Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/2008/Failed

Failed

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Kostiuchnówka

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how close this GA-class article is to a MILHIST A-class? I do think I exhausted all the sources available to me when writing it. I found and translated a map for the article, but it got removed as it was not free enough and I could never get a mapmaker to make it into a free one (and I gave up... if you know/are a willing mapmaker, please help :). Currently the map is available as an external link: [1] --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• The lead is very short.

• The article itself is short.

• There are a huge amount of redlinks.

• The word 'is considered' should be cited. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 17:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply: lead can be expanded, WP:WTA can be applied. But please provide sources for expansion - I run out. Also, red links simply indicate bias/lack in our coverage (most of them refer to Ukrainian villages), and not a problem with the article itself.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article being short shouldn't be grounds for an oppose; even in FAC, it's not about length, as opposed to how complete the article is. If there isn't a lot of information, obviously the article will be short. On the other hand, if this was the largest battle Polish forces were in, why are there not more sources? JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply. There are more Polish sources, but not online. See further reading section in the article, as well as those mentions.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried to get all the books that are available, and looked at the snippet view on google books for the ones that a library near you doesn't have and you aren't able to purchase?

Snippets are worthless. I will look into getting the books.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The lead needs to be expanded a bit, it's a tad anaemic at the moment
• Some MoS problems, mainly with the titles 'The battle' should be 'Battle', and that massive picture in the infobox just stretches everything out
• Seems a tad POV as well - 'The battle is considered the largest and most vicious of those involving the Polish Legions in World War I'. Now, I know this is sourced, but as a lone sentence it seems POV, and could do with some expansion - who considers it that? Who are they and why is their opinion significant?
• Needs more sources on Russian figures; even approximations with a note stating the sources are vague/unknown would be better than what there is at the moment Skinny87 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply. I think the lead is comprehensive, I am not sure what to expand upon in it. I have referenced, qualified and better improved the sentence about importance. The sources I have don't have info on the Russian figures other than those given in the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • In the Background section the Brusilov Offensive should be explained a bit more.
  • In the infobox, having question marks is bad. There really should be numbers, or at least something that looks more professional than a question mark, such as "Unknown".
  • The article is riddled with grammatical and stylistic errors. It needs a very thorough copy-edit. Some parts are so error-riddled that the sentences don't make any sense, especially in the Opposing Forces and The Battle sections.

I cannot support it until these and the problems mentioned above are resolved, especially the need for a copy-edit. – Joe Nutter 15:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Changed ? to unknown and asked for a copyedit. Can you explain why we need more details of the Brusilov offensive there? It has its own article, after all. I have copied a ref sentence from the lead to BO article to give a little more information on it to the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    The infobox and background are better now, although it'd look better if you replaced "The Brusilov Offensive" in the new sentence with a pronoun.– Joe Nutter 21:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• comment I'm not very familiar with the ACR process, so I won't support or oppose, but that final paragraph of the lead needs to be expanded upon or merged into another paragraph. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, get more familiar! :D We need more reviewers, if you are willing... Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 07:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merged.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Basil W. Duke

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is just about ready for FA, but it's best if an A-class review takes place first.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's kinda short...is that all there is on this guy?
• Dual "See also" sections? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment—references (mostly) satisfy MoS. Nitpick: can we get "pg." to "p.", "pp." or just the plain page #, no p-anything? —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 23:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • • Hold on...if I'm not mistaken, should you not have different citations for different references...i.e. "<ref>Brown p.27, 28, Christensen p.264</ref>" should be "<ref>Brown p.27, 28</ref><ref>Christensen p.264</ref>"
    • Second...page ranges need an endash, not a comma. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can elaborate on the guy to add length. I fixed the problems you saw.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Still need endashes for the page ranges per MOS:ENDASH.

Also, there are image sandwiches in the article that should be avoided per WP:MOSIMAGE. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • "most noted for his service as a brigade commander in 1863's Morgan's Raid; Duke would later wrote a popular account of this raid." This might be better phrased as "Morgan's Raid, because of Duke's popular account of the raid," or something like that.
  • "On January 7, 1861, after so many pro-Northern politicians were elected in St. Louis, he and four others created Minute Men, a pro-secession organization," The "after so many" phrase seems awkward, I would advise changing it to "after mostly," "after many" or something. Also, shouldn't Minute Men be linked to "Minutemen (secessionist)" as it is in Minutemen (disambiguation)?
  • "but would be elected as a Second Lieutenant." Elected? Isn't this unusual, or did most Confederate Units do this and I just don't know about it? If it's unusual, please explain it.
    • Electing of company- and even field-grade officers (colonel on down) occured in both Confederate and Union armies in the war. I believe the Confederates continued this practice at least into 1863. Kresock (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "In 1902 or 1903 he ceased doing work for the L&N." This is a fairly unusual statement, if the exact date is not known, I would recommend saying so.
  • Is the See Also section really necessary? There's just one link, and last I heard they were discouraged, and since this one doesn't seem too vital it might be better to remove it.
    
    Besides those, however, it looks pretty good. Good job. Joe (Talk) 00:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Joe. I fixed your concerns.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 01:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Withhold judgment. At least one statement better be changed; I could have done it, but I didn't have the heart, as it adds a new twist to the English language: When he died, he was one of the few high-ranking Confederate officers still alive. PKKloeppel (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

102nd Intelligence Wing

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it has been vastly improved and I decided to re-nominate it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - does not meet the A-class criteria for referencing...(this version):
  • References needed all over.
    • 2nd para or "Origins"
    • 2nd, 3rd and 4th paras of "Berlin Crisis"
    • Last sentence of "Relocation to Otis"
    • "Conspiracy Link" section
      • First, per MoS, "link" should not be capitalized. Second, look at the para:

Many people who believe in a government conspiracy during the 9/11 attacks claim the government kept the jets from going to New York.[14] Although this is true because of Cold War policies, they claimed that NORAD purposely kept the planes there while the towers were struck. Pilot Daniel Nash said that he couldn't recall being told that the North Tower was hit but he did remember seeing the smoke over 70 miles away.[14] They also believe that using NORAD's calculations, the planes were going at 24% speed.[14] The planes probably flew faster but they could not go supersonic as they would've eventually flown over land, which is against FAA regulations. These regulations ban sonic booms from occuring near land. The exception is that the military is allowed to conduct supersonic flight within certain corridors, which are located in the western United States.

• • • • Sentences 2, 5, 6, and 7 all seem to be OR!
    • First para, second sentence of "BRAC 2005".
    • 2nd para of "BRAC 2005"
    • Last 3 paras of "New Mission" are uncited and have {{fact}} tags.
    • "Current" section needs refs and the sentence is confusing to me.
    • "Cold War" needs references.
    • Same with "Bases stationed"
  • What is Ref #13 referring too?
  • Ref 14 is a blog...

—Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, on my screen, there are two images that sandwich text in the article. Per WP:MOSIMAGE, this should be addressed. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What makes Phillippe Colin a RS. It appears to be a self-styled website. Secondly, it seems undue weight to have all the conspiracy theories in such detail on 9/11 there. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Concerning the last paragraph of the 'Relocation to Otis', I don't understand why I need to reference something that is already referenced. Reference #13 is used in reference to the holding pattern on 9/11. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comments- put references after punctuation marks. Also, make sure that English and British spellings are consistent. I.E honor and honour. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I've done all thats been asked, but I'm not going to touch the spellings because I don't really know where to start. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - the article is lacking in references on sentences at the end of paragraphs, and in some cases entire paragraphs themselves, particularly near the end of the article. Also, is the ribbon image really necessary in the infobox, especially at that size? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • "Berlin Crisis links to a disambiguation, fix this and check to make sure there aren't any others please.
  • There should be a citation at least at the end of every paragraph, this is not the case at least once.
  • "From 1956 to 1976, the 102d was headed by Brigadier General Charles W. Sweeney, who piloted the B-29 Superfortress, which dropped the Fat Man atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan in 1945.[7]" This should be rephrased as it sounds awkward. Too many commas, I think. Also, Brigadeir General should be linked to the rank, whihc only Charles W. Sweeney should be linked to the article on him.
  • Watch linking terms too many times.
  • "Then Federal Aviation Administration contacted the North American Aerospace Defense Command's Northeast Air Defense Sector at Rome, New York, bypassing standard procedures." This sentence makes no sense. Please rephrase it.
  • "The planes probably flew faster but they could not go supersonic as they would've eventually flown over land, which is against FAA regulations. These regulations ban sonic booms from occurring near land" Again awkward, please rephrase.
  • "The plans hit a roadblock when it was announced that there were few funds left with which the wing could use to transition into its new mission.[17]" Few funds sounds awkward. Perhaps insert a synonym instead?
  • Please deal with the fact tags by citing them.
  • In the references please deal with the "page number needed" thing.
    
    Besides those, it looks OK, better than it was last time, but I think it might still need a little bit of work.Joe (Talk) 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Jenin

Closed but not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten this article, and it has since been rated as B-Class. I think it could make an A-Class, and would appreciate some input on how it can be improved. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments—I'm not sure on the specifics of WP:LEAD, but I am a fan of either an entirely unsourced lead or an entirely referenced lead. That way there is no confusing on whether the rest of the lead should also be referenced (the referenced material should just be repeated in the main body of the text). It is a well referenced article on a touchy subject, given the widespread nationalism found on Wikipedia. There are some MoS issues, as outlined below:

Thanks for your comments!

• About the lead: one ref is for a quote, which includes the word "terrorist". It could be problematic per WP:TERRORIST. If you think its important, it could be rephrased. Actually, I'm discussing this lead with another user at the talk page now, so I'll see how that develops.

Update: Following a discussion, the lead was slightly changed. -- Nudve (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Numbers between parenthesis (conversions) should not have the units spelled out.

I've removed the "pounds" conversion.

1. In all instances there should be a   between the number and the unit (whether abbreviated or not).

I'm not sure I understand. Can you clarify? It looks like space.

1. If possible, dates should be delinked—this is becoming the preference.

I found one outside the lead, and delinked it.

Overall, however, it looks good. You will probably be asked to get someone to copyedit the article, although I'm not sure if this will be a requirement for the A-class. I would see if anybody is interested, regardless. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agains, thanks a lot! -- Nudve (talk) 06:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, there should be conversions, but the units of the converted numbers should be abbreviated. For the second point, apparently the no wiki tags didn't work for that. Basically, the space should be created by a & nbsp ; (all together), instead of a physical space (this way the number and the unit will remain on the same line; otherwise, there's a chance that they will break lines). Hope this is clearer! JonCatalán^(Talk) 15:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Nudve (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to retract my support, due to neutrality issues. JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some MoS comments:

First, don't start headings with 'the' or 'an' or any words such as those.

Next, put in-text citations after, not before, punctuation marks. Other than that, looks pretty good. I'll read it through later and leave more in-depth comments. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment-clarify what type of boobytraps under 'Jenin' section. It says it was 113 kg, but what was? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 16:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, Redmarkviolinist. As it turns out, the article is not quite as stable as I originally thought. There appears to be some dispute over the lead. Therefore, I'd rather wait for it to settle before making minor tweaks. Again, thanks! -- Nudve (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That is fine, but these issues still need to be fixed before A-class. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 20:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've clarified the bombs issue and renamed the section. I agree on the inline citations, but can you specify where you see them? because a search for ">." didn't find anything. Thanks. -- Nudve (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - this article appears to have been subject to several disputes recently, including a copyright violation, and now contains a neutrality tag; it thus fails criteria A2. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I'd have to oppose because of the neutrality tag alone, that would not even let it pass a GA review, especially with the disputes surrounding the article. I'd recommend working on getting it to GA first then bring it back here for A class review if the article stabilizes. --Banime (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1964 Gabon coup d'état

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm nominating this for User:Editorofthewiki. This article recently failed a FAC, although I think it should have passed. This is to prepare it for another FAC (I'm assuming it will go through a FAC again). JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You assumed correctly! I'll deal with all the issues here, as long as they are presented in a constructive manner (We had a problem with that at the last FAC). Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Let's not call a bird a fish. I don't recall seeing any concerns in the last FAC that weren't presented in a constructive manner. In fact, the amount of help you received was way, way, way,way above and beyond the call of duty.. a large table was created to help you check your resources.. an editor sent you sources that you did not have, after spending time researching the topic for you... that same editor corrected nontrivial factual errors in the article... etc.
• I would ask potential MILHIST A-reviewers to wade through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état/archive1, looking at all the omissions in the article that were pointed out, and come to an objective assessment about whether they have been addressed. As for cite check—a wholly separate issue!—feel free to edit the "Gabon" section of User:Ling.Nut/keep...
• Above all, the most important point of reference should be the FA's closing rationale
• I won't have time to participate in this A-review. Good luck! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not promoted - please nominate only when you have time to respond to issues with the article, ok? :-/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Marion

Just passed a GA. I'd like to go for A and maybe FA soon. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Just a few points I noticed:

• The following require a reference/citation:
  • "The heavily scaled-down Confederate forces consisted of approximately 1,500 men, under the overall command of Major-General John C. Breckinridge and Brigadier-General Basil Duke."
  • "both sides prepared to resume combat the following day."

 Done ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Citation 10 and 24 are the same; please combine them.

