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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commenting

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

After A-Class

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

edit

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

T48 Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

The article underwent a GA Review earlier on this month, while after the GA revie2 it underwent some recent copyediting. It is currently undergoing a DYK, and I hope this passesTomandjerry211 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine

Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The biography of one of the main regional warlords that dominated the fracturing Abbasid Caliphate in the early 10th century. As general and as ruler of Syria and Egypt he showed himself capable, wily, but also prudent and restrained. I greatly expanded this article in January, using the main prosopographical study on him and a few complementary sources. It passed a thorough GA review, and I feel it is ready for ACR scrutiny. With whatever suggestions for improvement made here, it will hopefully one day make a fine FA candidate. Constantine 16:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • I'm making some small tweaks to make it more accessible to a broad readership, but overall, your writing skill is terrific. Your articles brighten up the Main Page.
  • " he was later released and spent his life until his death in 957 in retirement": "his life until his death" is discordant, and "retirement" raises an unanswered question (what he was retired from). It's probably better to say that he wasn't doing (whatever he wasn't doing), if that's the point.
  • " Thus in 936/7 or 937/8 (most likely in autumn 937)": Personally, I think this slows the story down; I'd just go with "Most likely in autumn 937"
  • " The meeting was not entirely fruitless, as al-Ikhshid secured from the Caliph the recognition of his authority over Egypt, Syria with the thughur as well as the Hejaz (carrying with it the prestigious guardianship of the two holy cities of Mecca and Medina) for himself and his sons for thirty years, an arrangement that echoed the similar agreement between the Tulunid Khumarawayh and Caliph al-Mu'tamid in 886." I don't follow.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As usual, thanks for your thorough and well-considered copyedits. I've further rewritten the areas mentioned in the 2nd and 4th bullet points above, hopefully for the better. On the third, I did consider it but the gain in text fluency is IMO not that great. I prefer to leave it as it is. Constantine 11:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure thing. What does 936/7 mean? MOSNUM has advice on this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It is the common way in literature of rendering the Hijri years into Common Era ones in the usual case where they don't coincide (in this case AH 325 and 326). Constantine 12:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Körös[edit]

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

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

Toolbox

SMS Körös saw action at Belgrade and elsewhere in WWI as part of the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla, and after transfer to the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), she saw service as Morava during the Axis invasion in April 1941. Scuttled, she was raised and served the Navy of the Axis puppet state the Independent State of Croatia as Bosna until she hit a mine and sank in June 1944. My second ACR foray with river monitors of Yugoslavia following the recent promotion of Yugoslav monitor Vardar. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "120 mm (4.7 in)/L35 guns": There are a lot of things that would work for me, such as "120 mm (4.7 in), 35-caliber guns", but not this. This notation suggests that "(4.7 in)" is part of the name of the gun.
  • Search throughout for "subsequently", and replace it with soon, later, later on, consequently, or something else, depending on its meaning.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments Who said that river monitors are boring? This ship certainly had a busy career! I have the following comments:

  • Can anything be said about the ship in the periods 1892-1914 or 1920-1941?
  • "The following day, Körös assisted SMS Enns when she took a direct hit and began to take on water." - which ship was hit is a bit unclear (I'd suggest tweaking this to "The following day, Körös assisted SMS Enns when the latter took a direct hit and began to take on water" or similar)
  • Was the ship's armament changed over time? The anti-aircraft guns obviously wouldn't have been part of her original fit out.
  • "Morava was subsequently raised and repaired by the navy of an Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, in which she served as Bosna." - I take it that no date is available here?
  • "She struck a mine and sank in June 1944" - similarly, I imagine that a location isn't available? (I imagine that this was the result of the very successful mining campaign against the Danube conducted by Allied heavy bombers, in case that helps with further research) Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Labuan[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

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

Toolbox

The battle of Labuan was a fairly one-sided engagement fought between a heavily-supported Australian Army brigade and a weak Japanese battalion on an island off the coast of Borneo in June 1945. The engagement was one of two battles which took place during the Australian-led invasion of the Borneo Bay region, which is now generally regarded as a less-than-necessary operation.

I have drawn on a wide range of sources in developing this article, and it passed a GA nomination in January. It has since been expanded and copy-edited, and I'm hopeful that it meets the A-class criteria. I'm also considering further developing the article to FA status, so any comments in that direction would be appreciated.

