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

RAAF area commands[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

RAAF area commands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article is a little unusual in that I'm unaware of any comparable history of the subject, a command-and-control system that's been defunct since the 1950s but which was a key part of RAAF operations in the Pacific during WWII. There's a plethora of references to the individual commands and indeed to the system as a whole, but I don't know anywhere that someone has distilled it all into a decent overview -- until now! I've had this on the backburner for several years, originally planning a list-like article with subsections on the individual commands following the overview but in the end I decided that the commands all justified their own articles, and that I might put them together in a GT nom/book when complete. As to the article's layout, I'm open to suggestions re. placement of the table (it's a summary, so is it best in the lead or at the end?), as well as the order of the maps (should the lead show the longest-standing arrangement, as it does now, or should we put the initial but short-lived four-command arrangement there and the succeeding five-command arrangement in the main body?) Anyway, hope you enjoy it -- thanks Rupert for the recent GAN and to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Apologies for the quality of the maps but I wanted a consistent format and no issues re. copyright so figured it was simpler to make my own. Also, while I may not progress individual area command articles beyond GAN, I think this overview is worth ACR and perhaps FAC as well, so any concerns relating to the latter are welcome too! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
G'day, Ian, I actually like the maps. The standard seems okay to me, but then I guess I was never artistic! I plan to post a review, but will wait for some others to chime in first. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Runaway Scrape[edit]

Nominator(s): Maile66 (talk)

Runaway Scrape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am opening a new A-class assessment for this article, having requested an incomplete closure for the first one in December 2014. The reasons for doing so are on the article's talk page, but it was about balance between the civilians and the Texas army involvement. I thought it was best to give the other editor time to edit in the verified information they referred to. However, 7 months have now passed, and nothing has materialized. The military and civilian population moved together during the Runaway Scrape, up until Sam Houston ordered them escorted east as he marched towards the San Jacinto battlefield. I believe what's in this article is all we know about the civilian involvement. It's time to re-open this assessment. — Maile (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Prior nomination here.

Image review

  • File:SteamboatYellowstone.jpg: are we sure that Catlin was a government employee at this point? His article suggests he was not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY Good catch. Research agrees with you. I have removed the image from the article. The Smithsonian sells a copy in their giftshop. The original was a donation to the museum, but it does not say anything about free use. I have tagged it at Commons with a link to the Smithsonian. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

The 70th Infantry Division was a short lived British Second World War division. Having formed from the 6th Infantry Division, which fought in Syria and Crete, the division relieved the Australians in Tobruk and eventually broke out as part of Operation Crusader. With the Japanese entry into the war, the division was shipped to India were it was eventually disbanded and its troops handed over to the Chindits (a pretty controversial move). The article has just passed it's GA review, and I am seeking to further elevate it's status en route to eventually making it a FAC. All comments welcome. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Gottlob Berger[edit]

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

Gottlob Berger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Berger was the head of Waffen-SS recruiting for almost all of WWII, and is considered by some scholars to be the "Father of the Waffen-SS". A WWI veteran and early member of the Nazi Party, he became one of Himmler's most trusted operators, and was responsible for the huge number of "Germanic", ethnic German and "foreign" soldiers recruited into the Waffen-SS from 1940 on. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 14:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Prokhorovka[edit]

Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review as a step before WP:FAC. It passed GA review in 2013 and has been buffed up even more ever since. EyeTruth (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this article. I have a couple of minor comments (unfortunately I don't know enough about the topic to do full review at this stage, sorry): AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

