  • in the Bibliography, the works should probably be in alphabetical order, e.g. Hayward before Kaplan, Read and Ritter before Technical etc.
Done.
  • are there citations that could be added for Notes A, B, C, F, G and H?
  • “around $5 billion ($36 billion today)” --> probably best to define what “today” means, e.g. “in 2015 terms”, or whatever is accurate;
This is actually "today", it's being calculated when the article is displayed.
No worries, then. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, AustralianRupert: Maury, if you're headed to FAC, you should worry. See WP:INFLATION for the template description. You want {{Inflation|US|595|1982|fmt=eq}} (their example), with fmt=eq, not fmt=c. WP:DATED prohibits (prohibits at FAC, at least) "today", regardless of whether a template is responsible. - Dank (push to talk) 04:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't make a difference (at FAC) that the year is updated automatically, because the reader won't be expecting that ... they'll assume that "today" means the same thing it would on other Wikipedia pages, that is, on whatever day the edit was made. So the prohibition at WP:DATED applies. - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops. I just noticed the figure you're inflating is $40B. See the disclaimer at the top of WP:INFLATION. I know there's a problem using the inflation template, but I don't know where to direct you for a better conversion table. Not really my area. Sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 04:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
All of this makes me laugh. If this is all we have left to argue about at the highest levels of the wiki MOS world, the project is doomed. DOOMED!
  • be careful of grocer’s apostrophes: “…and 54 Titan II's.” (should just be “Titan IIs”)
Ok, what is the rule here?
Apostrophes denote contractions or possession, in this case it is be used incorrectly for a plural. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ahhh, never heard the term "grocer’s apostrophes" before.
  • “held in a 4 bit register” --> probably should be “held in a 4-bit register” (I think…)
Fixed.
  • “where a 500 ton ball of…” --> probably should be “where a 500-ton ball of…”.
It's an nbsp there - and I've been told repeatedly never use a dash here.
G'day, it is a compound adjective, I believe. Per the Manual of Style (MOS:NUM): "To form a value and a unit name into a compound adjective use a hyphen or hyphens "... I'm not really a grammarian, though, so maybe I'm wrong. I'll ping Dan. @Dank: thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
500-ton. If you use a convert template with "adj=on", you'll see they insert the hyphen in front of a written-out unit of measure (ton), but not in front of an abbreviation (ml). - Dank (push to talk) 04:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Update: I have read over the article again, and overall I'm fairly happy that it meets the A-class criteria. If my points above can be addressed, I'd be happy to support promotion. Happy to discuss any points of my review that you don't agree with. Regards. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
    • Most of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to support. I think there is just Sturm's comment about the radars left. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Support a truly impressive article. I found the technical aspects, but especially the strategic considerations behind its (non-)deployment very well explained. I made a few tweaks here and there, but I feel the prose is fine. Well done! Constantine 17:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry for the tardiness in all this, but as of 320am last night I'm a new dad again! I'll be getting to any lingering points Wednesday. Peace! Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Great news, congratulations! Anotherclown (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Say hello to the little one for me. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! AustralianRupert (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, poor guy was a little early on the draw, so after a week sleeping in a chair at the hospital we got the all clear on Sunday and finally came home. So far so good! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments - This article looks in fairly good shape to me so I've only got a few comments:
    • Every paragraph of the lead starts using the same construction: "Nike-X was", "Nike-X addressed" and "Nike-X would be". This is a bit repetitive so perhaps reword a few?
      • Couple of tweaks there.
    • Per Wikipedia:Hatnote linking to redlinks is generally not preferred, that said if you are intending on creating these articles shortly I wouldn't advise removing them just to have to add them again later.
      • Removed.
    • It might pay to briefly mention the Cold War and the Nuclear arms race and other related concepts in order to provide context as to why this system was developed.
      • Very true.
    • A few abbreviations used are not expanded at first use (I saw ICBM and TACMAR at least, not sure if there are others)
      • Fixed.
    • There seems to be a typo or some sort artifact from an accidental edit that is resulting in a url being displayed here in the text: "and the MAR would then perform triangulation.[73] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nike-X&action=edit#..."