I should note that I have a family connection with the events of this battle: my granddad was a member of the 2/43rd Battalion during its operations on Labuan and the eastern shore of Brunei Bay, though it saw relatively little fighting in this particular engagement. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "subsequently" (throughout): replace by soon, later, later on, or consequently, depending on the meaning.
    • I've thinned it out a bit Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Where it appears, I can't tell whether you mean "soon", "later", or (in at least one case) "consequently". All three are common meanings in articles that show up at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "would subsequently assault Balikpapan on 1 July": was to assault Balikpapan on 1 July
  • "The 24th Brigade Group was carried by the Australian landing ships infantry HMAS Manoora and Westralia, as well as ten Landing Ship, Tank, five landing Craft Infantry, seven Landing Ship Medium and one landing ship dock from the United States Navy. A total of 38 LCVPs and 26 Landing Craft Mechanized were": Ugh. Unparsable for anyone who doesn't know the jargon.
    • Not sure that there's a better way of presenting it though? - my sources used similar formulations. The links to the different ship types should help here. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Your sources were written with a readership in mind that knows military jargon. How will the typical reader be able to make sense of "ten Landing Ship, Tank, five landing Craft Infantry"? How about "ten landing craft for tanks, five for infantry", etc.? - Dank (push to talk)
        • That seems to be simplifying things too much IMO, and would introduce inaccuracies given that the ships didn't necessarily carry these loads (eg, elements of the infantry battalions were transported in LSTs). While there's doubtlessly scope for improvement, similar formulations in the Battle of Arawe and Battle of Morotai articles were judged FA-worthy prose ;) Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Searching for "landing craft" in Battle of Arawe, I get three hits: "five Landing Craft Tank (LCT) and 14 Landing Craft Medium (LCM)" and "two LCVPs (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel)". In all 3 cases, you gave the reader consistent capitalization, acronyms, and links so they could find out what these things were. Without those visual clues, readers who don't know the jargon have no way of guessing that, in this case, an X Y (both nouns) is a kind of X rather than a kind of Y. (How likely is it that "post office box" would mean a kind of post office rather than a kind of box, or that "garage door" would mean a kind of garage?) - Dank (push to talk) 05:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Thanks Dank - I've standardised on the acronyms for the smaller craft and LSTs (which is what the sources generally use). Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
              • Some reviewers may not be on board with your solution, but I like it and I'll be happy to say so at FAC ... the full names aren't enlightening, they're confusing. (On top of the big grammar problem, some of these things weren't carrying what the name suggests, as you say, and "landing ship dock" reverses the grammar of all the other landing ships ... it's actually a dock.) Three suggestions for getting this to fly at FAC: 1. If you're going with acronyms for these things, do it consistently ... always use acronyms, links, and consistent capitalization. I made those edits. 2. Preface it with "a variety of landing ships" if you've got a bunch of them listed; I made that edit too. 3. If reviewers still complain, be ready to add a footnote that explains the acronyms, for readers who don't want to click on the links.
                • Thanks for that Dank. I can also argue that the acronyms are the WP:COMMONNAME for the ship types. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
                  • Agreed with that too, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "6.51 am" (throughout): See first sentence of WP:MOSTIME.
  • "became bogged": bogged down?
    • Given this is referring to a single tank getting stuck in mud, "became bogged" seems better: "bogged down" in this kind of context is usually used to describe a military force which can't meet an objective. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Agreed, but "bog" (without "down") isn't listed in Cambridge Dicts, Oxford Dicts, or AHD. How about "stuck in the mud"? - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks a lot for your review and edits Dank Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • A couple of the images appear to lack alt text so you might consider adding it for consistency [1] (suggestion only - not an ACR requirement).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions mostly look fine - one minor question:
      • "An infantry company's radio team on 26 June" - is "radio team" correct terminology for the period? I'd have called them signalers.
        • Good point: the AWM database calls it a "signalling position", and I've tweaked it accordingly Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Some difference in the presentation of ship types: "Landing Ship, Tank,", "landing Craft Infantry", "Landing Ship Medium" and "landing ship dock". Is this difference correct or should they all be capitalized etc?
      • Fixed per Dank's comments Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • "On 3 January 1942, the island was captured by unopposed Japanese forces..." or "On 3 January 1942, the island was captured unopposed by Japanese forces..." (very minor nitpick I agree)
    • Two sentences starting the same way one after the other here: "The pre-invasion air attacks on north Borneo began in late May. The...", consider instead: "Pre-invasion air attacks on north Borneo began in late May. The..." (suggestion only)
      • Fixed - thanks for this suggestion Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Lieutenant Colonel Norman → Norman per WP:SURNAME.
    • Otherwise this looks like a very good article to me. Anotherclown (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot for your review Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
        • No worries. Added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

R. V. C. Bodley[edit]

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk)

R. V. C. Bodley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because after successfully nominating it for GA and DYK, and and taking it through a peer review, i'd like it to reviewed by people familiar with military articles as i'm not sure if it is quite up to featured status (I would like to nominate it for FAC eventually). This is my first article nominated for A-class at any project. Freikorp (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment

  • One external link is a Uncategorized redirect.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I've got no idea how to fix that, other than changing it to an offline source. Help please :). Freikorp (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't think putting the same citation over and over again is necessary.
I assume you are referring to the use of the Snell PDF (incidentally the same reference referred to above) which was, at a couple locations, used multiple times in a row. Originally the citations weren't directly after one another, it just ended up that way after things were moved around. I've removed all unnecessary uses of it now. Freikorp (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I found some images on Flickr that their copyright has expired and are in PD.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The only image of Bodley that i'm seeing there is the one that is already used in the article. Have I missed something? Freikorp (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "at locations including Bowdoin College and the Colony Club.": Mentioning these two places and not others suggests that these appearances were memorable or important. Not saying how they were important raises a question.
I only added them because specific locations for his lectures were not easy to find and and these particular locations were notable enough to have their own wiki article. They weren't of any particular importance. Removed. Freikorp (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I've changed "Bodley" to "he" or "him" in many places throughout; there's a point that I believe you're not getting here, that restating "Bodley" when it's not necessary for comprehension creates a kind of mini-paragraph-break. Those kinds of breaks can be useful for comprehension, but they're tedious if you overuse them.
Thanks. Freikorp (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Bodley was a descendant of Sir Thomas Bodley, and also Gertrude Bell's cousin.": If he wasn't a descendant of Bell's cousin, then less ambiguous would be: "Bodley was Gertrude Bell's cousin and a descendant of Sir Thomas Bodley."
Done. Freikorp (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

American Expeditionary Forces order of battle[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