  • the Harv referencing script is identifying quite a few "harv" errors. I've fixed one for you, but can you please take a look at the rest? (If you install the script, you will see the errors identified in red in the References section);
I've looked into installing the script, but it's proving not to be a one-minute job. In the meantime, I removed a reference that was never used in-text. Did that fix it? EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that helped. I've done the others now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • there are a couple of paragraphs/sentences marked with a "citation needed" tag, which should be rectified;
One of the cn tags is because of an editor that argues the preceding two sources, together with the other three supporting sources, are flawed; although it's been a few days now and sources are yet to be provided. The other has always been in the article, hiding away under other citations. I'm still looking through the five sources I have access to, but so far have found nothing. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. All the citation needed tags have been fixed (citations found or unsourced content removed). EyeTruth (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • in addition, this appears to be unreferenced: "with another 212 tanks and self-propelled guns under repair, and 7,607 casualties". Could a citation be added for this?
It's just a simple summation of the cited numbers, and therefore technically an original research. I'll delete it if necessary. EyeTruth (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • watch out for English variation. For instance, currently it appears to use a mix of US and British spellings, for instance "defense" and "kilometers" (US), but also "defence", "kilometres", and "armour" (British). Either is fine, IMO, but it should be consistent;
I will start changing them to British spellings. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I will try to come back later and do a more thorough review once I've had a look through some of my books at home. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Achtung-Panzer and Lost Victories works in the Further reading section?
I couldn't find any ISBN for the original versions of the books. Maybe it's because they were written before ISBN was introduced. EyeTruth (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've added what I could find from worldcat.org. If ISBNs aren't available, there will generally be an OCLC. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • please include a translation of the title of the Russian works in the Further reading and External link section. This can be done using the "trans_title=" parameter of the cite book and cite web templates. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Done for all the external links. EyeTruth (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Just the one in the Further reading left. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that one. I'll correct it asap. I've just been preoccupied with checking every passage in the article to make sure it goes along with what their cited sources say. And in the case where I can't find access to a source, I compare the text against the other sources I have. I've checked over 80% of the article already. EyeTruth (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. EyeTruth (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ok, I've run through the article and copy edited it a bit. It could still potentially use another set of eyes prior to FAC, though. That said, I found the second half of the second paragraph in the lead a little awkward/abrupt: (the bit starting from "The German offensive was conducted by three armies"). I wonder if you could have a play with it to see if it can be smoothed out a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I could mention the third army? It was excluded because they have no connection to the battle, and were deployed hundreds of kilometres away. Well, their early failure (i.e. stalling on the third day) put a lot of pressure on the German forces that took part in this battle, since they became the only hope for Citadel to succeed. But that is not mentioned in this article, but is already in the Battle of Kursk article. What do you think if it reads like this: "The German offensive was conducted by three armies: In the southern side...." EyeTruth (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
G'day, yes I think the issue is that it talks about three armies then only really seems to mention one (the 4th). My suggestion to resolve this is to just remove the "The German offensive was conducted by three armies" sentence altogether. I think also the wording "In the southern side" is a bit inelegant. "On the southern side..." might be smoother, but I think you need to also define that a bit more. For instance, in/on the southern side of what? Anyway, good work on your changes so far. I will probably not be very active for the next five days or so (I might log in occasionally), but work will limit my time, so I will leave the article sit for a bit. I see that there are some issues being hashed out on the talk page, too. Ideally these should be resolved, and the article stable, prior to FAC. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I have incorporated these suggestions. And yes, the article will be stable, hopefully, by the time it's done taking these A-Class critiques. EyeTruth (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map size slightly
Yes check.svg Addressed. Not needed anymore, as explained below. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Kursk_south.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
Yes check.svg Addressed. It had no source, but itself. And on a closer look, the info it presents is wrong. The map has been removed from the article. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Rotmistrov.jpg: the given licensing tag requires publication of the image before 1951 and death of the creator - can you provide evidence of both of those?
The permission says it's currently in the public domain of the U.S. and Ukraine. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The permission says "it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine, because it was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date". If you can't demonstrate that the two "because" conditions are true, then the tag is not valid here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The image is probably an official state-portrait of Pavel Rotmistrov (identical in style and form to other known state-portraits of Soviet commanders), and it was most likely taken before 1945 as he doesn't have his Order of Kutuzov medal (awarded in 1943) in that portrait. Like all the other state-portraits of Soviet commanders, the official creator would be the Soviet state. EyeTruth (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Addressed. The image has been removed. But the permission notes that "Russia jurisprudence states that no infringement is constituted when the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject." The image is very related to the subject of that section in the article that it was in. Don't you think that exempts it from constituting as infringement in this case? EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not an accurate interpretation of that note. "the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" is intended to account for cases where the 3D work is in the background or is otherwise incidental to the main subject of the image. For example, if I took a picture of my sister on the street, my sister would be the main subject and the buildings in the background would be accessory - that image would not be infringement. But where the work is the main subject of the image, it's infringing, whether it's relevant to the article or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspected so. I get it now. Thanks for the clarification. EyeTruth (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another ship with a WWI-related centenary approaching, this being the ship's sinking in October 1915, the greatest naval disaster of the war for German forces in the Baltic. This passed GAN all the way back in early 2011, but I have since expanded it significantly, and I'd like to have it main-page ready for the centenary. Thanks for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: Good work, Parsecboy, I believe that this article meets the A-class criteria. I made a couple of tweaks (please check you are happy with these) and have the following observations:
    • this seems inconsistent: "maximum speed of 20.4 kn (37.8 km/h; 23.5 mph)" (in the body) v "20.4 knots (38 km/h)" (in the infobox) - 37.8 km/h as opposed to 38 kh/h.
      • Good catch, fixed.
    • "File:SMS Prinz Adalbert linedrawing.png": the description page lacks author information. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The illustration has a last name on it - no clue who Winchell is, but I've added that to the description page. Probably the best we can do without tracking down a copy of the edition of Proceedings (the one in Google Books is not viewable, unfortunately). Parsecboy (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

August Meyszner[edit]

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

August Meyszner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Meyszner was the Higher SS and Police Leader in the German-occupied territory of Serbia from 1942 to 1944, and oversaw the gassing of around 8,000 Jewsish women and children, as well as thousands killed in reprisal for attacks on German and collaborationist troops. Recently passed a GAN review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: I did some light tweaking (please check you are happy with my changes). I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • in the References, some instances of New York say "New York, New York" while others simply say "New York" - I'd probably suggest the secondary approach is best here;
    • forced labour is probably overlinked;
    • the navigation box for war criminals at the bottom of the article would probably be best displayed in a collapsed state
    • "File:Heimwehr PfrimerPutsch.jpg": I'm not certain about the licence used here. I don't think the uploader is the copyright holder, but I could be wrong. It might be worth checking this prior to FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks Rupert. Have made all loc fields consistent (city and state or country), rm overlink, collapsed navbox, and uploaded a new version of the image onto Wikipedia rather than Commons (and requested deletion of Commons version, as it is PD-Austria but not US URAA). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine

Abd al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

An Arab nobleman of Iraq who raised one of the largest rebellions against the Umayyad Caliphate. His life is a perfect example of the complex tribal and factional rivalries and conflicts underlying the early Muslim state. The article passed a GA review without trouble, and I feel it is ready for an A-class review. Constantine 16:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Califate_750.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For "See also", the relevant links are already in the article: the similar revolts are already mentioned, and anyone somehow related to him or his revolt likewise. For "External links", I know of none that would be useful. There is the article in Britannica for instance, but it does not contain anything new. The subject simply isn't that well-known outside the narrow scope of early Muslim history. For "Further reading", Veccia Vaglieri's article in EI2 is the most comprehensive narrative on the revolt I know of outside primary sources, and I have already included most of the works that have something additional to say. The primary sources themselves, viz. al-Tabari, are also mentioned in the article for anyone who wishes to check them up. If I should chance upon a study or journal article not yet included here, my first choice will be to add it to the main text, and only if for whatever reason it is not, will I make a "Further reading" section. Constantine 20:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, that checks out that then. Minor note though: "commonly simply known as" does not flow well. I suggest tweaking to "commonly known as simply". Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I've removed the "simply" altogether. Cheers, Constantine 19:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, I don't know anything about the topic, sorry, and I can't really comment on content, so I read through mainly for narrative flow. Overall it looks quite good, but I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • in the lead, "The revolt gained widespread support among the discontented with the Umayyad regime" --> perhaps "The revolt gained widespread support among those who were discontented with the Umayyad regime"?
  • in the lead, "which now became directly controlled" --> perhaps "which then became directly controlled"?
  • " Nevertheless, it is clear that al-Hajjaj quickly became unpopular among the Iraqis in general through a series of measures that "[seem] almost to have goaded the Iraqis into rebellion" (Hugh N. Kennedy)" --> perhaps " Nevertheless, according to Hugh N. Kennedy, al-Hajjaj quickly became unpopular among the Iraqis in general through a series of measures that "[seem] almost to have goaded the Iraqis into rebellion".
    • It is not Kennedy's opinion that al-Hajjaj was unpopular; he was widely regarded as a tyrant and is among the main "villains" of the anti-Umayyad narratives. Kennedy simply provides the quote. I've rephrased it however.
  • probably same as the above for the other quotes (e.g. Hawtig and Vaglieri).
    • Mostly the same as before, but please check the changes I've made.

Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the suggestions and the copyedits you already made! I've made some alterations based on your suggestions, please have a look. As for the content, I am aware the subject is rather obscure, and am chiefly interested in whether it is accessible to our readers, who like you probably have never heard of him. Are the terms, people, issues, context, etc. explained adequately, or should I elaborate further? Constantine 14:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I think it is okay as is. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Reg Pollard (general)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Reg Pollard (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Bringing Australian General John Wilton to ACR recently was part of a long journey improving that particular article but this one was almost spur-of-the-moment -- I became interested in Pollard because he was Wilton's predecessor as chief of the Australian Army and it went from there. I then found out Pollard had a connection to Wilton's predecessor as chief of the Australian military, Frederick Scherger, as they were Duntroon classmates and obviously shared a similar sense of humour (see first para of Early life)! Anyway, hope you enjoy his story; I think it probably has the legs for FAC if successful here, so pls let me know if you think otherwise. Thanks to Rupert for his recent GA review, and in advance to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: I reviewed this for GA and I think it has the legs for A-class. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I made a couple of minor tweaks, please check you are happy with these and adjust as you see fit;
    • There are a few duplicate links in the lead, but they are probably fair enough in the circumstances;
    • the article is well referenced using reliable sources and employs a consistent citation style;
    • the article is comprehensive, well written, and structured appropriately;
    • the images appear to be appropriately licensed;
    • "File:Reg Pollard 1942 023756.jpg" could be moved to Commons, but this is not a requirement for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Tks very much for stopping by, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images all have alt text (not action req'd).
    • Image review completed above (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • Citation error check tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
    • In the lead you write: "Pollard's early post-war roles involved recruitment"... does this refer to his command of ARTC in 1946? If so I'd have throught "recruit training" would have been a more accurate description than recruitment (unless the sources use that term of cse).
      • Yep, that'd be better -- will alter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I had to make a sustained effort to control my laughter at this piece of timeless wisdom: "...the average soldier complains considerably all the time" (a fact that is even more true today...)
      • I think guileless public pronouncements like that can't help but endear their speaker to us... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You might consider include the edition number for the version of The Oxford Companion to Australian Military History used as the content of many entries does vary between the 1st and 2nd edition (suggestion only, you identify it as the 2008 version which is sufficient to know its the 2nd Edition but saying so would make it obvious).
      • Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Nothing else came up after reading through it. Looks good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Note -- Sorry to do this mid-review but I (and I think Rupert based on earlier conversation) was a bit suspicious of the OTRS rationale for the main image and this has been confirmed for me by an OTRS check I requested and finding a non-free copy of the image at NAA, so I've replaced it with the AWM one that was in the WWII section, and added a new WWII image from AWM. I'll see if I can't re-use the main image, or another of him as a general, under a FUR but for now I think we can do without it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