 Done ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Books listed in "References" should have their ISBN number included.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added most of them. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 18:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've done three more. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - 1.0x10⁴ times better than when the last ACR happened. (DISCLAIMER: I have done substantial copyediting on this article since early december). Cam ^(Chat) 22:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment You have one dead external link that needs to be located and either removed or replaced. Two disambig links need to located and corrected if possible. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• References comments (this version)
  • What makes http://www.bencaudill.com/ a reliable source?
  • Refs 9 and 28 can be combined (I think?) using WP:REFNAME.
  • Refs 14 and 21 need periods at the end, to be consistent.
  • You have web references linked just in the "notes" section (i.e. ref#9) and linked in the References with a shortened footnote (i.e. ref#15). Please be consistent - put all the web stuff in the in-line citations as evidenced by Lexington-class battlecruiser, or put it all below like USS Hawaii (CB-3).
  • Otherwise, refs look good and formatted correctly, and Tom got the dead links before me. Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• To be honest, it's a good article but it needs to be expanded before it can get to an A article. This is just my opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernstein2291 (talk • contribs)

• Conditional Support

• I've {{fixbunching}}'d some stuff and added a fact tag for you to cite.
• "John C. Breckinridge—former Vice-President of the United States, and also candidate for U.S. President in 1860—the commander..." Rephrase this, maybe something like "John C. Breckinridge, the former Vice-President of the United States and Southern Democratic candidate for President in [[United States Presidential Election, 1860|the 1860 election]]."
• "Most of the companies had been transferred to the Army of Northern Virginia to help in the defense of Richmond.[10]" This is confusing, does it mean most of Breckinridge's command had been transferred?
• "who stopped just so they could fire a volley into the Union cavalry." Why would they stop "just" to shoot at the enemy? That is what is normally done in war, after all.
• "After repelling a final charge," Does this mean another one after the charge just described, or the charge you just mentioned? Please clarify.
• The map of Stoneman's advance and the picture of the hill sandwich on my laptop, please move one of them.
• "Breckinridge ordered his field officers to inspect the troops and to report back with the condition of his troops." Saying troops too many times in a sentence, perhaps "Breckinridge ordered his field officers to inspect and report back on the condition of his troops."

None of these should be difficult to fix, so please do so and it will, in my opinion, meet the criteria. – Joe Nutter 19:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with few comments

• It would be good if you could get rid of the fact tag placed in the infobox.
• The Union forces consisted of about 4,500 men from a variety of different units, including several units which had participated in smaller-scale raids into Southwest Virginia earlier in the conflict. - this needs a ref.
• On December 14, the Union regiments began to push Duke's cavalry back toward Abingdon, Virginia. The next day, Stoneman and his cavalry went into camp at Glade Spring, Virginia, which was approximately 13 miles (21 km) west of Marion. - needs ref.
• Current ref. number 9 lacks accessdate and other additional information. --Eurocopter (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - are these concerns going to be addressed? The last time this article was edited was on January 30th... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest that this nomination be closed as unsuccessful, the nominator has not responded in several weeks. Cla68 (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thomas Hines

Failed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

One of my favorite characters in the ACW, I think he would make a fascinating FA, especially for my first FA. I know I'll need to improve the map on the article (either once again get the book to take a better pic, or absolutely redo it) but other than that, is it A-class, and if not, what does it need?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good. You need to upgrade the format of your References section (which needs to be renamed from Sources) to conform to WP:REF, including the addition of ISBNs wherever possible. I am not a fan of the multiple adjacent footnote style; consider grouping cites in the same place into a single footnote, separated by semicolons. Can you increase the size of the comparison photo? My default thumb size is 300px and it displays much smaller than that. (Continue to use thumb as the size, but try to increase the source image itself.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Only three of the books had ISBNs, but I redid the References. If I increase the comparison pic, then the Hines part would look bad. As for footnotes, I can, but I will see if anyoen else has a problem with it.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to use Photoshop to come up with a larger version. It looks fine on my system, but somehow the Wikipedia software is distorting it in an uncomfortable way, so I reverted the effort. I guess it is not too important. Never mind. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. While this article has potential, it still has some issues to work out. Masonic University is a glaring, ugly redlink right in the lead, you might want to start a stub on that. Also, can you get one of the little confederate flags in the infobox, for allegiance? The number of cousins in the Confederate army needs a citation. Also, cite the specifics of Hines' Raid, in the 1863 section. The following sentence makes no sense and has a grammatical error in it: "Hines learned how to capture the riverboats Alice Dean and the John T. McCombs, that enabled Morgan to transport his 2000+ men across the Ohio River." What's the point of learning how, did he ever actually capture them? Also, make sure all citations possible are combined, I noticed a couple from the Horan book, so check the rest to make sure they're combined. Besides those it looks OK, but you should fix all those issues and of course whatever other reviewers bring up before it will be 100% ready for A-class. Borg Sphere (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think I took care of you concerns. I didn't see any other flags denoting allegiance in avrious other ACW bios, so I didn't add them. Also, is there really a need for more cites in Hines Raid section; looks like that one should cover it all.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 04:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK, looks good now. I see what you mean about the other bios, and the Hines raid section is OK. Good job on the article. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good! I would like to see the lead and early life expanded. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've put everything I could find about his early life already in the article. Also, I think the intro is succinct in giving the quick rundown of the article, with no omissions.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Given the size of the article, the lead warrants some expansion.
• On the subject of the lead, is the fact that he resembles Booth really necessary in the lead? It's never mentioned again in the article, and doesn't appear to be terribly important. Mention it somewhere else, but not in the lead. Regards, Cam (Chat) 21:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It is mentioned again at the end of the "Late War" section. I'll expand the intro tonight.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 22:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It has been lengthened, and the Booth comparison moved to a better spot.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 03:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• My main concern is the references (Criterion A1). First, the article has several unattributed quotes (the citation should immediately follow the quoted text, and every quote needs citing). Second, there aren't that many of them. Third, the average density, one citation per paragraph, simply isn't enough for an A-class article.
• It would be good to see the multi-citation (refname=) used to de-duplicate citations.
• Not every article is capable of becoming a FA, simply because the sources don't exist to support it. Is this the case here?
• The prose (Criterion A4) lets itself down in places and it could therefore do with a vigorous copyedit buy a dispassionate copy-editor. For instance, in the "1863" section, there's this one long single-sentence paragraph:

"After wandering around Kentucky for a week, Hines rejoined General Morgan at Brandenburg, Kentucky. Colonel Basil W. Duke made a disparaging comment in his memoirs about how Hines appeared on the Brandenburg riverfront, saying Hines was "apparently the most listless inoffensive youth that was ever imposed upon"; despite being Morgan's second-in-command, Colonel Duke was usually not told of all the espionage Hines was carrying out, causing some to believe that Hines and Duke did not like each other, which was not the case.[8]"

• The disbanding of the Guides is mentioned without any prior introduction. Who were they?
• MoS stuff: The dates probably need delinking (as that's the way the wind is currently blowing)
• Some measurements still need metric conversion. There's a neat template for this: {{convert}}.

All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 15:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Trenton

Not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This was recently a FAC but it did not pass so I am going to try for A-Class now.-Red4tribe (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support w/comments In my opinion, it would be best for you to remove the 300px size insert on the page's images since this has the effect of making the images disproportionatly large on smaller screen sizes. Also, unless you have a pressing reason to keep it, I suggest that you see what you can do to eliminate the see also section and move the links in it up into the article body. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the image sizes, but I am unsure how I can put things such as Trenton order of Battle and New Jersey during the American Revolution in the article.-Red4tribe (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Overall it seems to be very good, but it is held back by its need for a copy-edit:
  • This string of sentences sounds awkward, they should be rephrased and combined into one: "Another setback also occurred for the Americans.[33] Both General Cadwalader and Ewing were unable to join in the attack due to the weather conditions.[9]"
  • In general it needs a copy-edit. There are many errors throughout, especially in the American Attack section, that make it sound like it was written by someone not fluent in English or is a translation. Also, an error with formatting the second quote on the drunkenness of the Hessian's in the casualties section, the period should be a comma. Also, in the second paragraph of the aftermath section, it would be better not to have a colon, which implies an extended list, for the two famous people wounded; it might be better phrased as something like "Two notable officers were wounded, William Washington, cousin of the General, who was badly wounded in both hands, James Monroe..."
  • Also, the part about their drunkenness seems out of place in the casualties section, you may wish to move it/make it into it's own section. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• good work - i would add:
  • something about the enlistments ending at the new year (hard to overemphasize)
  • british counting on american demise and going into 'winter quarters'
  • was Hamilton in the Artillery? Knox and Greene there?
  • lead into battle of asumpink creek; princeton where british (cornwallis) wanted revenge for this battle Battle of Princeton Second Battle of Trenton in Aftermath
  • i would move the boat talk up to crossing section - Durham boat
  • add something about the marblehead regiment [[2]]14th Continental Regiment
  • 'victory or death' is from cato Joseph Addison
  • i would incorporate the myth in the body as fact with explanation Pohick2 (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • i would think about just refering to the painting wiki [[3]]
  • there are other paintings as well [[4]] which are even harder to believe Pohick2 (talk) 04:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Bangkok

Hits all the criteria, though I suppose someone should check another published source to see if anything was left out. — db48x | Talk 19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Relies almost entirely on one source. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 14:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As said above there are only two sources and one of those is used almost all the time. Also, none of the references are combined as they should be. There is no infobox, one is needed. The firing upon the Chinese junk needs to be cited. "De-escalation?" Surely there's a better word than that for the section title. Also, you have some works listed in Notes, but you don't have the full information in the Sources section. You should do that and use an abbreviated form, such as you did with the Smithies source. Overall, this article needs some serious work before it can become A-class, and I would recommend putting it through GAN first to get their input as well. Borg Sphere (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reasons stated above. Cam (Chat) 05:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

172nd Infantry Brigade (United States)

This article is a quality GA, and it has been suggested several times for an A-class review. -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 02:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I dont see any source that is not from the US Army. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, the date format is not consistent and there are still many hyphens where ndashes are needed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blnguyen. Close, thats to be sure, but not quite there yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've gone back and added/changed sources to include many non-us military sources. How does it look now? -Ed!^(talk)_{(Hall of Fame)} 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's still 90% self-sourced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose As said above, the citations still come from biased sources. I looked through the list and saw a few that weren't from military sources, but the vast majority still were, and these have a very high potential for bias. If you replace the vast majority of these with neutral third party sources, then it might just meet the criteria, but not until then. Borg Sphere (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Closing as not promoted. Woody (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

102nd Intelligence Wing

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/102nd Intelligence Wing/archive1

Well I improved the article and i've done what was told of me to do. I think this is of A-Class quality and i'll look forward to what others think about the article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the list tag at the top. If it were me, I would incorporate the previous designations, bases, aircraft operated, and major gaining commands lists into the text; they already duplicate to a great degree anyway. This would improve the look of the article greatly. I well understand that this is the standard organisation for USAF unit articles, but it does not really look very nice and as the tag shows, doesn't help it when being considered for a higher classification.

I've done a couple of minor edits in the opening paragraph and re-paragraphed the 'Origins' section. Buckshot06(prof) 12:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Yeah. This is probably not something to ask me. I'm the one who goes into a page and hacks out a list from very few bits of information. I'm actually extremely stickler about the lists existing. This is also the first USAF article to be nominated for A-Class that I know of so I'm thinking that we might as well keep them because it's something unique to the pages. If it might cross anyone's mind, the lists should not be split from the page. I also would have a hard time doing so because it would end up sticking out like a sore thumb because of the way I would end up writing it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Response Hey Kevin. Agree with you on disambiguators; disagree totally with you on this one. Please examine other A-class unit articles - like 51st Army (Soviet Union), (note I'm biased here) which do not incorporate extensive annexes. I well understand this is USAF and AFHRA style to have these long lists, but it does not look like a featured article. Put simply, these lists is USAF house style, not WP FA house style, and we are, sorry to put it so bluntly, not writing the AFREG on USAF history for internal USAF use. That's the basis of my argument. I would propose that we leave the lists alone until they come up for promotion consideration, then reformat them for WP:FA standards, so that they have a chance of further promotion. Bear you no malice on this one, but we do need to consider this issue. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 07:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: I don't actually know what a 'bush breaker' is, but can figure out what 'crash trucks' are. Is it possible to get more descriptive names that are more accessible for non-New Englanders to understand for these two? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 11:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize that that was there. Those trucks are actually part of the Massachusetts Military Reservation. I guess that instead they should also be called a brush, not bush breaker. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you spelt brush wrong. I think that the name is pretty self-explanatory but what do I know. I can't really think of any other name for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are they trucks that pull down trees and clear smaller bushes, with scoops etc? Thus could they be described as 'forestry clearance vehicles?' Am I right? Buckshot06(prof) 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. A good visual is a hummer with a big metal bar welded to the front that pushes down brush. I'm not sure what they drive but those vehicles are popular in the northeast. I think your name sounds a little politically correct but I was able to link the trucks to their respective article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Note People, please don't be afraid to voice your opinions. This doesn't need to stall out again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now

• There are a few bits of emotive language in here: "the 102nd is a source of pride among Cape Codders not only for its decorated past," What has that got to do with an encyclopedia entry?
• Dates need to be consistent, some are linked, some aren't. It looks messy and some FAC regulars will oppose over it. Either link them all, or don't link them at all.
• Maybe it's because I'm a Brit, but "inactivated" just sounds wrong to me.
• "Air units" should not be capitalised
• "Veterans of the 101st..." Could this not be expanded a little bit. It sounds odd. By veterans, do you mean veterans of the conflict, or do you mean service personnel who have retired and then helped to reorganise it? (It currently reads like the latter)
• Could you link the aircraft within the text on first use. It would be useful.
• "Although this is completely true,..." Is that a Freudian slip?
• I have to say that, for me, the "Bases stationed" and "Aircraft operated" need to be integrated within the text. I don't believe they are neccessary.
• "The BRAC decision affected the wing very little,..." This seems to be a random sentence to me. It needs context, what BRAC decision. This shows why these would be much better integrated into the text to remove duplication.
• You shouldn't put the references in section headers, move it into the leading sentence.
• As it is, it won't pass FAC with those sections at the bottom, and as such, under the new ACR criteria, shouldn't be promoted to A-Class. Woody (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Several paragraphs lack sources. For example, under Berlin Crisis the second and fourth paragraphs aren't sourced. Under Conspiracy Link the following sentence probably needs a source - The exception is that the military is allowed to conduct supersonic flight within certain corridors, which are located in the western United States. Further down there are even more unreferenced statements, and I believe these need to be referenced - you can never have too many. JonCatalán (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I see citation needed tags in the article, which means that information that should already be sourced is not sourced. I also see a paragraph in the BRAC 2005 section that has no sources, and that needs to be fixed before I would support upping the class to A. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment First, thank you for commenting everyone! The citation issues always appear and some of them I know that they are factual but i'm unsure of where they might be backed up. I'll try to improve it though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of the Trench

Closed: No consensus for promtion. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is close to A class status. Thus please check it and help us to improve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - some of the sources are unreliable. The one by the Islamist politician who lead the Jamaat is most definitely not reliable. Another is quite old, by an author who died in 1914. What type of organisation is "Idarah Qasmiyyah Deoband" in Uttar Pradesh? Is it an academic publisher? The vast majority of the sources are written from a religious focus. Are there any sources that are more historical? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify which sources do you mean? Who is the Islamist politician who lead the Jamaat? Unfortunately I couldn't find the old source? Religious sources can be historical too. Let's review them one by one.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about Maududi? If yes, how does his modern political thought impact his historical one. I agree is not a netural source on Islamism and Pakistani politics.