      • Fixed?
        • Yes this seems to have been sorted. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The use of inconsistent citation formats (i.e. short cites such as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 5–25" and longer cites "Clearwater, John (1996). Johnson, McNamara, and the Birth of SALT and the ABM Treaty 1963–1969. Universal-Publishers. p. 33. ISBN 9781581120622") probably needs to be rectified to meet the criteria.
      • As noted above, this was deliberate and I know it passes FAC (AI Mk. IV).
        • Ok, if FAC has no issues with it then its up to you I guess (although I maintain that it is inconsistent, also it means that your bibliography is incomplete). Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Page ranges in your short cites are not always consistently presented. For instance they should be "pp.1–2" using a double "p" and an en-rule. In some places you do this correctly and in others you use a single "p" and a hyphen, for instance "p.1-2"
      • And this is due to the Bell reference, which uses this format. I'm open to any/all suggestions on better ways to address this.
        • Take refs 67 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, p. 2-22") vs 68 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 2–22"). Its a subtle difference but do each of these citations refer to the same work and pages? If so it needs to follow the same format (i.e. "pp" and use an enrule) otherwise the sfn template will not automatically consolidate them because it assumes they are different). Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
        • Also ref 78 (which you present as "Bell Labs 1975, pp. 9–1"). Should this be "pp. 9–10"? Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • The bibliography is not quite alphabetically sorted, i.e. you have the author "Technical Editor" listed after "Pursglove" but before "Reed".
      • Fixed.
    • Some of the works in the bibliography are missing an isbn/oclc/issn etc. These can be found at Worldcat.org if you decide you want to add them to be consistent with the other works used. Anotherclown (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Many of these have been done now, although I note that ref 42 "Freedman, Lawrence (2014). U.S. Intelligence and the Soviet Strategic Threat. Princeton University Press. p. 123." still lacks an isbn. Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
        • A couple of other (very minor) points:
          • There are a few websites used as citations which seem to be missing some bibliographic info (specifically access dates, but also sometimes publisher and author etc (e.g. Orlov, Alexander. "A "Hot" Front in the Cold War". Central Intelligence Agency" and "Squirt Missile Ready to Fire". White Sands Missile Range Museum"). If this information is available it should probably be added.
          • All works used as references are missing place of publication. As far as I'm aware its not a requirement but you might consider adding it (suggestion only). Anotherclown (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • for everyone at the Holloman Air Force Base Delete the "the"
Fixed.
  • Suggest that these two sentences be combined: To hold the 5,800 staff and their dependents, the radar and its underground equipment areas had to be completely emptied. Starting in 1970, the radar began to be dismantled.
Nice, like that one.
  • Need links for some specialized electronic/computer terms like diode, strip line, and register
Added.
  • S band, etc., should be hyphenated when followed by a noun like radar.
Following the articles on these, there's no hyphen.
  • The detailed sections on the radars should probably be spun off into their own articles and summarized here, focusing on the operational aspects. They're extremely technical and I expect that most readers will bog down in them or skip them entirely.
  • That's all I caught on my first readthrough. I'll give it another pass once all of the remaining comments have been addressed. Take your time, I expect that sleep will be in short supply for a while. And, BTW, congrats.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
    • What the status on summarizing the details on the radars?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Support

OK I've made lots of little tweaks, and now I think we've covered most of the above. In summary:

  • a couple more refs, more to provide readable information than to cover gaps in the existing ones
  • reduced the radar sections to remove most of the tech and be largely a description of how and why it did what it did
  • Various GR tweaks and such

Which leaves:

  • I did not move the images. Reading over the MOS it seems this is used mostly when the images would otherwise be too clustered. If there's a problem here it's the opposite one, and when I did some experiments moving them I found they moved over the sub-headers which was very bad looking.
  • Page numbering. The problem here is the Bell references, which uses dashes in its page numbers. I'm open to any suggestions here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: you are the only reviewer who may not have come to a resolution on this article. I'm thinking that this is pretty much ready for passing, unless you have any repechages? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:53, 3 February 2016 (UTC)