House of Plantagenet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive1
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has undergone significant rework since failing at FAC back 2013. The key challenge was then about separating the history of the period from the storyof the family. @Sabrebd: did some great work stripping out the history into the more generic articles of the period and I have beefed up the family content. It is certainly better than what it was as a GA but is it good enough to be promoted? Two subsequent peer review haven't provided anything significant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Image review: All the images appear to be freely licenced without any real problems but nowhere in the previous nominations or review do I see anyone asking about the alt text for images. Most images do not have alt text so you should fix that. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your effort but alt text is supposed to describe the image to people who have poor or no sight so the name of a person may often mean nothing to them. Think about it in their terms if you were having a text reading application read the file information. You need to describe in simple word what the picture shows. There is an instructive page WP:ALT which I hope helps you. ww2censor (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Second attempt at the alt txt - I think it is better but didn't really find WP:ALT helpful. I think a text reader would now explain these clearly but I'm not blind so what would I know. I am now off to Calabria for a couple of weeks so there may be a delay in my future responses in that period. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I had a larger review typed out, but the browser gobbled it up, sorry, so just a couple of comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)—don't you just hate it when that happens? :-)Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • watch for overlink. If you install this script, it will highlight the terms that are potentially overlinked: User:Ucucha/duplinks;
  • Thanks for the tool, very useful and now done for all visible text. Thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography there is probably no requirement to include page numbers for books unless citing a specific chapter
  • in the Bibliography, for the foreign language titles, please include a translation. This can be included in the cite book template using the "trans_title=" parameter
  • this sentence probably needs a citation: "Two further failed invasions supported by Margaret using Perkin Warbeck pretending to be Edward IV's son Richard of Shrewsbury, and Warbeck's later escape, implicated Warwick, who was executed in 1499."
  • for the works that are too old for an ISBN, there is probably an OCLC number available, e.g. "The History of France, from the final partition of the Empire of Charlemagne to the Peace of Cambray". You can search for OCLC numbers at worldcat.org
  • in the Bibliography, "Pollack and Maitland" - first names? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Green tickY Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • There is a contradiction in the first paragraph. You say the Plantagenets ruled England from 1154, and then that they were preceded by the Angevins. But the Angevins ruled from 1154, so saying that the Plantagenets ruled from then denies that a separate Angevin dynasty existed. This is a view taken by some historians, as you explain below. As you have a section on Angevin kings, you appear to take both views, which seems confusing. The New Oxford History of England and ODNB both regard Henry II and his sons as Angevins, not Plantegenets, and there is a Wikipedia article on the Angevins, so it would make more sense to me to start the article with Henry III. (Apologies if I am raising a question which has been discussed previously.)
  • No need to apologise Dudley, as you might guess this has caused immense debate and no real consensus. In the end we agreed that both views were valid—that the Angevins were distinct and also they were also part of this dynasty. Afterall Henry III was the son of John and Grandson of Henry II but there is a distinct change of political paradigms following the loss of Anjou. I have tried to reword para 1 to take your point into account and also make this clearer. Do you think it worked? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • You describe Angevin Empire as a moniker. Moniker means nickname, which does not sound right. Why not just name? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, amended to your suggestion—I think this slipped in during a copy edit. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Through Henry's fourth son, John, a line of fourteen English kings was produced." I would delete as superfluous and not strictly accurate. Richard I did not derive his claim from John.
  • "This was not necessarily due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets." This seems an indecisive comment. Perhaps "only partly due".
  • Some of the second and third paragraphs of the lead, especially on the major buildings and the economy are not supported by citations in the main text so far as I can see.
  • "Towards the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, England was in a pitiful state. The English economy was in ruins". It was a bad time for the upper classes, not for the common people. A demographic history I read (many years ago, so it may be dated) argued that the fifteenth century was a good time for the peasants, when the Black Death and subsequent plagues created labour shortages which allowed them to demand higher wages and get rid of feudal restrictions.
  • Plantagenet. According to ODNB on Henry II the term did not come into common usage among historians until the late 17C, which is worth mentioning.
  • "The birth reduced the risk that the king's realm would pass to his son-in-law's family" Why should the crown have passed to Geoffrey's family if he did not children by Matilda?
  • The article sometimes uses US spelling - rigor and quarreled.
  • "But Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda about the succession." How quarreled? Did he not want Matilda to succeed?
  • Henry's children - why mention Eleanour's marriage and not those of other children?
  • "Becket was an inept politician, whose defiance alienated the king and his counsellors." Is this the general judgment of historians? It is hard to believe that an inept politician could have become Henry's right hand man.
  • "Henry II gathered his children to plan a partible inheritance: his eldest son, William, would inherit England" Presumably eldest son Henry?
  • "'s Great Seal of 1189]]On the day " Typo.
  • "On the day of Richard's coronation, there was a massive slaughter of Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust" This is wrong. There was a riot at the coronation, but no slaughter. There were massacres in 1190.
  • "Richard was captured by Leopold while returning." Leopold had left the Crusade because Richard had humiliated him.
  • "On his accession, Edward I sought to organise his realm, enforcing his claims to primacy in the British Isles. At the time, Wales consisted of several princedoms, often in conflict with each other. Under the Treaty of Woodstock, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ruled North Wales as a subordinate of the English king, but he exploited the English civil wars to strengthen his position as Prince of Wales, maintaining that he was "entirely separate from" England." The chronology seems confused here. Llywelyn must have exploited civil wars before Edward became kin.