American Expeditionary Forces order of battle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class standards. Just an order of battle for the American Expeditionary Forces. Might be a little short on content for the history of corps, but since I could not find anymore RS's for content, I just left it there for now. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • CommentsInvolved Support (any closing co-ordinator pls note I have significantly contributed to this article now during the cse of this review - 99 edits at the time of writing)
    • Good work so far, just a few quick comments from me:.
      • Organisation above corps-level should probably be included - my understanding is there were two armies (First United States Army and Second United States Army), with a third forming.
      • The lead includes some good information; however, it probably needs to be referenced in this case (as it is not just a summary of information included in the sections below it with refs).
      • The planned size of the AEF (4 million) and the fact that some 2 million men had reached France by the Armistice is probably worthy of being included in the lead (its currently in the infobox), but would of course need to be supported with a citation.
        • No citation, might want some more reliable info.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I found a citation and added something for this now. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I have made a bunch of copy edits, mostly to formatting but a few others too - see here [2]. Pls check I didn't muff anything up. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Also some of the images had been lacking some of the req'd bibliographic details / licensing information, especially File:AEF marching in France.jpg. I've gone ahead and made the changes I think were req'd now; however, if someone with more knowledge about images is able to have a look and check what I've done and make any further cmts / changes as req'd that would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • There are a few notable units / formations that are mentioned in the ORBAT but aren't wikilinked - in particular some of the subordinate brigades. It might be a good idea to wikilink these where pages exist. This category might help you locate which have articles - Category:Infantry brigades of the United States Army. Anotherclown (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Those changes look good to me, thanks for that. I've continued to copy edit and make some further changes, pls see here [3]. If there are no issues with those I'm now fairly comfortable with where this ORBAT is at (although I'm no expert on the AEF) and only have one more point:

In the lead you currently have "When it was sent to Europe, it had seven corps...". Is 7 correct? Only 5 US corps are listed (with two attached French corps). Can you pls check this? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 04:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, there were nine corps, but there were only structure info for only five of them.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
No worries - could a note be added to explain this (with a ref)? Anotherclown (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Note added with ref.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
In its current form this note is not clear enough and the reference given (Gibbons p 91) does not seem to mention anything about nine corps [see the Project Gutenberg copy here [4]. My assumption is that the plan was for nine corps but only five had taken the field by the time of the armistice. Indeed from what I can tell the General Organization Plan of the AEF planned for it to consist of 9 corps in three field armies and there is structure information for all of these organizations actually seems to be here: [5] (including Third Army and VI-IX Corps which are not currently listed in your ORBAT). As these appear to have actually been formed and served during the occupation of Germany these need to added for completeness. Quite a few publications state that only five had been formed by the end of the war (including several already cited, but also Gibbons p. 388 which states: "By the 1st of September, the United States of America had five such army corps in the field, martialling a strength of about one and one-half million bayonets." As such the way forward as I see it:
  • Make the lead clear in regards to the fact of the planned vs actual size at the armistice; and Yes check.svg Done - decided to have a go at this myself
  • Expand the ORBAT to include the missing army and corps; and Yes check.svg Done – I have fixed it--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Lastly I am concerned about the accuracy of some of your referencing. Can you pls clarify the cause of the Gibbons p. 91 discrepancy? Unless I missed something this does not support the information you stated it does so I'm left to wonder if the other refs are accurate. Was this a one off mistake? Can you pls double check your other refs? Anotherclown (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've reworked the lead myself IRT the nine vs five corps issue, so have now marked this as done; however, this still leaves the issue of the structure being incomplete (i.e Third Army and VI-IX Corps). A few other points come to mind as I've worked through this:

  • Ranks for commanders should probably be included;
  • The list of commanders for most formations appears to be incomplete (these are available from the two Army War College Historical Section publications; and
  • Are there page numbers available for the Coffman and Pershing references? This really needs to be added to satisfy WP:V. Anotherclown (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I could not find any page numbers for those two refs.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Also it occurred to me that the American Expeditionary Force Siberia and American Expeditionary Force North Russia should probably be included. I'm not really very familiar with US military history though so I wonder what others think about this. Anotherclown (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
        • I don't think adding AEF North Russia and Siberia is really necessary, as I wrote the article to be about the AEF (hence the name and links), and I am pretty sure they served at the different fronts, times, and reasons (aka. The AEF North Russia and AEF Siberia were sent to support the White Russian side in the Russian Civil War, with other Allied Powers (including Britain and France).). -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Howdy. Weren't the AEF North Russia and Siberia still part of the American Expeditionary Force though? As someone not familiar with the topic the name alone would suggest so to me at least (and therefore possibly to other readers). That said I agree with your reasoning for not including here, but only if the ORBAT you are currently working on is intended to only cover the AEF on the Western Front (which again seems a valid limit to me and I would recommend doing so). If this is the case then it needs to be made clear that this ORBAT is only for the Western Front, whilst I think mention of the AEF North Russia and Siberia could still be made in the lead (for instance you currently mention those deployed to Italy) for completeness / accuracy. A suggestion as to how we make this distinction clear though doesn't come easily to me at the moment though. So again I'm open to suggestions / opinions of others. One possible way might be a name change for the article e.g. to something like Order of Battle for the American Expeditionary Forces on the Western Front or some such variation (there is a List of orders of battle which may give you some ideas for names as there are quite a range of variations and as far as I'm aware no real policy to dictate naming conventions). Anotherclown (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  • I've continued to help expand the ORBAT today and made a few more changes, some outstanding points / questions I see:
  • Blurbs need to be added to most of the formations (all Armies and Corps need one), and others need to be expanded (like what you have II Corps for instance). At the least I'd recommend that they should mention date of formation, key activities and demobilization.
  • Do you intend on adding ranks for the commanders? I think it would be appropriate.
  • Some formations have complete lists of commanders, whilst others only have one (presumably that at the time the ORBAT is correct as at) - as such you probably need to standardize on one or the other (I am partially responsible for adding some of these, sorry).
  • Standardized, but since I don't know the last couple, I just left them there.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you intend on listing all commanders then the date of their command should be included too (you do this in some places but not others).
  • Is the infobox really appropriate? Most ORBATs I have seen don't use them, and this one mostly seems to duplicate that at the American Expeditionary Forces article.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok I've gone through and completed a final copy-edit. Well done in seeing this project through to this point, quite an effort. I'm not in anyway an expert on the AEF; however, from my limited understanding of the topic and the research I've done during this review I think that this is a fair attempt at a ORBAT and am willing to give it my support for promotion. Pls note though that during the cse of this review I have made quite a few edits - 99 at the time of writing - admittedly most were copy-editing but there has also been some content, so I think that I would be considered by others to have contributed to it to the point where I am no longer uninvolved. Per current processes ACRs require the support of three uninvolved editors, so if this is to be successful we will probably need a few more editors to review it and support it as well. If I can assist later in the review I will attempt to continue to do so though of cse. Anotherclown (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, good work on this so far. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • the first sentence of the lead seems quite awkward and probably should be rewritten
  • please use a consistent date format. For instance compare: "12 July 1918" with "August 15, 1918"
    • Fixed
  • I don't think the Key section is really necessary
  • grammar "The I Corps" (and similar constructions); this should just be "I Corps" as it doesn't need the definate article
  • what's the Baker misson? It gets mentioned in one of the photo captions without any context. Could you provide a link to an article that explains it?