Secondly the battle has religious significance. All sources (every single one) will one way or another trace their roots to Muslim traditions. The best source (accoriding to watt et. al.) is the Qur'an itself. It is also the least detailed source. These next best sources comprise of the hadith or the sira both bearing significance in the Islamic faith.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Maududi is a religious scholar too and we consider him as a reliable source in Islamic issues.

Quran and Hadith are primary sources, thus we need to use secondary ones. But we haven't used them in the article except one quotation.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Banu Qurayza is a separate battle and I think it should be omitted from the template. What's your idea?--Seyyed(t-c) 08:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New Encyclopedia of Islam has also separated these two issues. --Seyyed(t-c) 11:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the New Encyclopedia does mention the Qurayza at the end. The thing is that I haven't seen any author talk of the "the battle of Qurayzah". If you want we could remove the Qurayza casualties from the template; however, their strength remains as during the battle Muhammad had to sent a contingent of 200-300 men to protect Medina from the Qurayza.Bless sins (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The BQ incident should be mentioned in short, there is a comprehensive article on this in existence. Whether the BQ should be included in the template (figures, place) is another question. I tend to think they shouldn't. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets understand the different situations: the Qurayza were considered a threat by the Muslims(as they had entered into negotiations) whilst the Meccan army was still camped outside Medina. That is why the prophet, who was outnumbered on the trench, still sent 200+ men to defend Medina from a possible Qurayza attack. This is clearly within the scope of this article.

The Qurayza were besieged after the Meccan army left. Whether this belongs is up in debate.

Thus, the strength of the Qurayza belongs in the template. As for the number of them killed, it is to be discussed.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the article has it the other way, restricting itself to the Battle of the Trench proper, in which the BQ were not actively involved. Hence they do not belong in the template. Str1977 ^(talk) 07:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand me. The Qurayza were involved in negotiations. Why is that important? Well according to Watt, and other sources, the Muslims defeated the enemy primarily through diplomacy. If you look at the casualties, the 10,000 strong invading army suffered only 3, indicating that there was little physical battle involved. As far as troop amassment is concerned, the Muslim did amass there troops in the direction to which the Qurayza were. See Battle_of_the_Trench#Muslim_response.

Whether we should include the siege of the Qurayza is up for debate. I think we should as it was a direct consequence of the Battle of the Trench. Infact, the prophet fought the Qurayza in the same armor he had worn while at the trench. The Muslim army didn't even rest in between the two.Bless sins (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - some MOS and referencing issues:

Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).

 Done

Current note no. 4 - lacks any reference information, page number, etc.

The title of the book doesn't need to be mentioned in every note, so please format them (for example, Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and statesman, p. 96. -> Watt 1961, p. 96).

 Done

Same for current ref numbers 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 20, 21, 30.

 Done

Current ref. number 19 needs a page number and the book should be added with all the appropiate information in the references section.

Current ref. number 25 - These included weapons, household goods, utensils, camels and cattle. The stored wine was spilled. See Kister, p. 94.. I could find no book by Kister in the references section.

I removed it, duo to lack of any information about it on the web.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide ISBN codes for books in the references section. This can easily be done through Google Books.

Unfortunately I couldn't find the ISBN of the two Arabic references.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please link dates in the lead and infobox, as well as throughout the article. For example, 31 March 627 -> March 31 627.

 Done

Use p. for single page reference notes, and pp. for multiple pages reference notes or page ranges. For example, p. 36, 37 -> pp. 36, 37.

 Done

Otherwise the article looks good. After this issues will be fixed, I will probably support it. --Eurocopter (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

The article is in overall need of a copyedit (primarily for flow). I can do bits of this if you wish. My suggestion would be to request a coypedit at the Logistics Department.

Given the size of the article, I think the lead warrants some expansion.

"The Confederates" section reads quite choppy, as there are about a half-dozen small paragraphs of very short length. Would it be possible to combine these somehow?

That's all I have time for now. I'll take a look tomorrow (after I get some sleep). Cam (Chat) 07:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To explain my edits:

• References should be given in an accesible manner. Every first reference of a book or article should give the author and the book title, every further reference only the author and page numbers. If one author has more than one book, titles should be given each time. Years are not needed and are no proper way of making references accessible - it has been a common problem that some editor adds a "author (year)" without caring about whether anyone knows what that book is. Also, various book have appeared in different editions in different years. Readers can more easily work with titles.
• Of course, each and every book used in the notes should also appear in the literature section.
• Authors should be named by their real name and link directly to their article. To see "Watt, Montgomery" (or Even "Watt, M Montgomery") pop up again is saddening. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I followed Eurocopter's suggestions but you reverted them.[5]--Seyyed(t-c) 11:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not revert anything. I made my edits without any reference to any previous version. I explained them above. Please reply to that, if you will. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

These are not my proposals and I ask Eurocopter to discuss with you.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Eurocopter's proposal:

• Use p. for single page reference notes, and pp. for multiple pages reference notes or page ranges. For example, p. 36, 37 -> pp. 36, 37.
• Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).
• Please use en dashes for pages ranges instead of hyphens in references. For example Muir, p. 272-274 -> Muir p. 272–274 (place – between the two page numbers).--Seyyed(t-c) 02:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I never said "your proposals".

• Using "pp." is unnecessary and dated. Everyone sees that there is more than one page by the numbers given. Additionally, it should not be "p. 36. 37." but "p. 36-37" or "p. 36f."
• I don't care either way about the dashes if the one inserting the formatted dashed does so consistently. But it is much easier to include the normal hyphens and I actually never saw the advantage of using formatted dashes. But as I said, I don't care either way. Str1977 ^(talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Str1977 ^(talk) 06:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Just have a look over some FAs and see what type of referencing they use. See also WP:DASH. Consider Battle of Albuera as a referencing style model. --Eurocopter (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I prefer my proposal, the Albuera style would work (as would a simple Author-year style) if it weren't for the tendency of some editors to simply drop new factlets without any regard for the bibliographical information, i.e. they add something and reference it by "Someone (1977)" even if there is no book by "Someone" from the year 1977 in the literature section, thereby forcing others to clean up the mess. And then 1977 is revealed to be a different edition of a book already included under a different publication date. The book's title is the most essential thing and therefore should be included! Common sense should prevail over rigid models defined somewhere by God-knows-who.

Ah, and "pp" is really dated and unneccessary. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe "pp" is still standard whenever "p" is used. A footnote like "p. 272–274" is strictly amateur hour; it should read "pp. 272–74". What's optional, at least in the Chicago Manual of Style and perhaps other systems, is using "p" or "pp" at all when it is understood that the numbers refer to pages.

But you're right that a citation like "Someone (1977)" is not ideal. There's no strong reason to use an author-date reference in a footnote—that's a confused mixing of citation styles. But that horse has long left the barn. Citations on Wikipedia are thrown together from various parts like Frankenstein's monster. But as long as the needed information is there, people seem to be okay with the monster. —Kevin Myers 13:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

102nd Intelligence Wing

Well this just passed the GA review. I was told before it even achieved this status that it should go to A-Class review after this because of the quality. I also think that it has potential because I think that it meets the criteria. So here it is, ready for review. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but this article needs a fair bit of work to reach A-class. It provides a good overview of its topic, but it isn't yet an example of Wikipedia's best work. My suggestions for how it could be developed are:
  • The article is currently focused on the highlights of the wing's history. Surely there are some lowlights as well? (eg, poor leaders, poor aircraft, maintainence problems, recruitment/retention difficulties, etc).
  • The lead is rather short, and should be at least two paras
  • The prose is choppy and doesn't read well. Some of the text is unclear (for instance, "In Massachusetts, the Archie Club, composed of former Army Air Service pilots, lobbied for the formation of an air unit for the Massachusetts National Guard. The state had been allotted the entire 26th Guard Division") and there are too many two sentance paragraphs.
  • Material like "The 101st's planes were marked with green stripes on their vertical stabilizers, the 131st with red stripes, and the 138th with yellow stripes" seems to be trivia to me, and should probably be removed unless there's some broader significance.
  • What's meant by saying that the wing was "federally recognized"? - this term probably isn't understood outside of the US.
  • Is this quote really needed: "As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us. And, and Nasty even called me on the, radio and said, Duff, you're super. I said yeah, I know. You know, don't worry about it. ... I just wanted to get there". I don't understand what it means, and it detracts from the section on the Wing's role on September 11.
  • Over what time period were "More than 600 wing members were mobilized for Operation Noble Eagle"? Were 600 mobilized at all times, or was this over several months/years?
  • A citation is needed to support the statement that "Locals argued that this would leave a huge gap in the national air defenses." and it may be appropriate to discuss whether there were any different views.
  • I also don't understand what "The wing shared the last months with the F-15 with the 101st Air Refueling Wing, the 103d Fighter Wing, and the 104th Fighter Wing." means. Did these units share aircraft or were they co-located?
  • "On January 24, 2008, the 102nd Fighter Wing officially flew its last patrol mission. " is a bit vague - unless there were any unofficial patrol missions after this date 'officially' should be omitted.
  • "As soon as it was announced that the wing would be kept alive and Otis Air National Guard Base would remain open, people began thinking of the future for the 102nd. There was talk that the wing could transition to an intelligence mission so that it could help support the growing War On Terror. " - this is also vague. Which people were thinking about the unit's future, and who was doing the talking?
  • It would be helpful to explain what's involved with the wing changing from a fighter wing equipped with F-15s to a non-flying intelligence wing. Are the ground crew, etc, being retrained for the new role, or have they been replaced?
  • I note that the section on the unit's current composition states that it is "speculative because accurate data is not out there concerning the units assigned to the wing". This material should be removed unless sources can be provided per WP:PROVEIT and WP:CRYSTAL. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I addressed all the issues that he put down except for number two. It is something that I am a bit unsure of how to do although I have requested help for it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support
  • You need citations in the Cold War section, saying that they were neglected.
  • See also: 9/11 conspiracy theories? Eh. If you're going to say that, you need to explain more in the section about what the scrambled planes have to do with conspiracy theories.
  • Perhaps the section title "Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi freedom" is a bit misleading since the unit actually wasn't involved in either of those Operations.

Since you've fixed the problems Nick pointed out, if you fix those and the intro, it'll be better, but in the meantime I am willing to support it only hesitantly. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Now that you've fixed these I like it. Borg Sphere (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Late Roman army

Prior nomination is here. We went through the issues raised during the previous nomination. We could deal with most of them. The images have been checked for complaince with other material and the captions say clearly what they intent to show. However, there are no guidelines on how drawings of ancient warriors or formations should be checked. Instead of bickering here and not in many other articles, guidelines need to be established. The article is focused on the topic, so length shouldn't be a problem. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I went through this article and was astonished that this article was still listed at B-Class. This is most definitely not a B-Class article. Aside from some minor typos, I can find no reason why this article should not be at GA, A or FA level. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support There are 14 references to centuries in the introduction - stylistically, this is not good. I would recommend converting as many of these as possible to recognisable periods. There are still a painful number of qualifiers - a comment / edit of the prior review. For example: "In the comitatus, there is consensus that vexillationes were ca. 500 and legiones ca. 1,000 strong. The greatest uncertainty concerns the size of the crack auxilia palatina infantry regiments, originally formed by Constantine. The evidence is contradictory, suggesting that these units could have been either ca. 500 or ca. 1,000 strong, or somewhere in between. If the higher figure were true, then there would be little to distinguish auxilia from legiones, which is the strongest argument in favour of ca. 500." contains no fewer than five abbreviations of circa - itself not a common abbreviation. This may be A-class copy, but not FA. Dhatfield (talk) 04:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to list such stylistic issues. We will reword it. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• The prior comments apply to the whole of the article. I have a number of problems with using the century as a unit of time measurement:

1. It's a blunt instrument. History does not fall into convenient chunks of 100 years. As a result, their use here leads to (at least implied) contradictions. The introduction uses 285 as the start point, but shortly thereafter there are references to 'the 3rd and 4th centuries' and the information does not mesh well.
2. Interspersing numbers into text breaks the flow like nothing else.
3. I may be slow, but I find centuries, in that they refer to the preceeding century, to be an arcane and inherently confusing method of denoting time.
4. In summary, please use anything, anything at all, as a proxy for the incessant references to century X throughout the article.