  • "When Gaveston returned again to England, he was abducted and executed after a mock trial.[83] This brutal act drove Thomas and his adherents from power." "This brutal act" is POV.
  • "He is generally believed to have been murdered at Berkeley Castle by having a red-hot poker thrust into his bowels" This is dubious and based on Weir. It is not mentioned by ODNB, which says he was probably murdered but may have died of natural causes.
  • "Though removed from power, Isabella was treated well, living in luxury for the next 27 years.[" A bit odd? What else could Edward do with his mother?
  • " destructive chevauchées" A bit euphemistic for attempting to weaken the enemy by a scorched earth policy.
  • "Henry asserted that his mother had had legitimate rights through descent from Edmund Crouchback, whom he claimed to have been the elder son of Henry III of England, set aside due to deformity" - according to Weir - not mentioned in ODNB on Henry.
  • "Many saw it as a punishment from God when Henry was later struck down with leprosy and epilepsy.[" ODNB says that this was disproved in the 19C when his body was examined and no sign of leprosy found.
  • "Humphrey's wife was accused of using witchcraft with the aim of putting him on the throne" Again wrong and based on Weir. According to ODNB on her she was accused of treasonable necromancy for employing fortune tellers who predicted that Henry would suffer a dangerous illness, but not of trying to put her husband on the throne.
  • This is an interesting article but I do not think it is ready for A Class. There is too much reliance on Weir, who does not seem a reliable source. I also think it has too much general history covered in other articles, but this is obviously a difficult matter of judgment. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Dudley Miles:—I'll aim to get to a response on these next week. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Hermann Fegelein[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating the article on behalf of Diannaa (talk · contribs) and Kierzek (talk · contribs). I believe the article worthy of a Military History A-class rating. I have contributed a little to the article myself, but I don’t think I should be credited much for the progress made so for. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SS-Gruppenführer_Collar_Rank.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There's literally hundreds of Nazi military rank insignia on the Commons, and none of them have any copyright information about the original designs. They are probably PD-shape. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Is there anything else which needs to be addressed at this point in time? Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • the pic of Fegelein with Gesele doesn't have alt text (not an ACR requirement)
  • no dablinks (NFA)
  • the link to abendblatt.de is dead
  • all redirects are logical (NFA)
  • reflinks all good (NFA)
  • isn't part of his notability related to his command of SS-Florian Geyer? I expected to see that in the lead.
  • I have expanded the lead to 4 paragraphs. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • for consistency, it might be best to have all references and further reading formatted the same (ie with refbegin/end templates or not
  • issn needed for Der Spiegel
  • locations needed for publication of two references, Vinogradov & Der Spiegel
  • trans-title fields needed for Eberle & Uhl 2001, Fest 2006 and Jaeger
  • while not necessarily precluded by WP:ELMAYBE, I see no reason that lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de would be considered a "knowledgeable source", especially as it provides no info on where the material on the page comes from
  • the dates of rank section isn't quite right, as I understand the ranks of SS-Brigadefuhrer and above were still ranks of the Allgemeine-SS, the Waffen-SS ranks follow (ie Generalmajor of the Waffen-SS). The Waffen-SS general ranks being an amalgam of both.
    • Well, one could hold different ranks in both; and it also depends on the rank table in comparison being used. We had a discussion on this on the talk page and used the German comparison table. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • The table is a bit weird, though. From a military perspective, the only ones that matter (IMO) are the Waffen-SS ones. Many Wehrmacht officers had Allgemeine rank far below their service rank, someone could be an SS-Mann and a commissioned officer at the same time, but their Allgemeine rank had nothing to do with their military skills or responsibilities. I would suggest integrating the Allgemeine ranks into the narrative of the relevant section(s), and leaving just his Waffen-SS ranks in the Dates of rank section. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • the article isn't consistent about Fegelein's fate. The Death section essentially states Mohnke closed the CM (obviously without a judgement) then didn't see him again. He was handed over to the RSD and shot. But elsewhere it says he was found guilty by the CM. My understanding is that the consensus is he was too drunk to be tried, so Mohnke handed him over and the RSD shot him on Hitler's orders. If the facts are blurred, they need to be teased out to a greater extent, including the various versions
    • Again discussed on the talk page at length. The version in the article is the one accepted by the majority of RS sources and it was agreed to put the alternative in as a footnote. The book in the footnote must used with caution as it was a Soviet book put together for Stalin and only edited by Eberle & Uhl. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I did read the discussion in the archive. I don't think that discussion really leads us to where we currently are regarding the article, as the current article text ends up being contradictory. ie the Death section says there was no CM, Mohnke curtailed it when he realised F's condition, but nevertheless F got shot. Either he was CM or he was not. If the academic consensus is that he was CM'd (I'm not at all sure it is), then he was killed judicially, if not, then he wasn't. My reading of various sources on this (wider than the sources used in the article at present) is that the jury will always be out on the circumstances of his death. The fact that the RK arbiters decided something post-facto is neither here nor there. While it should be mentioned, it shouldn't state it as fact, it should just state that they determined it to be such. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It should be mentioned that Hogl was sent to find Fegelein, and that he was himself the deputy of the RSD and the main bodyguard unit commander
    • He was the bodyguard commander for the RSD unit for close security for Hitler but not the FBK commander. It is mentioned that Hogl "caught him" but I will tweak it. Kierzek (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • He was the CO of the 1st Battalion of the RSD was he not? Directly responsible for Hitler's protection? As well as the 2IC of the RSD?
        • Yes, but one cannot say "he was the main body guard commander"; that is what I was replying to. Johann Rattenhuber would be the main RSD commander with Hogl, his deputy, head of the RSD unit for Hitler's close security; but he was not over the SS-Begleitkommando commander who was in charge of Hitler personal security unit; when acting together, Rattenhuber was in charge. That was my point. Anyway, the tweak you wanted is done. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