« Return to A-Class review list

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

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

Toolbox

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

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

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

Comments

  • Are there more images you could add, since it would be needed to pass guidelines
  • Several external links are dead or have connection issues.
  • Please try to use American or British English, not both (ex. centred or criticize)
  • No DAB's
  • No bad citations
  • May want to seperate ORBAT
  • More later--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Collingwood (1908)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Collingwood (1908) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

HMS Collingwood was one of the first generation of British dreadnought battleships and frequently served as a flagship during her short career. Completed a few years before World War I, she played a minor role in the war with only participation in the Battle of Jutland enlivening the endless routine of patrols in the North Sea and training. Rendered obsolete by the ever-increasing size and power of more recent dreadnoughts, she became a training ship after the war until she was sold for scrap in 1922. The recent publication of her ship's log has confirmed what I've been otherwise been unable to document and I believe that she now meets the A-class criteria. As always, I'd like readers to look for stray usages of American English and unexplained jargon in addition to the normal things like prose, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • You can get a pretty good level of detail on the Grand Fleet's activities 1914-16 from Jellicoe's memoirs - see HMS Iron Duke (1912) for example.
  • Seems odd that the only 1 paragraph in the Jutland section actually discusses the battle - either add more context to the Jutland section (as I've done with Iron Duke) and split off the rest or remove the subheader altogether. I prefer to give a little more context, but it's a matter of taste.
  • Would probably be worthwhile to point out that after the 18 August operation, Jellicoe basically decided to abandon the southern end of the North Sea due to the threat of mines and U-boats unless there were good odds of a decisive engagement (again, see Iron Duke)
  • Got a Harv error in the ref section.
  • I spot an "armor" - watch out for ENGVAR
  • According to the caption on File:First battle squadron in the North Sea (April 1915).jpg, the third ship from the left is Colossus, not Collingwood - this also has a dead link from DANFS
  • You might want to add File:Map of the Battle of Jutland, 1916.svg. Parsecboy (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, and link to Action of 19 August 1916. Parsecboy (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing out Jellicoe's memoirs, so I've expanded that section quite a bit using it. I've also expanded the Jutland section as you suggested. Don't know how you got a harv error since I don't use harv or sfn cite formats. See how it all works and let me know if there's anything that I missed or need to further expand.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Nevermind that bit, Anotherclown fixed it earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Adam Philippe, Comte de Custine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I'm hoping it meets requirements, subject is a key figure in the early victories of the French, and an excellent example of the excesses of Revolutionary "justice" in 1793–1794. auntieruth (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "Consequently, French commanders walked a fine line between the security of the frontier and clamor for victories which would protect the regime in Paris on the one hand, and the desperate condition of the army on the other.": The writing could be clearer.
  • "Maréchal de Camp (General of Brigade) fr:Jean Nestor de Chancel": If he's notable by the standards of en.wp (and I assume a General of Brigade will be), then link to an article in en.wp.
  • there is no en wiki article. I'll get to it eventually.
  • "who commanded an 40 battalions": ?
  • "The Cambridge Intelligencer (October 5, 1793) published his epitaph by anonymous.": ?
  • The text doesn't clarify what An Epitaph for Custine is meant to convey.
  • "fall", "autumn": consistency. Also, WP:SEASON may be relevant in some cases.
  • "subsequently": search for this in this and other articles and replace it with "soon", "later", "later on", or "consequently", depending on the meaning.
  • " signed a petition for her release": whose release?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 16:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments. I am just starting to read, here my remarks: MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

  • "Adam Philippe de Custine began his ..." I believe the full name should only be mentioned once in the article
  • The main body of the article begins with his military career. I think it would be better to start with his birth so the fact that he was born on 4 February 1740 in Metz is cited.
  • "Custine learned to admire their modern military organization". Can you give examples of what modern military organization is?
  • I could, of course, but the source did not say, so I didn't.
  • Check your dashing and date ranges, there are a few wrong ones, example 1756–1789; 1791–1793 should be 1756–89; 1791–93 and 1756-–63 should be 1756–63
  • regarding your sources, if no isbn number is available, I think it would help to add the oclc number. I looked up one reference as an example

Additional remarks from ruth

  • I've been told I included too much of an article paper in this article, so I've removed some of it. Sorry for inconvenience. auntieruth (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Regamey,_Frédéric_-_Custine_en_Alsac,_1793,_Conseil_de_guerre_dans_les_lignes_de_Wissembourg.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Theodor Weissenberger[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Theodor Weissenberger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I think it should the criteria. Weissenberger was among the few pilots of World War II to achieve ace status flying the Me 262 jet fighter and died shortly after the war in a car racing accident. I hope you enjoy the read. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • as usual, fine work. As usual, I made some tweaks for passive verb tense etc. Support per prose. If someone wants me to check the sources, I will. A cursory look at them revealed no problems; they are the typical sources MrB uses for his articles. auntieruth (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Second Battle of Kehl (1796)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk)