• I'm having trouble coming up with a more elegant way to express time in the article. Replacing 'the 3nd century' with 'the 200s' not only sounds even more awkward, but also would lead to many more usages of 'circa,' which you objected to earlier. I'm sure the author would welcome suggestions on how to change that, but it is irrelevant now, unless you really feel that the use of centuries disqualifies an article from 'A' status. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• In line with recent changes to the A criteria, quality of prose and style can, technically, prohibit A-class promotion. I was pushing the issue too hard, see comments below and change of vote. My suggestion would be "Principate period", "Army of the Principate", "Late period"... Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The Principate" is even more of a blunt instrument than a century, since it covers 300 years rather than 100. The only viable alternative to using centuries to describe periods of time is to use the names of Roman dynasties i.e. the Julio-Claudian period for the early/mid 1st c. , Flavians for the late 1st c. and Five Good Emperors for the 2nd c. But as I'm sure you'll agree, "the army of the Five Good Emperors" is hardly more elegant than the "2nd century army" and much less intelligible to the average reader. Also there are no durable dynasties to describe the 3rd century. As it happens, centuries coincide well with phases of the Roman imperial army. The period covered in the article, 284-395, is a close fit with the 4th c. The 3rd c. is when most of the changes to the army took place. And the 2nd c. is the period we have the best epigraphic evidence for the army, which is the reason for the frequent comparisons with the army of that period. EraNavigator (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• If I could think of another solution, I would suggest it, but ultimately that's not my role here; my role is to point out a stylistic weakness. Thereafter solutions are more useful than justifications. Dhatfield (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to limit the TOC length, maybe by limiting it to the 1st TOC level.
• "The army of the Principate underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century." Chaotic is too little information. Saying that it is covered in a later section is not enough - chaotic is just vague.

• I don't see much of a problem with this. While it is somewhat vague, it's not relevant. The article is about the organization of the army, not all the aspects of the condition of Rome in the era. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• You're right - it's not a major issue, but vague in introductions is not good practice. It's an ideal link candidate. Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• This is representative of a broader issue: assuming the reader knows more than they can be assumed to know. Another symptom of this is that there is insufficient linking. Firstly, I know that the MoS states that one link per topic/person is sufficient, I believe that if knowledge of a particularly link is important for understanding a given section, it should be linked. Secondly, there are lots of concepts that would benefit from being linked. Cavalry, auxiliary, emperors, buffer zones, ... The list in the introduction alone is long.
• 'Barbarian' is bandied about a lot without upfront clarification that this translates as 'foreigner'.
• "The evidence is that comitatenses regiments were considered of higher quality than limitanei. But the difference should not be exaggerated. Suggestions have been made that the limitanei were a part-time militia of local farmers, of poor combat capability. This view is rejected by many modern scholars. In reality, limitanei were full-time professionals. Indeed, it was forbidden by law for them to work in the fields or herd animals. The limitanei were charged with combating the incessant small-scale barbarian raids that were the empire's enduring security problem. It is therefore likely that their combat readiness and experience were high. This was demonstrated at the siege of Amida (359) where the besieged frontier legions resisted the Persians with great skill and tenacity. Elton suggests that the lack of mention in the sources of barbarian incursions less than 400-strong implies that such were routinely dealt with by the border forces without the need of assistance from the comitatus. Limitanei regiments often joined the comitatus for specific campaigns, sometimes remaining long-term with the title of pseudocomitatenses, implying adequate combat capability.". Sentences should not start with 'But'. More to the point, if you're going to write prose like this - short, unnecessarily disjointed sentences - why not just cut the pretence and make a list of facts. It isn't just that this lacks style: This. Isn't. Prose.
• Best of luck. Dhatfield (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dhatfield, this article in your opinion is good enough for A-Class. That is the purpose of this review. Everything else is moot until FAC. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

True, the A-class vs. FA criteria are a little vague and I normally focus on style, but the technical quality & referencing put this into A despite weaknesses in other areas. Vote changed. Dhatfield (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Any semantic errors are easily fixed, and shouldn't detract from enjoying this article's excellent coverage of its subject matter. - Hargrimm | ^Θ 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. References are not properly formatted. I see no isbns or publishers (with the exception of one book). Why don't you use Template:cite book?--Yannismarou (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Withdrawn on author request Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I

I started working on this article in early 2007 and took it up through the GA Review process, where it passed. I've decided to continue working on it, and eliminated a paragraph in the history section which had less to do with the tank and more to do with the invasion of France in general. I will work through all the MOS requirements I've learned so far, but I'd like to get some feedback before I put it through FAC and at the same time try to get it to A-class. I think that if it can get to A-class, the FAC will not be such a rigorous process. JonCatalán (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this article could benefit from the same layout as the Polish pl:Panzer I article (rated as a good article by Polish Wikipedia standards), where the history, statistics, users and combat performance of the A and B variants are listed separately. The C/D and F versions have their own articles as "niche" versions. Contact User:Spike78, ask nicely and maybe he will do some new 3D models for you like (Panzer IC, Panzer ID, Panzer IF etc). Mieciu K (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the source material that I have there is not enough information to warrant a new article for the Ausf. C and Ausf. F, and no offense to our Polish colleagues, but the quality seems a lot lower in regards to their article. The page is not close to the 50kB limit and seems to lose length as I change everything to follow the MoS guidelines (with some minor gains at some points). I don't know, but the current layout seems efficient enough (with the variants listed separately, as they currently are). JonCatalán (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I wrote "by Polish Wikipedia standards", I only wrote that I liked the Polish article's layout more. Mieciu K (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. You used a lot of books for information for the article. Any chance any of those books might have photos of the tank in action in Spain, Poland, France, or Russia that you could scan and upload? Cla68 (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have quite a few photographs of Spanish Panzer Is used during the civil war, but none are owned by the U.S. government - they are all from the military archives in Spain or belong to Steven Zaloga's private collection (or at least they are attributed to him). And, strangely enough, I have not seen a free picture of the Panzer I on the Eastern Front, but I'll continue looking. I'm sure that the national archives have photographs of both, but I just have to find them. JonCatalán (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've read trhough this and I quite like the structure. It wuld help to make the pics a little bigger though, they're tiny so you ca't see much detail without clicking on them.--Serviam (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll make them bigger for the review. But, I can't stop editors from reverting them back to thumbs during the inevitable FAC - apparently, larger images are against image MoS. JonCatalán (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've done a line-by-line copyedit of the article, so I don't think I can fairly vote, but it looks comprehensive and excellently referenced and cited (as always) Jon. A few minor comments (mostly fixed in the copyedit):

1. Please avoid your slight and understandable pro-Spanish bias.
2. Avoid or explain the term 'tank surrogate', I don't think it's too well known - I certainly have never seen it before.
3. The combat action section is possibly still a little long. It wanders a bit from the role of the Panzer I in combat to theatre details, eg. number of Polish casualties.
4. I don't think it is made very clear that the Pz I was a dismal failure in combat in almost every action it ever saw. This is a natural bias, but let's be brutally honest - it was blown to pieces by BT-10s :) If there's one thing the Wehrmacht learned from the Condor Legion's involvement in Spain...
5. Needs an illustration - am I showing my bias? I'll get on it ASAP, but as you know that may be a while.

I think this will be a FA very soon. Dhatfield (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Some responses and questions -

1. 1. Does this refer to the amount of space the Spanish Civil War receives in the article or to the attention the Panzer I's career in the Spanish Army after WWII gets? If so, it's a matter of sources (although it may be a bias) and lack of information on the Panzer I's career in the Chinese Civil War (as an example).
   2. Tank surrogate once had a stub article that I made, but it may have been deleted. I'll have to change that term to tank variant.
   3. I'll work on the combat part of the article a.s.a.p., taking out a few sentences and re-writing others.
   4. Well, in the article it does mention how the Panzer I couldn't penetrate the armor of a T-26 and couldn't stop a 45mm round. In Poland, well, I don't think there was much tank on tank action to speak of and I don't have any in depth reports of Panzer I formations engaging Polish tank formations. Perhaps there is information for the French campaign, as the Somua was obviously superior, but I think the role of the Panzer III and Panzer IV overshadow that of the light tanks in regards to the invasion of France and the Low Countries. It's difficult to work it in, but I think I'll make some comparisons between tanks in the text. Thanks!
   5. Wow! We'll your images are always worth the wait! Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: Can I have this review closed? I am apparently going to Fort Irwin tomorrow, for a week (have to get full discharge papers), so I won't be around to finish the review. Sorry - I will reopen when I come back. JonCatalán (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

not promoted Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana in the American Civil War

I feel this article is easily a future Featured Article, but should go through the A-class review that only WP MILHIST can provide. Let the examination begin.--Bedford ^Pray 02:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The lead seems a little short, and more importantly, very abrupt. During the American Civil War Indiana played a critical role seems a little biased and without explanation until the next paragraph, which makes reading difficult. I would suggest combining these smaller sections into several larger paragraphs, and expanding on the first sentence of the lead.
• Indiana contributed roughly 210,000 soldiers to the Union and millions of dollars to equip and supply them - I think 'approximately' would be better than 'roughly' and a more precise figure for the money expended would be nice. It doesn't have to be exact, but more than just 'millions' - 'over one hundred million' if that is the figure, for example.
• The infobox seems to be in an odd place, and seems a bit threadbare - is there no infobox for this type of article that can be used?
• The next day two mass meetings where held in the state where the state's position was decided: Indiana would remain in the Union and would immediately contribute men to suppress the rebellion. - A citation is definately needed, and an expansion as well - who decided, and when exactly? Were there any dissenters?
• Before the war ended Indiana would contribute a total of 208,367 men (about 15% of the state's total population) to fight in and serve in the war.- The brackets seem a tad unwieldy
• The Indiana Regiments Picture needs to be shifted right, its breaking the page in Firefox
• Really, one of the main problems I have is the number of small, fragmentary paragraphs which could either be combined into larger paragraphs, or be expanded upon in more detail.
• Being across the Ohio River from Louisville, Kentucky, the Indiana cities of Jeffersonville, New Albany, and Port Fulton saw increased activity - Not being an ACW historian, this seems confusing and in need of elaboration. Why the activity?
• The prose needs a bit of polishing as well. Take this example - The Sentinel ran anti-war articles like one entitled "Let Them Go In Peace". - This could become The Sentinel ran anti-war articles, with the headline of one such article reading "Let Them Go In Peace". And here: Chaired by Thomas Hendricks, the convention stated that they supported the integrity of the Union and the war effort, but they were opposed to the abolition of slavery.[24] - Surely it should be 'convention members'?
• Spelling could do with a work over as well. When the war ended, the state's Democrats where still seething over their treatment during the war - This has a spelling error, as well as weasel words.

All in all, it's an interesting article that could become A-Class, but it needs a good copyedit and expanding the stby-like paragraphs.

• Not an expert, but the references seem like they need to be sorted out into 'Notes' and 'References', and 'p.' or 'pp.' added before the page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 12 July 2008

I fixed some of the problems you saw: those that were easier to rectify. I'll deal with the numerous subsections soon.--Bedford ^Pray 00:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Air Combat Group RAAF

Pre work version: 1; B-class version: 2; current version: 3; comparison from pre-work to current version: 4