          • OK, I think we're at 6s and 7s. I just wanted to follow up the whole "abandoned his post" thing. Fegelein had two jobs, one was Himmler's liaison to Hitler, the other was with SS-FHA. His instinct for self-preservation and understanding of what people in the Bunker were thinking (as reflected in the sources) isn't reflected in the article. That doesn't mean he wasn't a deserter, it just means that his situation isn't being presented in a balanced way.
        • done - added detail as to his "instinct for self-preservation" and not wanting to commit suicide in the bunker, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
            • You are right, and that is why the note added states "... Based on this stated chain of events, author Veit Scherzer concluded that Fegelein, according to the German law, was deprived of all honours and honorary signs and must therefore be considered a de facto but not de jure recipient of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross ". Does this not exactly reflect what you are suggesting? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
              • I don't think we can have the article (whether in notes or in the body) contradicting itself without proper explanation in the body. It just can't be presented as a contradiction in the text, then "clarified" in a note. He either was CM'd or wasn't. Do we know? If not, then someone (whomever from the RK mob or later scholars) have made assumptions about his RK. As I see it, the article is contradictory at the moment. It essentially says he was shot out of hand, but also says that he was CM'd and lost his honours. It can't be both.
                • The issue had been discussed before see here. I had advocated adding the "alternative end" to the article based on current histories assessment of whether Fegelein is or is not a de jure recipient of the Knight's Cross. A footnote to the article was the concession made back then. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • Misterbee, he said above to have read that discussion; what concerned me then as now is giving undue weight to the cited text from "The Hitler Book" edited by Eberle & Uhl and the "conclusion" reached by Veit Scherzer; but with that said, have a crack at it or maybe @Diannaa: can. I cannot at the moment (work calls). Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
                    • I understood what was said, I am not that dumb. I tried to express (in a very euphemistic way), that back then I wanted to have the info part of the article, equally balanced among the two scenarios. But, back then, I felt that the main editors of the article were absolutely convinced that Mohnke was "innocent" and not involved in Fegelein's death sentence/execution and felt that Eberle & Uhl got it all wrong. Placing the info provided by Eberle & Uhl and Scherzer's conclusion in a footnote, was the best can do at the time without upsetting (or causing an edit war over the issue) the main editors (so I felt at the time). Having said that, I absolutely agree with Peacemaker, it is a better solution to place the alternative end in the main body of the article. Back then, this seemed an unachievable objective. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
                      • It needs to be made clearer that accounts of his death differ, and if one version is preferred by historians, say why. I think putting one version in a footnote might be a little POV. Or is one version too fringe to appear in the article at all? I stayed out of the debate at the time, because I don't have access to all the sources, and I still don't know what to think. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
                        • Misterbee, I was not implying anything, just thought you may have missed his reply above, lord knows I have missed things before. We are here to work together; I thought the footnote was the best way to handle it then; I expressed my concerns then and above and then added have a go of it; so I believe we are on the same page as to an addition now. Diannaa, as to your comment, the version most historians state is the one in the main part of the article now, but an addition with an alternative end can be made. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fine, who is in the lead on this? Does your last comment imply that the content of the footnote should be integrated into the main body of the article? I want to be sure to what we agreed here. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Unfortunately, I am off to work. Kierzek (talk) 11:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Made the change, please check MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
done by Diannaa. Thanks, D. Kierzek (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I am happy with the way it is worded in the Death section (although there is probably some unnecessary repetition of the bit up to the point of the CM being ordered), but the Awards etc section still states that F was sentenced to death. It is not at all clear that he was, despite Scherzer's conclusion, so I think something more reflective of the two versions needs to be reflected here as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • some people are referred to by their SS-rank, others not. Mohnke was an SS-Brigadefuhrer und Generalmajor der Waffen-SS
    • I tweaked this point recently. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • bit surprised not to see the recent book Fegelein's Horsemen and Genocidal Warfare (Palgrave MacMillan) used as a reference
    • I don't have the book. I added it to the further reading section MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't have it either. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I will get it in on inter-library loan. This could take anywhere from 2 weeks to a month. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • no reference to sources that state he was interrogated by Muller before being killed
  • done. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • one last point, in the infobox he is Otto, but {{infobox military person}} says full name. Is there a reason for the difference between article title, first line of lead and infobox? Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Done, changed for consistency with article title. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Now that Dianna has included material from Fegelein's Horsemen, all my major comments have been addressed, I am moving to support. If this is going to FAC, there are two things I'd recommend, looking at my comment on the ranks table, and tempering the last sentence in the Awards section regarding the fact that the de facto/de jure issue with his awards is just one man's opinion, and reflects only the NKVD version of events. Well done, this really is a great collaboration of a number of editors. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine. I've read through the article twice, and made a few style edits. Otherwise, for someone who does not have a very detailed knowledge of the man's career, I found the article overall to be detailed, informative, and well-written. I have only a few remarks/questions, mostly stemming from my ignorance of the subject:

  • There appears to be nothing of his activity between June/July 1944 and his arrest and death. Even as a liaison officer he is bound to have done something during this period; and given the amount of scrutiny Hitler's inner circle has been under by three generations of historians, I would be surprised if something could not be found.
    • Well in large part that is due to the fact that he had been appointed chief of Amt VI—Office for Rider and Driver Training—in the SS-Führungshauptamt on 1 January 1944 and at the same time made the SS liaison officer at Hitler's HQ. Besides attending military conferences, he spent much of his time skirt chasing. Kierzek (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there anything on how Fegelein was assessed as a military commander? Obviously he was resented as a social climber and opportunist, but some assessment of his leadership capability, or even his status among the men he commanded, should be in the article given that he was a divisional commander.
  • I was going to suggest including a brief mention on his portrayal in Der Untergang, but then I looked at the talk page archive...
  • There is a reference to Beevor 2002 (#30) which does not appear among the list of sources Fixed -- D.

Otherwise, it looks fine. Constantine 21:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I think it should be good for A-class, and maybe later on at FAC. It passed a GA review way back in May of this year and has gone through some minor changes since then. I'm welcoming all comments and suggestions. Thanks for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 13:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

Support Comments: I did a bit of copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes. I have the following other suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)Yes check.svg Done

  • this seems inconsistent: in the body the vehicle is described as "7 ft 3 in" wide, while in the infobox it is presented as "7 ft 1 in"Yes check.svg Done
  • the crew is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body of the articleYes check.svg Done
  • this seems inconsistent: "tonne" v. "ton"Yes check.svg Done
  • in the Bibliography you have "Zaloga (1994)", but this doesn’t appear in the citations; you have "Zaloga (2004)", though -- is this a typo? Regards, Yes check.svg DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • the conversions currently seem inconsistent, e.g. in the infobox metres appear first, but in the body they appear second after feet (this should probably be consistent);Yes check.svg Done
  • be careful about overuse of the word "mount". For instance, "mounted on an M33 Maxson mount" (there are a couple of examples which should be reworded).Yes check.svg Done AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Added my support as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

  • suggest the armament be mentioned in the lead (ie twin .50 cals)
  • the first convert template of each type should render as X feet Y inches, rest abbreviated
  • there is a errant parenthesis at the beginning of the last sentence of "Early experiments"
  • the use of bold in the Variants section is not IAW MOS:BOLD, and the M14 bolding of a link is definitely a no-no
  • I'm not sure the listed vehicles are variants, perhaps "Similar vehicles" or "Prototypes" (if there was a developmental link with this vehicle) would be a better section heading?
  • suggest using refend and refbegin templates in the Bibliography to reduce size of the text
  • The American AFV navbox really needs to be collapsed
  • I have the same observation that I had with the M15 Halftrack article. "per WP:ELNO, what is it about afvdb.50megs that "provides a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it was an FA"? It just looks like a fanboi site to me, perhaps a fairly reasonable fansite, but nevertheless..."
  • the criticalpast website video would appear to be a PD link, but as you can't link it live without establishing that, I suggest it is treated in the same way as in the M15 article, as an EL. That creates a problem for sourcing what it is current citing.

M15 Halftrack[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

M15 Halftrack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Prior nomination here.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I have fixed all problems from the previous review. The article has been expanded to include all of it's Korean War history, a major problem in the previous review. I hope this passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support although I do have one question for you concerning the line "To enhance ground support firepower during the Korean War depots in Japan were searched for vehicles that could be refurbished for possible combat use." Is this as a result of the abysmal sate of the US/UN forces early in the war, or was this done to add more firepower after the war stalemated at the 38th parallel? The article doesn't say, but my on curiosity compels me to ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I think it was during the 38th Parallel fighting, but got no reliable sources.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • this needs a reference: "and a maximum road speed of 41.9 mph (67.4 km/h). Its 60 US gal (230 l) fuel tank provided a range of 150 mi (240 km)."
  • the presentation of the word "half-track" is inconsistent in the article. For instance "Halftrack", "half-track" and "Half Track"
  • petrol --> gasoline (US English variation)
  • the figure of 2,400 built which is presented in the infobox doesn't appear anywhere else, so appears uncited
  • "An army report from North Africa" --> "A U.S. Army report from North Africa"? AustralianRupert (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I reviewed this article at GA, and have looked at the edits since it was promoted. I have a couple of fairly minor quibbles in addition to those already identifed:
    • The production figures in the body add up to 2,332, not ~2,400. I suggest the actual total is put in the infobox, per Rupert's comment above.
    • The Sd.Kfz. 251 itself isn't really a German equivalent to this vehicle, and in fact, the Germans didn't field anything like this one that I can recall. The Sd.Kfz. 251/21 with triple 20 mm guns was at least an AA halftrack, but I don't really see the point in this "See also", as there wasn't a German equivalent with one 37 mm and two 12.7 mm (or even close)
    • per WP:ELNO, what is it about afvdb.50megs that "provides a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it was an FA"? It just looks like a fanboi site to me, perhaps a fairly reasonable fansite, but nevertheless...
    • suggest reducing the width of the citations subsection to 20em
    • The American AFV navbox really needs to be collapsed

« Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav monitor Drava[edit]

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

Yugoslav monitor Drava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Drava is the fourth Yugoslav river monitor I've brought to ACR. She fought the Serbs and Romanians in WWI as part of the Austro-Hungarian Danube Flotilla, then under the Yugoslav flag bravely fought off the Luftwaffe for nearly a week in April 1941 before a bomb from a Stuka when straight down her funnel, sinking her. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Solid article, good work. What I noticed right off the bat is that Berić's death isn't specified in the article body when it talks about 54 of the crew being killed. Also, you should mention that her anti-aircraft guns were operated by Rade Milojević and Miroslav Šurdilović (both survived), that Berić ordered all the ships coded material be burned before she sank and that his first officers Bruno Šegvić and Sulejman Šehović were also killed, per Vujičić. 23 editor (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will get onto those things. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:02, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've mentioned Berić's death and those the first officers, the burning of codes, and that two of the anti-aircraft gunners survived. I don't think naming them all adds anything, they are not notable. Thanks for the comments. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good; I've tweaked the final paragraph in the intro to clarify that Berić was killed in the sinking. 23 editor (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, generally looks okay to me, I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 23:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