Second Battle of Kehl (1796) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is part of a series on the Rhine Campaign of 1796 that I and some others have been working on. It recently passed to GA and I think it meets the A-Class standard. auntieruth (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "the heavy Austrians fire": ?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but I didn't tackle the lead, which jumps around and is hard to follow. It will need some work if this one is headed to FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments: (I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow, so I'm posting these piecemeal today)

  • "Austrian and imperial troops"
Link to imperial, few readers will understand the reference.
Ive added this. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "At Kehl and the city of Strasbourg lay a complex of bridges"
Does this mean "Between Kehl and Strasbourg"? In any event, remove "and the city" because that's already mentioned in the para above.
Generally I find the third para of the lead very difficult to understand. I think it needs a re-write.
These issues have both been addressed. I'll start working on the body now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments This article is in good shape, and I have only the following comments:

  • I'd suggest mentioning what war this battle formed part of in the first sentence
  • The para starting with "The French plan called for two armies to press against the flanks" and the next two paras would benefit from the addition of the approximate dates when the events it describes occurred Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

M2 light tank[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

M2 light tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has historical significance and was one of the milestones in American tank development. The article has passed a GA Review (by Parsecboy). The article (in my mind) meets most A-class standards. The article has several comprehensive supports, a lead that summarized the article, and images have license tags or fair use rationales. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments: thanks for your hard work on this. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

  • some of the specifications in the infobox seem inconsistent with what is in the body of the article. For instance: "14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) long" v. "Length: 4.43 m (14.5 ft)". Please check that everything mentioned in the infobox matches the body
  • equally there is inconsistency between the body of the article and the infobox in terms of what number is presented first (e.g. ft/in or m)
  • the composition of the crew is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body (e.g. commander, loader, driver, co-driver)
  • the number of rounds carried is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body
  • there is a "not in citation given" tag that should be rectified
  • Finished while you were commenting.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • the lead says "one .50 M2 Browning machine gun", but the Specifications section says "two .50 cal (12.7 mm) M2 Browning heavy machine guns"
  • "FM 23-80 37-mm Gun Tank M5" appears as a short citation, but there is no corresponding long reference in the References section
  • All are addressed except the FM one, since I do not even know what it means.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
That FM one is my fault. Result of a quick fix on the description of how the mount worked. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
An update, have found some statements in the article which are not supported by the citations as given. There was also some cases of near direct quoting from source and/or too close paraphrasing of source. Suggest assessment put on hold until these issues are addressed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: "There is evidence that indicates those 36 M2A4s were shipped off from North Africa..."
Can this be elaborated on? The implication of the sentence is that either of the two regiments were equipped with the M2 in North Africa, which I can almost say with certainty is not the case. If I am not mistaken the of all history has a table that breaks down the tank type and the M2 is not listed.
The two regiments mentioned in that sentence were the regiments that used it in Burma, not North Africa.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:51, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Before the regiments were dispatched to Burma, they were not - as far as i am aware - equipped with the M2, rather they were equipped with the M3. Following their redeployment, practically every source mentions them still equipped as such and it seems they were literally thrown into the fighting with little time to acclimatize etc. The two sources used, which state there is evidence for their employment within the two regiments, do they state when the regiments were possibly given the tanks/trained on them etc? How they came about using them despite shipping to Burma with their equipment?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
As for when the two regiments were in Burma, one of the chaps on the project has a copy of the OH for India and Burma and may find something else, however every account I have read states the two regiments were equipped with M3s ranging from General Slim, regimental accounts, a boast of historians, and the published books by the chaps at the British tank museum. I am not saying remove it, but what's there needs to be better worded IMO as there is a lot of contradicting information out there.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This is going to sound harsh, but... When I first read the article in its previous state I could barely make sense of it. The lead was completely confusing, the history section was both repetitive and contradictory, and the article sections were disorganized. I can't believe this passed a GA cycle. In any event, I've been trying to beat it into shape by re-organizing the lead and the body sections, and trying my best at the history. However, the article still retains many contradictory statements, especially about armament, and the specs need to be re-done as a table. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


« Return to A-Class review list

Hermann Graf[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Hermann Graf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Yet another German World War II fighter pilot I am nominating this article for A-Class. I believe to have covered all major aspects of his career and life. Please let me know what you think about the article. Thanks! MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments (pending support) by Auntieruth

  • Very interesting article. It had some grammatical and wording issues, which I've tweaked. Feel free to revert if I've changed meaning. I've also smoothed out some duplication.
  • Okay, so how did he end up in American hands? Schuman says one thing, but one of the external links you provide as additional information says something else.
  • Can you help me out here? What aspect exactly is different? He surrendered to the Americans, they handed him over to the Soviets. Is that not clear? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sources you've cited look reliable and credible. Thought you might find this interesting as well. Endler and Pele in Der Spiegel. " Die Pelés flogen unter dem Namen "Dr. Graf und Frau" mit einer Lufthansa-Boeing-707 nach Frankfurt. "
  • Thanks, I had a look at the Spiegel article, I am unsure if it is safe to conclude that Dr. Graf actually refers to Hermann Graf. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I know you're out of town visiting your mom, so when you get back, .... auntieruth (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • Why is the bit on him helping Jews escape to Switzerland piped to German Resistance to Nazism? Unless I'm missing something, this happened before the Nazis' rise to power.
  • "On 30 April 1942 he became an "ace-in-a-day" after shooting down six enemy aircraft in the region followed by seven on 2 May and 8 May respectively." - this mentions 3 days but only 2 kill tallies - were the 7 kills split between 2 and 8 May?
  • reworded, seven on 2 May and again seven on 8 May MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "When he claimed his 150th victory, a Yakovlev Yak-1, on 4 September 1942, his own aircraft suffered over 100 hits during this encounter. He was the second pilot, after Gordon Gollob, to achieve this mark." - this makes it sound like Gollob's claim to fame was having more than 100 hits to his aircraft. It would make more sense to rework these sentences to something like "On 4 September 1942, he claimed his 150th victory, a Yakovlev Yak-1; he was the second pilot, after Gordon Gollob, to achieve this mark. Graf's aircraft suffered over 100 hits during the engagement with the Yak-1."
  • "...married the German actress Jola Jobst..." - she has already been introduced, just her last name will do at this point.