I believe this article fully meets the criteria and the difference is clear. Also see the comments here. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 20:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I am concerned about the majority reliance of the article of RAAF/Defence Department sources, which are not third party. Secondly, the refs are not formatted in a complete manner, with the publisher details (DoD is written at the bottom of some of them) and "English" needs to be removed because English is the assumed default. The other minor stylistic things is that you appear to have chosen to not wikilink the geographical places, and where you have used a "main" link to subarticles, it is not necessary to link the topic again as the first word of the paragraph. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done I think... Please let me know if there is more. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is in much better shape than most RAAF articles, but it's not A-class and still needs a bit of work to get there. My concerns are:
  • I'm uncomfortable with the amount of text which has been directly taken from the RAAF's page on ACG, especially as this isn't identified as being direct quotes. This is bad-practice as the text is a) covered by copyright and b) not neutral.
    • Which text is that? From what I have read, it is neutral, but I wrote it, so that is of course my opinion. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 23:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Some examples from the RAAF website which have been copied and pasted into the article: Air Combat Group is one of the largest Force Element Groups in the Air Force with 145 aircraft, 163 aircrew and 2000 support personnel based across Australia. It is responsible for all of the Air Force ’s F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk squadrons, plus PC-9/A Forward Air Control aircraft. and Air Combat Group maintains a busy training schedule for both air and ground crew on the F/A-18 Hornet, F-111 and Hawk. Recent highlights have been providing support to Operation Acolyte (Melbourne Commonwealth Games 2006) and participation in high-end exercises such as Exercise Pitch Black in Australia and Exercise Red Flag in the United States.. This needs to be re-written and checked against a source other than the Group's website, if possible. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The first part has been fixed. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 20:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
        • The socond has been fixed as well, and I will try to find another reference for it. -- Cheers mate! CYCLONICWHIRLWIND ^talk 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Air Combat Group (ACG) is the group which commands the RAAF's fighter and bomber aircraft" - yes and no. From my understanding, the group is responsible for administering the RAAF's combat aircraft and ensuring that they're combat ready, but they pass from ACG's command when deployed on operations/major exercises. The RAN and RAAF's force element groups do not form part of the command chain for military operations, and commands like Air Command actually 'command' the jets during operations.
    •  Done
  • "In a break with tradition within the RAAF" Why is this a break with tradition? The RAAF has had a very fluid command structure throughout its existence.
    • I agree, so  Done.
  • The various air bases, towns, squadrons, etc should be linked the first time they're mentioned in the article.
    • I believe I have done this, where else should it be done?
      • Looks goood now
  • Why does the 'Operations' section only include the deployment to Deigo Garcia, and not the more significant deployment to participate in the invasion of Iraq or the deployments to protect CHOGM or the Commonwealth Games?
    • I am working on this, so it should be done soon.
  • It's not correct to say that "it was deployed" to protect CHOGM, as only a squadron (or less) was used for this task. The relevant Defence annual report should say how many aircraft were used.
    • Trying to find this.
  • The article's sections should be combined - single para sections are much too short.
    •  Done I think...
  • Topics which are linked in the body of the text shouldn't be 'see also's at the top of the section.
    •  Done
  • Why do you say that the wings are "currently headquartered" at various bases? Are there plans to move them? - I believe that these wings have been located at these bases for several decades now.
    •  Done
  • The Forward Air Control Development Unit is a training outfit, and doesn't "strike designated targets" or "conduct reconnaissance", except in emergencies (some FACDU aircraft were apparently prepared to deploy to East Timor in 1999, but would only have been used in a combat zone if things got very desperate). I believe that it's role is train RAAF and Army forward air controllers.
  • why "traditional single-seat design"? Double-seat training variants of combat aircraft are nothing new.
    •  Done
  • The Australian F/A-18s are not "carrier-capable" and it should be mentioned that they're currently being upgraded.
    •  Done
  • The impending retirement of the F-111s and introduction of F/A-18Fs also needs to be mentioned.
    •  Done
  • The F-111Cs are not "the "recce" or reconnaissance version of the F-111" - they're the Australian variant of the F-111 bomber. Four F-111Cs were converted to RF-111Cs, but are still capable of serving as bombers.
    •  Done
  • All the F-111Gs have now been retired, and they were only ever used as training aircraft in Australian service. It should be mentioned that No. 6 Squadron is the F-111 operational conversion unit, and not really a combat formation per-se.
    •  Done
  • I agree with Blnguyen's concerns about the lack of third-party references. The Australian National Audit Office released a report on the readiness of ACG's aircraft a couple of years ago which would make a good ref as this is an independant assessment of how well ACG is filling its main role. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Leopard 2E

Review extended until 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC) to garner further comment. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed as not promoted. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This is going through a peer review, but I think it would be faster if it goes through a peer review and an A-class review simultaneously. This morning, this article passed a Good Article Review. As with other articles, I'm ultimately shooting for FAC. Thanks for taking the time to look at it and express your opinions on it! JonCatalan (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: It might be better to get the peer review (where the text is described as a "rough draft") more or less out of the way before requesting an ACR. This review is really geared to being the last port of call prior to FAC and the article content will be more stable after the PR is complete. There is, coincidentally, a discussion on this at the moment among the coordinators and comments there would be appreciated. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, but since I have the time to make changes very quickly, I almost rather do this and close the peer review. I'm on virtual vacation at this point, so while in my opinion the ACR gives me the same feedback, it also has the capability of 'killing two birds with one stone.. JonCatalan (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Disregard this comment, please. I'm trying to make the red link on the talk page into a blue link, since it won't recognize the existence of this page. JonCatalan (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Overall, a good article. However, there are a few things that should probably be addressed.
  • One of your sources in the "footnotes" section has a "retrieved on" bit on the end, which is traditionally used for web-resources. If this is a web-resource, would you be able to add the link to the resource?
  • "The Spanish Army replaced its M60 Patton tanks and AMX-30s with the Leopard 2," Did this occur all at once, or was it gradual? Either way, would you happen to have a date/time period for it?
  • The opening sentence of the lead is a bit awkward. Might I suggest "The Leopard 2E is Spain's main battle tank, forming part of the Spanish armament modernization program Programa Coraza, or Program Armor"
  • In the "comparison to other Spanish tanks" section, you go off on a bit of a tangent talking about the fate of the previous battletanks in other countries. To maintain the focus of the article, I'd just talk about the fate of the particular tanks in Spain.
  • As for the wikilink on Programa Coraza. I noticed that it turned up a redlink when I put it in. I noticed that you linked it to later in the article. I'd just replace it with the redlink, which will lead to an article being made on the subject independent of this one.
  • Feel free to contact me if you have questions. Cam (Chat) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I linked to Santa Bárbara Sistemas' page for the footnote in question. I added 'between 1995 and 2008' after 'The Spanish Army replaced its M60 Patton tanks...'. In regards to the lead, someone copyedited it for me! As for the comparison, I took out that last sentence. Finally, I red linked Programa Coraza. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I think you've addressed all of my concerns with the article very well. All the best, Cam (Chat) 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd say it is a very good article! Perhaps somewhat more exact data could be given of the production and the replacement of tanks, using Spain's official entries into the UN Register of Conventional Arms: http://disarmament.un.org/UN_REGISTER.NSF ? --MWAK (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am looking for (in stores) the second part of the book La Brunete, because I'm not sure when exactly Spain's AMX-30s were taken out of service. My sources don't 'go that far' and were written when the vehicle was still in service. If I recall correctly, Spain's AMX-30EM1s were retired and scrapped fairly early - probably soon after the entrance of the M60A3, but I can't verify; the Spanish Army was no longer interested in maintaning a number of tanks in accordance with the limits of the CFE. The UNRCA says that in 1998 the Spanish Army had 618 tanks (244 M60A3TTS', 108 Leopard 2A4s = 362 - Spain never had 374 AMX-30Es). In 1999 the number goes up to 633. UNRCA says that in 1992 92 M60s (of no specific type) were delivered, and in 1993 another 214 (310) - this seems to be correct, although as far as I know M60A1s were never put into service and instead there were plans to convert them into engineering vehicles and bridge lanching vehicles. It's hard to keep track though, since they don't mention anything between 1995 and 1998. It seems that the UNRCA believes that Spain has retained its M47s and M48s in service (the only explenation, although technically then Spain would have over 1,000 MBTs). The amount of Leopard 2Es delivered by Krauss-Maffei adds up, however (30), and I was looking for a good source to verify the production of 30 Leopard 2Es in Germany, so thank you! (Should we be surprised that no Spanish source verifies this?!) I added that 30 were produced by Germany, but I didn't break down production by year. Again, thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Greco–Persian Wars

• Initial nomination

Assessing the article for WP:GREECE I saw a paradox. The article passed in 2006 an A-Class review, but then (in the same month!) failed GA review! I think that it should be reassessed by the project, in order to see whether this paradox (a WP:MILHIST projet A-Class article to have failed GA review) should remain or not.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments -

1. The lead seems short, and should probably be expanded to at least two paragraphs (apart from the guideline to have one sentence per section).
2. A few of the footnotes should be grouped.
3. I don't like the tables in the forces section, and I think the forces should be written out. Perhaps provide a table (laid out horizontally to save scrolling and huge white spaces) for a visual reference.
4. Under the Peace of Callias, I think the treaty terms should be provided in paragraph form. It seems unprofessional to me, but I may be wrong.
5. The article probably needs a thorough copy edit, but I'm not the best person to judge!

These are some things I saw. I will give it a more thorough look over later or tomorrow. JonCatalan (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment eliminate all unsourced material that was inserted since the A-class review. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with the above comments. Some paragraphs don't have citations and the lead seems to be too short. Cla68 (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Nguyen Van Nhung

Review extended until 21:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC) to garner further comment. Eurocopter (talk) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello again! My first visit for almost five months. This is probably pushing it a bit, but at 5.5k of prose (Tent pegging is 4.3k), it is all that exists on the subject. Captain Nguyen Van Nhung was the bodyguard of General Duong Van Minh, who deposed President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam in a military coup. Nhung's notability is solely derived from his actions as Minh's bodyguard - this amounts to executing Diem, his brother Ngo Dinh Nhu and the Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces head and deputy, Colonel Le Quang Tung and Major Le Quang Trieu. All four executions are described to the maximum available extent, as is the assassination of Nhung himself. So, this is an exhaustive account of Nhung's activities, the other parts of his life and military career are not known at all, from my search of 15+ books of the Diem downfall. I guess this is a test case to see if things like this are too short. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A few comments (on request)

• "he known for his role" - missing word?

'Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• No photo of Nguyen Van Nhung I take it?

No. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "a coup led by a group of ARVN generals" - what's ARVN?

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Tung shouted "Remember who gave you your stars!"[3][2][4]" - put the refs in numerical order (some FAC guys are picky on this).

Fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• "into a jeep and driven to edge of the air base" - perhaps "and drove them over the edge..." (check the sentence as a whole)

Copyedited. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are some sections where it really talks about Nhung very little... more about the overall operation or the actions of others (eg. Minh).

Yes, to give background on the assassinations, and to be frank, a bit of padding wouldn't really hurt in such an article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

giggy _(:O) 10:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support as it seems to meet all criteria. giggy _(:O) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Is there any background information on the subject's life before becoming a military officer? If not, I can't see any real reservations about the article, although I might expand the lead a little. John Carter (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no information apart from the four shootings that he did, and the shooting of himself. I'm not really sure what I can do in the lead...unless I should describe some of the gory details? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scraped out a few more generalities for the lead. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Even if it's a very short article, it meets all criteria in my opinion. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Appomattox Station (2)

Previous nomination

Fixed many of the issues in the previous nomination, and I'll try to fix more that come up. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• The text still needs a copyedit.
• The battle needs placing into context: there is none.
• The questions raised about the reliability of the web sources have not been addressed. Repeated here from previous nomination:

• "Battle Summary: Appomattox Station". Heritage Preservation Services. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

What does this add? It is extremely skimpy.

• Williams, Joe (December 22, 2004). "The Final Battles at Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House, Virginia". National Preservation Society. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

Why is a general piece on the National Parks Service website a reliable source for a history article in an encyclopedia?

• Howe, Lanny. "Battle Surrender at Appomattox Station". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Again, this is scarcely a scholarly work. What are Lanny Howe's credentials?

• "Battle of Appomattox". Civil War Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

This is much more detailed than the others but the publisher, Georgia's Historic High Country Travel Association, is basically promoting tourism. Why is it reliable as a source for an encyclopedia?

• Schroeder, Patrick. "The Battles of Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Schroeder seems okay as a source. I'd perhaps cite this as the Bivouac banner.

• Swain, Craig. "Battle of Appomattox Station Marker". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

I'm wondering what this source adds. Surely you can cite the stuff to other better sources?

• "Battle Of Appomattox "Surrounded" April 8–9, 1865". Bluegrass. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

As above. Essentially popularist and not about this battle but the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse.

• The published sources are not particularly current. With the mass of published scholarship, is there nothing more recent?

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs a Level-4 copyedit (contact Logistics Dept., you should be able to get help there). At that point, it should be fine (I would, however, consider increasing the citation density of the whole article, just as an afterthought). Cheers! Cam (Chat) 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral the concerns raised about the material used for referencing concern me, I would like to know if you can find anything more recent before I decided one way or the other. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kaunas Fortress

Article is GA, undergone further improvements. I hope you will give me a feedback that should be improved further. M.K. (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. very promising but this needs work to get to A-Class quality.

• Copy: I've done some light copy-editing but this needs a good work-over. Too many awkwardnesses and occasional longwindednesses.
• World War II: this section seems a bit scrappy and should really be expanded.
• Post WWII: Separate section? Visitor center, restoration etc.
• References: these are a bit light. It should be possible to find more stuff (particularly on WWII as there are many holocaust related archives around). Have you tried JSTOR? If not ask at the WP:MHL#JSTOR.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Answers to concerns:

• Will ask for additional copy edit. (would be great if you could point the worst effected areas)
• During WWII there wasn't much development apart Ninth fort, which is already mentioned in the article. Will look for additional suitable info, though. Will add some info about Red army garrison during pot-war, as well.
• Bad idea, those sections will look very small then, as restoration projects are not launched yet. Will add additional info about development of museum, but this may be overlap with Ninth fort article.
• And the biggest problems are refs, there are simply no much comprehensive works on this subject. Newest publication (which is cited in article) is Arvydas Pociūnas. Kauno tvirtovės ginyba 1915 metais. 2008; also notes lack of research in general. And available data deals with fortress "life" till its fall, rather till present days (which info article needs the most now). Will expand issues with summary why fortress fell rather quickly.M.K. (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Copy: it just needs a general snip and tweak.

Size: Why not merge Ninth Fort into this? It is, I notice, completely unreferenced.

WWII: I'm sure sources are available. There are several here, for example, dealing with the holocaust in Lithuania/Latvia as well as this listing a bibliography for the Kovno (Kaunas) ghetto and the Holocaust.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk

Regarding, merge - I think that separate article for Ninth fort should be preserved (due to its notoriety and general awareness). Of cource this article can be improved.