« 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 review it underwent some recent copyediting. It is currently undergoing a DYK, and I hope this passes this review. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The original design had a gun shield taken from the T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" - should "T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" be red linked?
  • "Learning from experience with the M3 Gun Motor Carriage, demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood" - this is a bit unclear: what was this experience, and why was deformation of the hood a bad thing?
  • "but by the time they arrived" - when was this?
  • Over what period was this vehicle produced? Is it possible to provide a breakdown of when deliveries took place?
  • "while some of these brigades took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" - given that it's earlier been said that only two brigades used the type, this is unclear (were they issued to other units?) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence reading "When the M3 Gun Motor Carriage was rushed into service, hoods were deformed in the Phillipines, which while it was tested after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, was fixed with demountable headlights" is rather over-complex, and not very clear: I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of these units took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" is still unclear: these operations occurred pretty much simultaneously, and you've only identified two units here. Was it one brigade per campaign, or where other units equipped with these vehicles? Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I could not clarify if it was used by one of the brigades in the Berlin offensive and one in the Prague offensive, since this is what Zaloga states on p. 36:

The first of these to see combat was the 16th Separate Tank Destroyer Brigade which went into action during the Dnepr River offensive in August 1943. The 19th Brigade fought during the Baranow bridgehead battles in August 1944, and some of these units served in the Berlin and Prague offensives from April to May 1945.

  • I'm surprised that the usually very precise Zaloga wrote that; it must have slipped through Osprey's rather hit and miss editing. The problem is that it doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I might have clarified it a little bit with an addition of two sentences about another unit it was used in, although it still may not make sense. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that text unfortunately still doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nick-D: - can you take another look here? Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The American requirement was dropped later." Does your source give any indication as to why?
    • Sorry, but it does not state why it was dropped.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was intended solely for Lend-Lease, the T48 was never officially type-classified." Do you think that should have a ";" instead of a comma?
  • "The gun on the pilot model had a traverse of 27.5 degrees" Consider wikilinking "traverse" to Gun laying. People without a military background might not know what a traverse is.
  • "the British had already won the war in the Western Desert and the appearance of the 75 mm gun," I'm sorry, I don't understand where this 75 mm gun has come from.
  • Wikilink "Dnepr River"
    • I addressed all of the issues except the first one.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: I had a go at copy editing. It might still need a little work, though. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Inconsistent: In the lead “Britain retained 31…”; compare this with the body of the article which says “Britain accepted 30”
  • “The U.S. Army also accepted one…” this seems inconsistent with “The US retained 281 vehicles”
    • @AustralianRupert:This is not inconsistent, since the U.S. retained 281, but 280 were converted, while one was accepted into the U.S. Army
      • I've reworded it slightly because it wasn't really clear, IMO, what the intention was. Please check you are happy with my change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there any details about what units employed the British and US examples, and where they were used? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've done a Google search and a Google books search of all of it's possible names and I couldn't find anything that tells about it's service with the U.S. or Britain.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert: - can you take another look please? Parsecboy (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • in the infobox you have "99 rounds" for the main armament, but this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the bodyYes check.svg Done
  • "was never type classified..." is it possible to explain what this means, and why it is significant?
  • in the lead, "total of 962 vehicles were produced from 1943 to 1945", but in the body "Deliveries of the T48 were made in 1942 and 1943, with 50 arriving in 1942 followed by a further 912 in 1943". This is inconsistent because the later implies that the vehicles were actually produced from 1942 to 1943, not 1943 to 1945. Yes check.svg DoneAustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments

  • The lead mentions Bagration, but the body does not, or at least not explicitly.
  • I'd add a line about the 57mm gun being superseded in US and UK service by the 75mm gun/17pdr.Yes check.svg Done
    • Added--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I meant to say in the lead - guess I wasn't clear. That would explain to the reader why it saw no combat with US or UK forces. Parsecboy (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • On a related point, I'd assume that the US no longer wanted them once the M10 became available - anything in your sources make mention of this?Yes check.svg Done
    • None of them mention.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
      • This discusses the background to the M10 development (specifically pages 4 and 5) - it doesn't reference the T48 specifically, but it talks about the early generation of M3-based TDs fielded by the US Army being stop-gap designs until a purpose-built TD could be designed. That should be sufficient for what I'd like to see added. Parsecboy (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • @Parsecboy: Good now?--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Watch ENGVAR - mix of BrEng and AmEng, when it should be AmEng - forex, I see "tonnes" and "petrol".
  • "Vertical volute" is not a proper noun.
  • I'd assume the 5 .30 caliber rifles and 22 grenades would be the personal armament of the crew? I find that a bit odd to include in the vehicle's armament.
  • Any description of the crew positions?
  • I'd probably alphabetize the list of operators.Yes check.svg Done Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Parsecboy: are you happy with this now? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and thanks for the reminder. Parsecboy (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)