Excellent work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Images

  • File:Hermann_Graf.jpg: strongly suggest using {{non-free biog-pic}} instead of the current tag, and expanding the FUR accordingly. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • No DABs, external links OK. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • Images all have alt text (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images check completed above (one point outstanding it seems).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • "In the late spring, 1941 Graf claimed his first aerial victory on 4 August 1941 during Operation Barbarossa" - seems redundant to say "1941" twice in this phrase.
    • These two stubby sentences could be linked: "Inflation in the Weimar Republic in 1923 wiped out all the family savings. From a very early age, Hermann learned to work hard to make a living." Consider instead: "Inflation in the Weimar Republic in 1923 wiped out all the family savings and, as a result, from a very early age, Hermann learned to work hard to make a living." (suggestion only)
    • Incorrect tense here I think: "Here the trio of Füllgrabe, Graf and Grislawski is joined by..." should be "Here the trio of Füllgrabe, Graf and Grislawski was joined by..."
    • "In early June the unit transferred back to Romania..." incorrect link to Romania here (it should have been linked at first instance, if at all).
    • "On 3 February 1942 he accounted for his victim number 47..." → "On 3 February 1942 he accounted for his 47th victim..."
    • "Upon his return to his post...", consider wording more simply as "Upon return to his post..."
    • Long run-on sentence here: "The next day, Graf, officially remaining in command of JG 50, was appointed acting Geschwaderkommodore of JG 1 and transferred to Jever and Graf appointed Grislawski as acting-commander of JG 50." → consider instead something like: "The next day, Graf, officially remaining in command of JG 50, was appointed acting Geschwaderkommodore of JG 1 and transferred to Jever. Graf subsequently appointed Grislawski as acting-commander of JG 50."
    • "This relatively early release was by many perceived to be caused..." → " This relatively early release was perceived by many to be caused..."
    • Graf's release from captivity as a PW is mentioned in both the "prisoner of war" section and the "later life" section (including the date), which seems a little unnecessary. Suggest moving the detail re his release from the "later life section" to the "prisoner of war" section and deleting any duplication.
    • In the table of aerial victories there seems to be a typo for the date of victory # 48. Currently listed as being in 1943, but I assume from the other entries it should be 1942. Anotherclown (talk) 06:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • done good spot MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the review, I believe to have addressed your comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Not worries. Those changes look fine, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

USS New York (BB-34)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk)