Regarding WWII sources, I did not said that there are no sources about holocaust in Lithuania or about K. ghetto, I just saying that I have trouble for finding comprehensive sources directly linked to fortress, apart that is already in article. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a source that directly concerns Kaunas fortress. It provides material about the fourth, seventh and ninth forts. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, will search additional material for fourth, seventh (ninth is already in article). BTW, maybe you know comprehensive and good WP article about this time frame fortifications as I would like to investigate some technical issues. M.K. (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Kenneth Dewar

The article is GA, but failed its FAC. The request for copyedit has yielded no takers so I'd like another review via WP:MILHIST A-class. Cheers, Harlsbottom (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The dates in the refs need to have consistent date formatting per WP:MOSNUM. Currently you have some with partial links, some with both dates linked, some in different formats. Consistency is key here.
• There is no need for the comma in the dates; the parser makes [[1 March]], [[1900]] show up as 1 March, 1900 anyway.
• There are still prose issues: "Promoted Acting Sub-Lieutenant," just doesn't flow. I think the prose is A-Class, just not FA class yet. I would continue to try and find a good copy-editor (I know it is nigh-on impossible to do), preferably one without a naval background.
• Why link only the "C" in C class cruiser?
• "and harmonious relationship between the two was to be expected out of necessity." Seems very disjointed. I think it needs rephrasing.
• So; fix the dates and the little issues and I will support it for A, though until you can find one of those elusive copy-editors, I wouldn't support it at FAC. All the best. Woody (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HMS Ark Royal (91)

I am renominating this article for A class review after it has been worked on and overhauled by myself, User:Saberwyn and other editors to fit the criteria. The previous review is archived here. Benea (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support as contributor. I believe that the concerns of the first A-class review have been adressed: namely that a significant copyedit of the prose and formatting was required. In regards to the featured article criteria, the article either meets the points given, or is within easy reach. It should be noted that my opinion may be biased, as I've done a lot of copy-editing on this article. -- saberwyn 05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support The Commonwealth English throws me a bit but everything looks to be in order and the article has certainly been through the wringer enough to work out the problems. --Brad (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Cla68 (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support - great work! -MBK₀₀₄ 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I know that uboat.net is acceptable for sourcing, but you might want to have a response for that ready when you take the article to FAC, because I am sure that it will come up. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This is a very good article, but I'm uncomfortable with the number of rough patches at present.
  • I would strongly suggest a comprehensive copy-edit of the early part of this article. Some of the text in the early sections is vauge or inconsistent and I think that the wording could be improved. The Service history and following sections are excellent, however.
  • "Designed to carry a maximum number of aircraft" - this is vauge - do you mean "designed to carry a large number of aircraft"?
    • That's that basic meaning. Changed.
  • "Her sinking was critically investigated, as the carrier was lost despite significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar." - this is a bit awkward and slightly missleading given that RN practice was to investigate the losses of all major ships - perhaps something like "The causes of her loss were investigated, and the ship's captain was found to have acted negligently" would be clearer?
    • I think it would be a mistake to mention the charges brought against Maund here, as I think it would tend to imply that he was in some way responsible for the sinking. Recent investigation has shown that the fate of the ship was probably out of Maund's hands the moment the torpedo struck. Better to leave this for the appropriate section where this is discussed in more detail. I've altered it to 'Her sinking was the subject of several inquiries, with the investigators keen to know how the carrier was lost, given that there were significant efforts to save the ship and tow her to the naval base at Gibraltar.' Which I think conveys the basic thrust of the various inquiries.
  • "They found" -> "The investigation also found"
    • Changed to 'The inquiries found' (the Board of Inquiry, the Bucknill Committee and the court-martial all analysed the various aspects of the sinking to varying degrees.)
  • If the ship was laid down in September 1935 and launched in April 1937 she didn't spend "two years in the builder's yard before being launched".
    • Changed to 'nearly two years'
  • Notes b, c and d are trivia and should probably be removed. Notes a and e look suitable to be integrated into the body of the article.
  • I'm a bit confused about the para which states that "The carrier was to be deployed to the Far East" but then says that it was decided not to do this on the basis of "recent events" which include two crises which occured before she was commissioned. Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that there was an intention to use her in the Far East when she was ordered, but this changed due to world events while she was under construction? Nick Dowling (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've clarified this. Benea (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Appomattox Station (1)

I will fix any comments that you have. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Needs an extensive copyedit. Please ask one of the other editors actively involved in civil war articles to copyedit if for you. If you can't find anyone, please leave me a note on my talk page and I'll do it. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Citations need page numbers. None of them have! I'm concerned that this article has put together entirely from web sources when there are so many paper sources available for ACW. Which of the web sources are reliable sources and why? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Finished, added book sources, page numbers. --ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good :) Now could you please (1) tidy up the multiply-cited stuff using "ref name = " style refs (see Wikipedia:Footnotes for how to); (2) alphabeticise the ref list; (3) Done cite Mr Burke Davis correctly; {4) lose the extra bracket in some cites; and (5) Done add p. or pp as necessary to page numbers? It's not necessary to say (in English) either, that's assumed.

Can you also please address my reliable sources question? Thanks. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The NPS Battle summary is reliable for sure. How do you want me to alphabetize the references? ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Finished all except alphabetizing. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Observations

This version is not really what I was anticipating :) There are, for example, no page numbers and it's unnecessary to completely duplicate the citations (notes) and the references. Perhaps use short forms for the cites, including page numbers where appropriate, like this:

1. ^^{a b c d} Swain.
2. Davis (1959), p 76.
3. Davis (1980), pp 17–23.

(You can also cite "Davis (1959), p 76." as "Davis (1959, 76)." if you think it's neater or clearer.)

Why do you say (English) after references? This is an English-language encyclopedia, you only need specify the language if it's not in English.

Please list the references in alphabetical order. It makes it easier for the reader to cross-reference them to the cites.

Turning now to the web sources (and this is something that will come under scrutiny if you take this the next step, to FAC), what makes you think these are reliable sources?

• "Battle Summary: Appomattox Station". Heritage Preservation Services. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

What does this add? It is extremely skimpy.

• Williams, Joe (December 22, 2004). "The Final Battles at Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House, Virginia". National Preservation Society. Retrieved 2008-05-02.

Why is a general piece on the National Parks Service website a reliable source for a history article in an encyclopedia?

• Howe, Lanny. "Battle Surrender at Appomattox Station". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Again, this is scarcely a scholarly work. What are Lanny Howe's credentials?

• "Battle of Appomattox". Civil War Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

This is much more detailed than the others but the publisher, Georgia's Historic High Country Travel Association, is basically promoting tourism. Why is it reliable as a source for an encyclopedia?

• Schroeder, Patrick. "The Battles of Appomattox Station and Appomattox Court House". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Schroeder seems okay as a source. I'd perhaps cite this as the Bivouac banner.

• Swain, Craig. "Battle of Appomattox Station Marker". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

I'm wondering what this source adds. Surely you can cite the stuff to other better sources?

• "Battle Of Appomattox "Surrounded" April 8–9, 1865". Bluegrass. Retrieved 2008-05-04.

As above. Essentially popularist and not about this battle but the Battle of Appomattox Courthouse.

• Fitz, Deborah. "Appomattox Town & Park Eye Forgotten Battle Land". Retrieved 2008-05-04.

Broken link.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I just can't seem to source it correctly. If anyone else cand do it, please do.ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken ref, and also converted the long form cites into short form ones.

This review is due to be closed today but under the new rules the nominator can ask for an extension of up to three days to fix ongoing issues. Would this help? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Marion (3)

Previous nomination

Fixed all of the previous concerns. If you have any comments, I will fix them. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 19:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good. I would suggest, though, that you add to the background section a brief description of what Stoneman did after completing the raid. Did he return to Tennessee? If so, when? Did he continue the raid into another area or go directly into the Battle of Saltville? By the way, the link to the Battle of Saltville 2 in the campaignbox goes to a disambiguation page. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed disambig. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks quite good, but before I'll put my support, it would need some minor improvements. References are needed on Strength and Casualties in the infobox, while the lead should be expanded a bit. --Eurocopter (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Promising piece but too many small issues, I'm afraid.

• References:

• These need considerable cleaning up. For books, typical order is author (year of publication), title, place of publication, publisher, ISBN (where appropriate).
• Citations: These could be tidied up along the lines of the Battle of Appomattox Station model. Use of the multi-cite template, in particular, reduces clutter.
• Separate Notes & References sections is neatest (IMO) though not compulsory.
• Minor point: the <ref> tags needs to go immediately after punctuation (ie no space).

• Reliability of sources.

• Is the spartacus schoolnet a reliable source for an A-Class encyclopedia article?
• Can we have more and better dead-tree sources (these seem limited)?

• Copy issues:

• Military titles are used for first mention only; thereafter surname only: thus "General Basil Duke", then "Duke" (not "General Duke".)
• "The Union army that was positioned at the covered bridge" and in the next paragraph "The Union soldiers that had taken positions at the covered bridge" - a bit clunky. Can shorthand be used for this?
• Expand the lead a little?
• Is use of "colored" for troops in the narrative text okay? I know it's in the regimental titles but I'm wondering if it's appropriate elsewhere.

• Other

• A map of the battle would be good but is probably wishful thinking.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: If you'd like extra time to fix these, just ask for an extension. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Army (Soviet Army)

This article went through a WPMILHIST peer review some months ago, and I've implemented virtually all the suggestions made there. It's currently rated B. Looking for either an endorsement of A-class status or pointers on what I need to fix to get it upgraded. Many thanks. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Roger Davies

Comment I'm a bit confused by this article and am hoping that you can clarify it for me. What is its purpose? Is it a list of Soviet armies or is an explication of what "army" means in Soviet terms? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 17:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unlike most of the Western armies, many, many Soviet armies do not have individual pages. This page provides a bit of information and explains the differences with Western field armies. I've added that to the first paragraph. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps changing the article title to something more specific - like Soviet armies (1918–????) - might help? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Soviet armies 1918-1991? Buckshot06 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

H.C. Berkowitz

CommentI also put these on the discussion page. Yes, I agree the purpose is a little unclear, although you do mention that a Soviet (and for that matter Japanese) were smaller than Western ones. In elaborating on that, a worthwhile aside is that Soviet ranks went from colonel to major general.

As they missed out Brigadier General and inserted Colonel General, only the names changed, and so I don't think that's relevant. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Might clarify that Guards designation neither changed the organization of the unit, nor was assigned temporarily.

Will clarify once I have confirmation; at division level 'Guards' did mean a bigger TOE. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarify, if that [what? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)] is the case, the date of these designations. It's confusing to see a redesignation when an Army was reassigned to GSFG, considering that the later name is more likely to be known.

Can you explain what you mean? I don't fully understand. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Reflist should be 2-column.

How do I do that? Buckshot06 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

{{reflist|2}}

Done ! Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus

Comment. I usually go for GA status before the A status, GA reviewers offer some useful input. Lead is way to short and should be expanded.

Done. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are too few inline cites (many paragraphs have no refs).

That's true for the text, and I'm current looking for references, but for the list of armies, to do that exhaustively, there are two main sources - Feskov 2004 and Bonn 2005. I would have repeated, endless cites to one or other of those two works, which are already cited repeatedly and are in the bibliography at the bottom. Is it the consensus view that I should do that - what do other people think? (I'll quite happily insert them, if slowly, if the majority so feels). Buckshot06 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Soviet Armies in the Civil War should have individual armies ilinked, like the following List of Soviet Armies in World War II has (same hold true for other lists - ilink all armies, they were all notable, don't be afraid of red links). Lists of armies of the interwar and postwar series should be added.

Fixed by changing dates - it seems the Sovs worked in two period, Civil War and since.. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. While this does not concern this article, {{Armies of the Soviet Army}} should be added to all subarticles about individual armies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Connecticut Wing Civil Air Patrol

Self-nominator: I believe this article exemplifies the great work of WP. Although it did not pass FAC, it did fairly well (see the archive). I believe that there are no gaping holes, only minor adjustments, to bring this article to FA status. Codharris (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Promising article but this really needs a close copy-edit by an uninvolved editor.

Examples:

• "from flying subchasers" What does this mean?
  • Meaning exactly that.. flying aircraft specifically designed to chase submarines during World War II. I think this is explained clearly throughout. Codharris (talk)

• I don't. Which is I raised it. "operating as subchasers" might be clearer. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "U.S." > "US" throughout please.
  • While I don't think either is more correct, uniformity is desirable Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, as I look through the article, they all say "U.S.". If you think "US" is more appropriate, look at the footer on all WP articles... it uses U.S., so this is obviously an accepted abbreviation. Codharris (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• None of the other abbreviations you use (CTWG, CAP, NIMS, ICS, FEMA, LISP, DOS, GO, FM, DO, SE, HQ, AFROTC, CATO etc) uses points. Thus, US for consistency because, as you say, uniformity is desirable. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Numbers under ten are usually given as words. ("2" > "two" etc)
  • I've checked for these before, but I'm bound to miss some... I'll check again. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Many of the spotted and attacked U-boats that were not sunk retreated" Recast more elegantly?
  • Something like "Those U-boats that remained after the attacks began to retreat"?

• Or even "the surviving U-boats began to retreat" .... --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "the color of the Civil Air Patrol" > "the livery of"?
  • While more elegant, red and yellow were the actual colors of the CAP, not just the airplane scheme. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• !?--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "After the war, the U.S. government officially recognized CAP as a civilian agency that would not participate in combat, such as the submarine chasing and occasional battles that had taken place during the second World War, giving the organization its first governmental connections." Convoluted?
  • Yes... and yet miraculously it is grammatically correct. This sentence's content fell under dispute during GAR and FAC, so it has received many changes and appendages. If you see a better way to state it, feel free. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• "After the Second World War, the US government officially recognized CAP, for the first time, as a non-combatant civilian agency."? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Also:

• The second paragraph of the lead is all peacock stuff. Anything more encyclopedic you could put in?
  • The first paragraph is a summary of the history, the second paragraph is a summary of significant accomplishments and demonstration of notability per WP:Notable. I see no peacockiness. Codharris (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Why not merely summarize the content, section by section? This avoids the POV inherent in listing accomplishments. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry but I really dislike the over-printing on the Air Patrol logo. Official badge or not, it's messy.

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

20th Engineer Brigade (United States)

Closed as Not promoted --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-Nomination The article is a good GA, and has improved substantially over the past few months. -Ed! (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment looks promising but relies almost entirely on government/military sites as sources. Talking about the "enemy" (as in "destroyed over 6000 enemy bunkers") is POV. It also has many niggly little copy problems and needs a close copy edit.