USS New York (BB-34) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Hello all! I sincerely regret having sort of disappeared suddenly, and for my lame-duck stint as coord. Some unexpected life events happened in late 2013 that essentially eliminated my ability to edit with quantity or consistency. That said I wanted to push up the articles I had improved at the time but hadn't had the chance to put through FAC and ACR, starting with my contribution to the battleships project, here. —Ed!(talk) 22:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, Ed, nice work. I have a few observations/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • a couple of the external links appear to be 404/dead now: [7]
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Several terms appear to be overlinked: 14"/45 caliber gun; Babcock and Wilcox; Hugh Rodman; United States Atlantic Fleet; 5"/51 caliber gun;
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Sources; the Beigel work appears to be out of alphabetical order and is inconsistently formatted when compared to the others;
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Sources is there an OCLC or ISBN for the Joes work?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder if a couple of the images could be cropped to remove the borders. For instance, the two images in the Design and construction section;
  • inconsistent date: in the infobox "Commissioned: 15 April 1914", but in the body "commissioned on 15 May 1914"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "beam of 95 feet 6 inches (29.11 m)" (in the body of the article) v. "Beam: 95.2 ft (29.0 m)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "draft of 28 feet 6 inches (8.69 m)" v. "Draft: 28.5 ft (8.7 m)"
    • Not sure how the rounding algorithm is affecting this or how to correct, but those are the same measurements. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • typo? " 1926-26"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "maximum speed of 21 knots (39 km/h; 24 mph" v. "Speed: 20 kn (23 mph; 37 km/h)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "1940–1941" should be "1940–41" per WP:DATERANGE
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "carried 21 5 inch 51 cal" --> "carried twenty-one 5 inch 51 cal" to avoid confusion caused by the two numbers appearing close together
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "1925-6" --> probably should be "1925-26" for consistency
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • inconsistent: "upper casemate had 6 inches (150 mm) of armor" v. "Upper casemate: 6.5 in (165 mm)"
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I believe most of my comments have been addressed. I will likely not be around much over the next couple of weeks to a month, so I will add my support now, so as to not hold the article up. Good luck taking it further and thank you for your hard work so far. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I see some use of tonnes, as a US ship everything should be in English units, not metric.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Measurements should only be converted on first use.
    • So, remove all convert templates after the first use of each? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, but only ones that have been converted once already.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • There are several ways to present ship stats for those that had multiple upgrades. Including the specs after every single upgrade greatly expands the infobox length and can be confusing to readers not generally familiar with ships. I believe that no more than two sets of stats should be presented in the infobox (as built and the most significant upgrade) and prefer to display them in separate infoboxes with the lower one only containing specs that changed since completion as can be seen at Japanese battleship Yamashiro. Everything else can be covered in the main body.
    • So would it be best to move stats into a second infobox? —Ed!(talk) 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I think so, but only the changed stats. There's no requirement to do so if you prefer not to, but regardless you should only have two sets of stats in the infobox(es)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Split out the engine horsepower and boilers into a new |ship power= line in the infobox.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Not entirely. Boilers need to be added to the power line and the ihp figure needs to be converted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What's a naval defense mine, as opposed to a normal mine?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Use single quotation marks around the single letters of the turret names and tell the reader that the names ran from bow to stern.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Two inches of armor on the turret sides seems awfully thin, doublecheck that figure against Friedman.
    • That's the number I've seen. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fairly certain that the German edition of Breyer in your bibliography is just a reprint of the 1970 original, just like the English translation.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • AFAIK dissertations don't get ISBNs, so fix Jones.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Be sure to put all titles in your references in title case.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The ISBN that you give for Macintyre goes to the index for the Naval Institute Proceedings, which is irrelevant. You need to provide the ISSN for the magazine, even though this is before ISSNs were invented.
    • Do you happen to know which magazine? —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Naval Institute Proceedings, but remember that magazines use an ISSN, not an ISBN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • For the sake of consistency, add |lastauthoramp=1 to Gardiner and Gray to get the ampersand to display in the bibliography as well.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Cannon is both singular and plural so no 's'.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't capitalize radar.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You'll need to link to Wikitionary to tell readers what an overhaul is.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • She was fitted with anti-torpedo bulges, though these made maneuvering harder at low speeds and she rolled badly, and her gunfire accuracy was reduced in rough seas. This is awkward and might need to be split into two sentences.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • conducting training and fleet problems until 1937 Probably best to say that she participated in fleet problems. And link fleet problems.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • After arriving in the United States, the ship was overhauled. The secondary battery was reduced to sixteen 5"/51 caliber guns. Combine these two sentences.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • see an American ship comparable to a dreadnought up close Rephrase this, NY was a dreadnought.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Missing a lot of hyphens for compound adjectives like 5-inch, 51-caliber, etc.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 02:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry these are all kind random, but I was scanning it and noting whatever caught my eye. I'll do a more thorough review in a few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Convert the displacement figures in the infobox.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • I don't know that the stuff on the earlier New York (or at least the fate of the ship) is all that relevant to this article.
    • Stuck that there because the Navy history makes such a big deal of the number of ship to bear the name. Thought it might be worth a mention to avoid confusion with other ships. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Link caliber to caliber (artillery) (or add a footnote explaining the difference, as most readers will mistake 45-caliber for .45 caliber
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On the excess conversion issue Sturm mentioned above - the armor paragraph is a good example of where these should be trimmed.
  • The squadrons of the Grand Fleet began escorting convoys to Norway due to German raids with cruisers and destroyers in late 1917, which culminated in an abortive sortie by the High Seas Fleet in April 1918 - the Grand Fleet also put to sea, but too late to catch the Germans - I seem to recall from Massie (Castles of Steel) that the American BBs were involved in the convoy escort duty - I'd add a bit on this (basically as in HMS Emperor of India), since this did mark a significant change in how the fleet was being used.
    • Do you have a ref? I've been having a hard time finding anything on this. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "Obsolescent" is probably a better word than "obsolete" in the second para of the interwar section
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What type of ship is Leary?
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Check for missing hyphens - for instance, the link to the St. Louis class cruisers should be rendered with the hyphen.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be worthwhile to add a bit of context to the neutrality patrol para - sure, many readers will know this is during WWII, but there are probably a fair number who will not.
  • Probably better to link directly to Invasion_of_Iceland#United_States_occupation_force
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd not link Imperial Japan in the sentence about the attack on Pearl Harbor - especially since the way it's worded seems a little WP:EGGy to me - I expected it to link to the Imperial Japanese Navy article, for instance.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "attacked Safi harbor, supporting landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division in the harbor" - "harbor" twice in one sentence seems a little repetitive - I might change it to "landings by the U.S. 47th Infantry Division there." - you might even omit everything after Division, since it should be obvious from context.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "a total of 60 14-inch (360 mm) rounds." - this should be "sixty 14-inch" per the 4th bullet in WP:NUMNOTES
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • "breaking down at least once along the way and losing an observation plane in bad weather along the way" - "on the way" twice in one sentence is repetitive.
    • Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 00:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Any more details available on the effects of the Able and Baker tests? See Japanese battleship Nagato, German cruiser Prinz Eugen, or USS Nevada (BB-36) for the level of detail I'd like to see. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

M15 Half-Track[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

M15 Half-Track (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it exceeds all A class criteria and has historical significance. The M15 Half-track has a significance on the Military History project and many editors edit this article. The article also exceeds most of the Featured article criteria and all of the good article criteria. I hope it will become a Featured article. It was a significant part of the United States anti-aircraft vehicles and was very popular with troops. The M15 evolved from the T28E1. It often served along the M16 Half-track in Europe and Korea. It also served in the Korean War. I am giving a big thanks to User:PrimeHunter, User:AustralianRupert, User:GraemeLeggett, and a couple others who helped contribute to my article. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: G'day, thanks for your work on this so far. I don't think that this is up to A-class standards yet, but I have the following suggestions which might help:

  • the infobox the "in service" date field states "1943-45", but the article also states it served in Korea. If it also served in Korea it would have been in service after 1945 so the date should be adjusted;
  • for A-class, the lead should be expanded a bit further to summarise the whole article;
  • the body of the article probably should be expanded to include a discussion of the design, presenting the spcifications that are in the infobox in prose form;
  • the Operators section should be referenced, and also some explanation of Japan, China and North Korea's use should be added to the Service history section, which seems a bit light at the moment;
  • the "Further reading" section probably should be retitled as a "Bibliography" as you are specifically citing these works;
  • the Rickard article probably qualifies as a reliable source for Wiki purposes, as it appears to be written by academics,[8] but are there other works that could be consulted also? For a successful A-class promotion, you need to demonstrate broad research, and currently there are only three sources cited;
  • depending on the result of this review, for the future, can I suggest taking the article through WP:GAN prior to ACR? There can be big gap between B-class and A-class and going through GAN first can often help;
  • Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Follow up comments: good work so far with the changes you have made. I have a few more points:

  • there appears to inconsistency in the name between the article title (M15 Half Track), the opening sentence (M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage) and the infobox (M15 Half-track). These should all be the same, presenting the same name as the article;
  • inconsistency in capitalisation "Half-Track" v. "Half-track"
  • the references should be consistent in their presentation, e.g. use the same style. For instance, some are using the sfn format, while others are manually formated;
  • what year/source is "Berndt p. 32" refering to in Reference # 9? 1993 or 1994?
  • please add ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the works in the Bibliography. These can be be found through [www.worldcat.org Worldcat];
  • please be consistent about whether you include location of publication or not in the Bibliography;
  • is there a citation that covers Note 1?
  • inconsistency: the Design section says they could reach 67 km/h on road, but the infobox says 72 km/h. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Ok, sorry, I just realised that this is also being reviewed at GAN: Talk:M15 Half-Track/GA1. Its not optimal to have two different-level reviews going on for the same article at the same time. As such, I suggest keeping this ACR on hold until after the GA review has been finalised (passed or failed). I will hold off making further edits, or comments until that has occured. Good luck. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Most of the above points have been dealt with during the GAN, so I will post some more follow up points below. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Further follow up: great work taking this through GAN. PM's thorough review has helped to significantly improve this article. I have a few follow up points for A-class: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  • this probably needs parentetical commas or brackets: "The M15 Half-Track officially designated M15 Combination Gun Motor Carriage was a..." (after Track and Carriage);Yes check.svg Done
  • is the crew information mentioned in the body of the article? I see it in the infobox but couldn't find it in the body, unless I missed it...Yes check.svg Done
  • this seems inconsistent: "386 cu in (6,330 cc)" (in the body of the article) v. "6,236 cc (380.5 cu in)" in the infoboxYes check.svg Done
  • this seems inconsistent: "15.8 hp per tonne" (in the body of the article) v. "15.8 hp/pound" in the infobox Yes check.svg Done
  • in the Bibliography, sometimes you use abbreviations for secondary locations of publication, but sometimes you don't, e.g. "WI" v. "New Jersey"Yes check.svg Done
  • there remains inconsistent capitalisation/and hyphenation: for instance compare "M15 Half-Track" (the article's title) with " M3 Half-track" and then also "M3A1 Halftracks" and "M15 Halftrack"Yes check.svg Done

Oppose Comments

  • Be sure to put all titles in your bibliography in title case.
  • Fixed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Do you have access to Hunnicutt's Half-Track: A History of American Semi-Tracked Vehicles? That's pretty much the definitive work on these vehicles and needs to be consulted before you send this to FAC.
  • Added.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Standardize your use of hyphens in ISBNs and if you're going to use years in your citations.
  • Done--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't format your headers for citations and bibliography with semi-colons: they can't be interpreted by text-to-speech programs and cause problems with visually-impaired readers.
      • Not quite how I meant for you to handle it, but I fixed it for you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Done--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fix the formatting for Hunter. It's one volume of a series.
  • Do you have any other photos available? I'd really like to see one inside the weapon compartment and some photos of it in action would be nice. While the M16 picture is useful, it would be preferable to get an equivalent photo for the M15.
  • No other photos are available for now.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Powered by a White 160AX, 128 hp (95 kW), 386 cu in (6,330 cc),[3][4] 6-cylinder petrol engine with a compression ratio of 6:3:1. It had a maximum road speed of 67.5 km/h (41.9 mph) on a road. It had a power-to-weight ratio of 15.8 hp per tonne. This is awkward.
  • Fixed--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 12:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
    • You're still trying to cram too much into a single sentence so split this in half. And, honestly, I'm not sure the compression ratio is worthy of note, but that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As a US vehicle all measurements except 37 mm need to be in English units, not metric. Also each measurement should only be converted on first use.
  • Addressed.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
      • My apologies I didn't make myself clear, all measurements should converted on first use. As an American vehicle, English measurement should just come first.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Watch out for jargon that is unlikely to be familiar to ordinary readers like bogie, leaf spring, wheelbase, etc.
  • There's no support for your statement about use against ground targets.
  • Well, Mike Green stated that it was used for ground support targets--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The mention of service in Korea needs to be expanded into its own section. With a negligible air threat, how were they used? How were they organized and assigned? When were they introduced? Withdrawn? What battles/campaigns did they participate in? Did they actually shoot down any enemy aircraft? Etc.
  • No other info on this--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • More once these comments are dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I have a GA Review going on right now and will respond to the comments later. I hope you don't mind. Thanks -- Tomandjerry211 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
      • @Tomandjerry211: - are you around to address these or other issues? Parsecboy (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
          • You've improved this article greatly, so it grieves me that I must oppose on the basis of completeness. The vehicle's Korean War service needs to be expanded to match the WWII coverage and post-war service with other armies, if any, needs to be covered. If this material is added, I don't see any significant issues for the next ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @Sturmvogel 66: I would love to keep on expanding this article, but unfortunately I could not find anything else about it's Korean War history anywhere without original research, but I have found content on foreign use from Zaloga ad have added it. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
              • I wish I knew of a source that covered their service in Korea, but I don't.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
                • I found a book that has first-hand accounts and I am working on adding the necessary information.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
  • No dab links (no action req'd).
  • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
  • Images lack alt text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR req, suggestion only).
  • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
  • Images all appear to be PD and have the req'd info (no action req'd).
  • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
  • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
  • I've done a copy edit and consolidated refs etc. As my points seemed like nitpicks so I just went ahead and did them myself, my edits are here [9]. Anotherclown (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)