• Use of (Combat)(Airborne) with no intervening space looks strange.
• Various day/month dates need wikilinking.
• Copy edit for punctuation (apostrophes; hyphens "7,700 soldier force" > "7,700-soldier force"; abbreviations: "U.S." > "US"; etc
• Not all units of measurement are converted: these need doing, including "one million tons of munitions".

--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

About the (Combat)(Airborne) thing, the problem is that that is the unit's official name, with both designations in seperate parenthises.There really isn't any other way to put it; that's what the unit is formally called. -Ed! (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment 'Unit' should be 'formation' throughout. Did you run this through a MILHIST peer review? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was under the impression that the A-class review would come with enough advice on its own. -Ed! (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no. An A-class review will be much more cursory. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • Is the information cited int he intro paragraph presented in the article body? If so, I would recommend removing the citation from the intro and citing the corrosponding info in the article body.
  • In the intro you have the following lines: "The brigade supported American forces for several years and a dozen campaigns of the Vietnam War, but was deactivated shortly after American forces withdrew from the country. Reactivated in 1967..." If memory serves, we (by which I mean the US) were still in Vietnam in 1967. This needs to be clarified.
  • Decide on a date format. You have an interchanging DD/MM/YYYY and MM/DD/YYYY format in the article, which according to MoS guidelines in unacceptable; it needs to be all the former style or all the latter. Additionaly, all dates formatted in this manner should be linked.
  • If you are citing an entire paragraph to a single source, consider putting only one cite at the end of the paragraph.
• Its a good start, but it still needs work; nonetheless I commend you for getting this far. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Marion (2)

Prior nomination can be found here

This article has been up once before. I will have more time to listen to comments and suggestions, so feel free to post any. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 20:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note: I have moved this A-Class review per naming conventions. Woody (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose:
• The big neutrality tag at the top needs to be resolved.

The neutrality tag at the top was listed because there were not enough Union sources. I do not agree with this tag, because there are about 2 more CSA references over Union references. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are outstanding "Citation needed" tags.
• There are bare references. They need formatting per Wikipedia:Citing sources.
• The WP:LEAD needs expansion I think.
• I would put the Campaignbox below the infobox. It looks better to me.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• The images are sandwiched between text which is not allowed per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other."
• Reference 15: www.wytheville.org/ Can't verify the text.
• All in all I would suggest a thorough peer review first. What is the current status on the neutrality issue? It seems to be unresolved given the lack of edits since the talkpage post. It cannot be passed as A without that issue being resolved. Woody (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a peer review, it did not say anything that was stated above. I'll work some of this out, though. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

Here are a few comments. I agree with the comments above, although I do not understand the one regarding images and text; the suggested link does not point to information about that subject.

1. The infobox should include strength figures. You should provide citations for the casualty figures. The notation at the top should be "Part of the American Civil War".

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I found the background section to be unusual because it divided everything between Union and Confederate. It is much more typical in Wikipedia battle articles to describe the organization separately, but the sequence of events leading to the battle in a common place.

1. What is the point of the notation (Local Time) in two instances?

This was suggested in the previous Assessment. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand the confusion that someone might think the Confederate army was working on Greenwich Mean Time. In the 2000+ ACW articles I know about, this is probably the only one that uses this convention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. You have four External Links labeled with the same title.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. In Wikipedia Civil War articles, we do not use superscripts for unit names (which you use inconsistently).

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia date formatting requirements do not allow referring to a date as "the 14th".

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. We usually minimize the use of the title General when referring to officers. The first time we refer to them we use their specific title, such as Maj. Gen. George Stoneman, but subsequent references are to Stoneman, not General Stoneman.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Your links to both Confederate and Union do not go to the correct articles.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Try to avoid conditional verb forms, such as "the salt works would be destroyed". Past tense is fine for history article.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Avoid overutilizing the term Rebels (vs. Confederates).

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. In your Aftermath/Outcome section, I believe you are including campaign casualties, not simply this battle.

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. In my opinion, passages such as "Both armies yet again raised their battle cries" are colorful, but not usually found in encyclopedic writing. (There are some battles in which the Rebel Yell played a role in affecting Union morale, but I don't believe this is one of them.)

Done. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1. In my personal style, which you are free to ignore if you do not wish your articles to look like mine, I list publications that are referred to by a number of citations in a References section and then use relatively abbreviated footnotes that consist only of the author and relevant page numbers, rather than repeating all of the publication information in each footnote. This does not apply to websites that are cited only once. In a related comment, I do not think I've ever seen a style of citation in which the name of the author came second.

Good luck with your review. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will try and fix these, also. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 22:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Certainly, this article can't be promoted until that neutrality tag is removed. In my opinion, the lead should be expanded a bit and the current "Location" section should be a subsection of the "Background" section. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I talked about this above. The neutrality tag is only there because there are two more CSA sources than there are Union. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}§ 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am editing this archive now as the above statement is untrue and I did not have an opportunity to address it until now. It has nothing to do with absolute number of sources, it is more a matter of the quality. POV tag will be going back up. Red Harvest (talk) 05:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Closed as out of scope - Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 01:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gregory R. Ball

I submit this article for A-class review. It has undergone a WP:Peer Review from WP:BIO and WP:MILHIST, and was recently promoted to GA-class by one of the most careful reviewers. I think that having other editors involved in the A-class portion of the review process will add critical feedback and make it even better. Mrprada911 (talk) MrPrada (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article was not promoted. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

5th Army (Soviet Union)

Following a peer review (thanks, user:Carom) I think this article is ready for A-class consideration. Please tell me whether it's ready for A-class status, and if not, what I need to do to fix it. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. (changed from support). The references need to be formatted correctly. Not a requirement for A class from me: I would suggest that if available the total number of troops in the army when it was formed and subsequent iterations be detailed and the approximate enlisted to officer ratio. Also, you might should peruse through, although you've probably done this already, images in the Commons and elsewhere to see if you can find some pictures of 5th Army troops in action. If not, you might include some maps from the battles the 5th Army participated in so that the article will have more illustrations. All, in all, good work. Cla68 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments I gave it a fairly thorough copyedit and added a fair amount of interwiki links. Some remaining issues:

• In the infobox, is it standard to use commas between the engagements? It seems unnecessary since there are line breaks anyway.
• For 'Size' in the infobox, can you come up with some sort of summary? I understand it was variable over time, but there are at least two dates in the article where explicit composition is listed.
• I don't think Lelyushenko and Govarov should be mentioned in the lead, but if they are, use their full names and link them, please.
• "the Operation of Rzhev-Vyazma" should not be capitalized unless it's a named operation.
• The inline external link for Klin-Solnechogorsk offensive operation could use improvement. Surely a stub could be made?
• Section headers should be in sentence case - I don't think 'Battle of the Frontiers' and 'On the Offensive' qualify for caps.
• The long parenthetical lists of rifle divisions should be standardized in format; perhaps introduce RD as an abbreviation and stick with it throughout.
• Footnote formatting needs some work - they seem to indiscriminately switch from short format to long format. Either should be fine since the references are listed separately; just be consistent.

They're all written out in full at first reference, then switch to short form. I should have fixed the exceptions now.

• The References section needs work too: book names need italics; ISBNs would be helpful; and the 'further reading' link belongs in an External links section.
• Be careful when using 'however'. It's one of those stylistic habits that people fall into, but it often doesn't really add to the prose, and sometimes the word leans a sentence toward presenting a POV.

Thanks for an interesting read! I think it's ready for A once the style issues are addressed. Maralia (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

*Nominator's Note: Please can this be withdrawn from consideration for A-class; the issues raised will take a fair amount of time to work through. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Marion (1)

I've been working on this article for quite a while, and I think that it could become an A-class article. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 21:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment(s)
  • You mention that General Stoneman had his plan approved by his supior officers, but I do not see those officers mentioned anywhere in the article.
    •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Consider placing your inline citations after your punctuation marks rather than before them, IM(H)O this tends to make articles look better.
    •  Done - I actually used an automated script to correct them, and I haven't checked it, but I have faith in the script. ;) Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do we have articles here for any of the officers or forces in the "preperations" section?
    •  DoneRedmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In the section "preperations" you make mention of 3:00 AM. I assume that was the local time, but it would probably be a good idea to put such a mention in the article.
    •  DoneRedmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise, it looks good. Well done! TomStar81 (Talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. One of my favorite battles. I will try and get you an Order of Battle to use for the article. However, I think the citations need to be properly formatted before I can support for A-class. Shouldn't take that long. MrPrada (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Really needs a copyedit for tone. You might also find that a more varied layout of images (perhaps some on the left?) adds to the visual appeal of the article. I would also see if a little more could be squeezed out of the lead. Carom (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. I would also suggest adding the next-level above campaignbox that includes Stoneman's Raid campaign as one of its subcampaigs, if there is one. Cla68 (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comments. The graphics and such are nice, and the article has a good start with appropriate format. But there are still many issues:
  • The article appears to have been created from primarily CSA sources. Stoneman's O.R. report and other Union or neutral sources should be examined and cited where appropriate.
    •  Done Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC) One of my main sources was primarily Union, but there are more.
      • This is not by any means "done"! The tone of the article is POV'ish and needs a rewrite that matches reality more closely. While I don't believe the POV is intentional, it is one sided in its present form. I've refrained from tagging it as such so far, but it is beginning to appear necessary. Red Harvest (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Stoneman's claimed accomplishments as result of the raid should probably be given some weight. Marvel states that the lead mines weren't back in service for six months. The salt operations were out of commission for at least a month and the railroads, depots, and locomotives of the region were destroyed so that salt couldn't be transported even if it could be made.
  • The sources that claim many Union charges and great carnage in their repulse fail to explain the low casualties. The intensity clearly wasn't there for such a long battle. Makes for a great romantic battle story, but the butcher's bill doesn't support it.
  • I'm also wary of the article's claim that the expressed primary motive for the raid was the massacre. The leadmines, iron works, and saltworks and associated rail transportation were all primary infrastructure targets. Some sort of primary sources/quotations should be added to support the assertion.
  • Since the Saltville battles are only a stub and there is no campaign article, the Marion article is serving for the whole raid. As such the events leading to the battle probably require more description to explain the paths coherently. (I've cleaned up many of the incorrect location listings already.)
  • The arrow on the map box does not represent the direction of the raid. Stoneman left from Knoxville, not West Virginia.
    •  Done Redmarkviolinist ^{Drop me a line} 16:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Better, but the arrow is now coming from Arkansas and entering Kentucky, so it will need another revision. Red Harvest (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Troop counts of combatants at key points should be mentioned. Red Harvest (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Posada

Even if it's a quite short article, I think it could meet the requirements in my opinion. However, suggestions and comments would be welcome. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks decent, with a few potential tweaks. If only for visual appeal, it should not be one block of text. I'd end the introduction with "For Wallachia, the victory meant the continual survival of the young state". Logically, then, the first point is the background of alliances, enmities, events, etc. before the battle. "In 1324, Wallachia was a vassal of Hungary, and Robert referred to Basarab as "our Transalpine Voivode."[3] That might start with "The war started with encouragement from the Voivode of Transylvania[5] and a certain Dionisie, who later bore the title Ban of Severin.[3] In 1330, Robert captured the Wallachian citadel of Severin and handled it to the Transylvanian Voivode."

The location needs to move down, perhaps to a heading Preliminaries and Battle.[5] Basarab sent envoys that asked for the hostilities to cease, and in return offered to pay 7,000 marks in silver, submit the fortress of Severin to Robert, and send his own son as hostage.[5] According to the Viennese Illuminated Chronicle, a contemporary account, Robert would have said about Basarab: He is the shepherd of my sheep, and I will take him out of his mountains, dragging him off his beard. Another account writes that Robert said that he will drag the Voivode from his cottage, as would any driver his oxen or shepherd his sheep.[5]

Even a brief Aftermath and significance section would help. You might restate the victory from the introduction. Add, minimally, the last sentence, and perhaps a bit more about the balance of regional power afterwards. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Length is not generally a problem, but as Howard points out, it should still really be divided into sections - he suggests "Background," "Battle" and "Aftermath," and that seems logical to me. The image that currently appears at the top left corner should probably be moved, as well. Carom (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Would it be possible to extend the lead somewhat? Carom (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I expanded it a bit and think it covers now all the sections. Would there be anything else? --Eurocopter (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Remove the images of the commanders from the infobox. Wikify the use of bold text. Give the sources and dates of all images in their descriptions. Is this battle just such a short affair without any scholars researching the battle dispositions? And the numbers should be based on a historians work(with a reference!) since 30,000 Medieval soldiers being all killed by 10,000 shepherds without military training sounds like a fairytale. Wandalstouring (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read carefully the article before commenting. Of those 10,000 wallachian warriors, about 70-80% were sheperds. Anyway, they succeded because they set up an ambush in which those "medieval soldiers" became an easy target, as the Wallachians were throwing with stones and trees from the top of the mountains over them. The strategy of this battle is very similar to the one used by Henry V in the Battle of Agincourt, where the English army numbering only 5,900 men came victorious over a 30,000 men French Army. While the French lost in combat about 10,000 men, English casualties numbered only 112. So I wouldn't call Battle of Posada a "fairy tale", since we have other famous similar battles, fought in almost exactly the same way. Regarding the other points, i'll try to fix them as soon as possible. --Eurocopter (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agincourt was against trained soldiers(widely regarded as the elite of medieval archers, plus the infantry fought in a morast that hindered movement of the heavier armed French troops and thus allowed archers and billmen to kill them with swift attacks), not a levy of untrained shepherds and peasants (these were also unlikely to attack with swords, a weapon that does require a lot of training). Where is the source about how many were not professional soldiers and what were the arms of these professionals? I can read that it was an ambush, but still killing 30,000 with 10,000 is rather difficult. If there is a large contingent of archers(light infantry can be used with minimal training in formations as long as they have plenty of experience in aiming with their distance weapon) it could work(for example shepherds using the bow and shooting from above, that gives the arrow enough power to penetrate a gambeson), but that is the only weapon in medieval warfare that could do this. So all in all, it would be desireable if you found more sources on how exactly the troops were composed. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, read the article carefully before making such comments. Basarab's army was not formed of a "levy of untrained shepherds". As stated in the article, Basarab's army numbered less than 10,000 men and comprised of cavalry, pedestrian archers and some locally recruited peasants and shepherds. And, the source is mentioned. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I can READ. You just mentioned that 70-80%("about 70-80% were sheperds") of his force were the levy. Where is THAT sourced? Wandalstouring (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And to make this article finally achieve A class you should try to find out how the Hungarian army was composed. I know that they were composed of lots of crossbow archers and heavy cavalry when facing the Mongols, but I don't know how it was at Posada. Furthermore the levy requires some more information whether in Wallachia the peasants and shepherds were allowed to hunt and use weapons(in many medieval European states these were restricted). Another point is the amarment of the Wallachian archers. On the contemporary images it looks like they wield recurve bows. Is that correct? A big question is how the entrapping was achieved. I think that small contingents of heavily armed warriors were needed to trap the Hungarians in the pass, but that's only guesswork. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong when I stated that the Wallachian army was composed of 70% shepherds. Djuvara says the Hungarian army is actually the main Hungarian army, excepting a contingent which was sent in Poland. I don't know if this should be mentioned in the article or not. The shepherds were recruited by Basarab on his way to the location of the battle, so were automatically allowed to carry weapons. However, in the XIV century Wallachia was a poor organized young state, so of course anyone was allowed to hunt and use weapons. Regarding the other details, i'll have a look over the sources, but I doubt such fine details are available. --Eurocopter (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine.

1.It would greatly benefit the article if you found out how many professional soldiers Basarab I had. I'm sure there are some estimates since we do know how much money he was willing to offer. A short note that Wallachian peasants were allowed to carry arms and that the country wasn't very organized would help to give the reader a better picture of the situation.

2. How did this defeat affect Hungary. Did the army composition or total number of troops change afterwards(and what was it during the battle)? Did they become more peaceful towards their neighbours? Did the king rule without much opposition because many nobles were dead? Was the king the only one to make good his escape?

3. What kind of weapons did the Wallachians wield(bows, polearms, long knifes, some swords)? They are depicted with recurve bows. Were these small or large recurve bows(could the same bows be used on horseback or not?Wandalstouring (talk) 09:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

1.The only information we have is already mentioned in the article, "Basarab's army was formed of pedestrian archers, cavalry and some locally recruited peasants and shepherds". Sincerelly, a note that Wallachian peasants were allowed to carry weapons would be absurd in our case and not at all appropiate. We already mentioned in the article that Wallachia was a young country, and however, details about XIV century Wallachia can be found in the Wallachia main article.

2.Of course this battle didn't represent such a big disaster for Hungary, which was one of the most powerfull kingdoms in Europe at that time. Of course the Romanian source which I cited (Djuvara) doesn't give many details regarding the aftermath of the Hungarian side. Also I see no connection of King's rule after the battle with this article, as eventual internal problems resulting from this battle would have nothing to do with this article (as it would not necessary represent the aftermath).

3.Information available states that Wallachian pedestrian used bows. Actually, there was some controversies that the Wallachian warriors would have used lances, but this was later denied by Djuvara stating that this was imposible because the lance can be used only once, in close combat. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

3. That a lance can only be used once in close combat is new to me. It depends on where the enemy is hit(ribcage is the area were lances and other pointy weapons are sometimes trapped).

1,2&3. OK, your source dosn't mention all that. So try to get more sources, what you present is rather meagre regarding research.Wandalstouring (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. We don't have that information because it doesn't exist! Djuvara's work gathers all possible available sources. We don't even know the location of the battle, how the heck can we know such fine details as if the bows were recurve small or large? However, seems that you don't want this article to be promoted, as you keep asking silly questions. I will stop wasting my time, so just tell me, which WP:FACR it doesn't meet?--Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop bickering. If this article was good someone would already have given support for its promotion. The issue with the bows is just minor, but good research could provide the answer. I don't think it is fit for A-class, but I try to help you. However, if researching the issue is too difficult, I can try that too, but this will take me some time because I have to finish other wikiwork. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more sources:

Dr. Constantin Rezachevici, Lupta lui Basarab I cu Carol Robert în Banatul de Severin..., în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 51 - 54.

Florin-Nicu Smărăndescu, ... sau pe Valea Prahovei?, în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 55 - 56.

I think they probably discuss the location, but could contain useful info.

Bertényi Iván: Magyarország az Anjouk korában, Gondolat – 1987, ISBN 9633817761

Képes Krónika (Hasonmás kiadás), Helikon – 1987

I'm sure there are more recent Hungarian works.

The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz does also contain a section on the battle. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1324 there was an encounter between Basarab and Charles in which the Wallachian forces were defeated. That should be part of the background because it was also a dispute centered around Severin.

In 1337 Charles was in alliance with Poland against the Holy Roman Empire and Habsburg. After such a crushing defeat it is worth mentioning.Wandalstouring (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Under the Hungarian successor the struggle continued, plus Wallachia was still officially under the Hungarian suzeranity. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Rezachevici is cited 9 times in Djuvara's book, and Johann de Thurocz also. Unfortunately, i'm unable to speak hungarian. However, Djuvara also gathered the most important Hungarian sources and chronicals. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Try for example to quote directly what the primary sources say (look at Jean d'Arc for example). The Romanian wiki is full of quotes, perhaps there is something that can be used. Also the battles before and after this event should be mentioned as suggested and the legal status against the de facto status of Wallachia. I found a source on the arms in Eastern Europe during this time, however, it is not available in a library on the continent, so it will take some time to add info. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Objection and a to do list:

• Background: Mention Wallachian defeat in 1324 and the resulting suzeranity of Hungaria. Plus that this conflict was already about Severin.

• Battle: The narrative of the battle doesn't make sense. How can Wallachian warriors attack with swords when they are above the Hungarians, shooting arrows and throwing stones? Please check your sources whether there is any mention of one or two small contingents blocking the escape routes. Theory of the attack with lances should be briefly discussed(how did it originate and why is it dismissed).

The cronica lui Johann de Thurocz depicts a cavalry battle. Please check this source whether there is a description of cavalry encounters(entrace and exit?).

• Aftermath: Mention that Hungaria is in 1337 again at war, this time with the Holy Roman Empire, thus has rebuilt its army(short note about the immense financial power possible). Mention the de facto independence and the de jure suzeranity of the Hungarian king until the diplomatic dispute is solved (1340?).

Mention that under Charles's (died 1342) successor the military conflict with the Hungarian king would continue.

• Location of the battle: Create new section after the aftermath and mention the four theories where the battle possibly took place.

Check these sources for information and check the literature your sources used:

1. Dr. Constantin Rezachevici, Lupta lui Basarab I cu Carol Robert în Banatul de Severin..., în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 51 - 54.
2. Florin-Nicu Smărăndescu, ... sau pe Valea Prahovei?, în „Magazin istoric”, nr. 4 (289) din aprilie 1991, pp. 55 - 56.

• Armament: I found a source on the topic and thus possibly a section can be provided, however, a minor issue.

• Legal status of the peasants and shepherds: Whether or not they were allowed to carry arms has nothing to do how young a nation is. If they were allowed to have arms in contrast to other European subjects, than provide this with a source.
  • Unfortunately no such source exist. Since they were fighting, of course they could carry arms. Just tell me a XIV century state, in which the use of arms was prohibited (sourced).
• Citations: provide some appropriate citations from the primary sources (example: Jean d'Arc).

If you have done all demanded in this to do list (except the armament) then I have no more objections against promoting it to A class.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sincerelly, we shouldn't mention those four theories regarding the location of the battle because at least two of them are completely wrong (Djuvara concluded that the locations of Prahova and Argeş should be excluded).--Eurocopter (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. As long as these theories exists we have to mention them, especially since other historians made them. If your source proves it wrong, we have to show how this sources proves the mistake. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with this, introducing false information in the article may disinform. So, i'd rather let this article fail this review rather than continue with this false. Just think, why would an army coming from Visegrád (going to Curtea de Argeş) choose a 600km-longer route through Valea Prahovei? Let's be serious.. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did a historian create this theory? Yes or no? Wandalstouring (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we include in this article all possible errors and misinformations made by historians through the time. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I assume that the source for Djuvara, Neagu. is actually Thocomerius - Negru Voda. Un voivod de origine cumana la inceputurile Tarii Romanesti (Bucharest: Humanitas. ISBN 978-973-50-1731-6) as this doesn't appear to be available in English. As this article is heavily reliant on this source, can you please make sure it complies with WP:RSUE? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it complies with WP:RSUE, as Djuvara is widely regarded as one of the best Romanian contemporany historians. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That's not the point as you'd see if you read the link :) It's about providing original text and translations for key material. This is easy enough to do using a second set of footnotes. This isn't a whim on my part by the way, it's policy. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done, have a look. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The policy is impossible to obey because there are no English sources available. I think it is OK. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it impossible to obey? WP:RSUE says to use English-language sources, if available, in preference to foreign language ones and, if using foreign language sources, to cite the original foreign language text for bits likely to be challenged. That seems very doable to me, and I see Eurocopter tigre has in fact done it. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

He is quoting 24 pages and only a fraction of the text is given here. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean ... that's always the case with cites though, trying to provide pointers for controversial stuff. It's a very hit and miss business, no matter what language :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. On the infobox title it says Slaughter of Posada when the article's name is Battle of Posada, it would be good if you changed it. Also in the lead it says Carol Robert. Does this refer to Charles Robert and if so it would be good if you could change it to keep consistancy. Kyriakos (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Heuschrecke 10

Prior nomination here and here.

I have done a lot of fixing and expanding of the article in question, and I believe that it meets the criteria fully now. See these two previous versions: One and Two. The current version is this one. ~ Dreamy ^§ 02:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • There are repeated instances of stand alone metric measurements in the article, is there any chance we could get standard measurements for those of us who are metrically challanged?
  • In the first paragraph in the section "development" you have the phrase "on the chassis." Is there some particular reason why the word "on" is in italics?
  • Is there some particular reason why the specification chart is in the middle of the article?
  • There are no citations in the cancellation section. Were you unable to find any? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As TomStar notes, the "cancellation" section is in need of some references. The "description" section could also use some citations. You may also want to consider expanding the lead some, but it's not really a major complaint at the moment. Carom (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
• Object lack of refs, and the "Fortune City" Source is not RS at all. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Michael the Brave

I worked quite a lot at this article and think it is ready now for promotion. However, there might be few minor issues to be fixed (copyediting, etc), but i'm ready to take care of them. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think the article does indeed need a bit of copyediting; I made some very minor changes to the introduction, but left the rest alone. I'd be happy to do the copyediting if you'd like, but I thought you might prefer to not have other hands dabbling in your work. Anyway, yeah, there are a few things here and there, like in the Early Life section, where it says "Michael's political career was quite spectacular, he became the Ban of Mehedinţi..." It sounds piddling, but I think that comma after "spectacular" really needs to be a period or a semicolon, since "Michael's political career was quite spectacular" is a full sentence unto itself, both grammatically and in meaning. There's a point somewhere later where it says "allied" instead of "allies"; a simple typo I'm sure. ... Clean these things up, and the few other tiny mistakes scattered through the article, tighten up the phrasing here and there, and I'll definitely give my vote to Support the upgrade. Excellent work, my friend. LordAmeth (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I changed a bit the sentence mentioned by you, but i'm not really sure if it's ok now. As for that "allied" point, I couldn't find it, can you still see it? Or perhaps it was corrected until now...? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Found it and fixed it. LordAmeth (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers, would there be anything else? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Could you request that someone copyedit it for you? I did a little, but it looks like it's going to need a thorough going-over by someone perhaps a little familiar with the topic. Also, although eight references are listed, only one of them is really used for the article. Are the other references unavailable, or don't contain much useful information? Cla68 (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually I asked several editors to help me with this article, but unfortunately I didn't receive any help. See - 1, 2 and 3. Regarding the refs, actually 7 of them are used in the article. Giurescu is the most widely used because it's the best one. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would really appreciate some more comments in this review... --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

United States Army

The article is extensive, has a large number of images and references, and is well sourced. It also has many blue links and very few red ones. -Ed! (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment for now. I don't think there are enough references. The structure section is uncited as is the history section for the most part. That being said, the prose seems good and it seems comprehensive to me. I don't like the famous soldiers section, it is very subjective and not really neccessary in this article. Is there not a category? Woody (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose This should be peer reviewed instead. The "See Also" section can be eliminated by integrating the links into the main body. Entire sections, as Woody observes, are completely unreferenced. The existing references need to be formatted per WP:CITE. SoLando (Talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment the whole section about the Barbary Wars in the 1800s is out of place since only the navy and the marines did play any role in this conflict. An earlier invasion of the Algerian pirates in the US was solved without bloodshed by paycheck diplomacy, so all in all no reason for including this in an article about the army. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead should be expanded, and the article is quite unreferenced - we have entire sections unreferenced. I would also propose a peer review for it. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose As Eurocopter said, needs peer review first and many more citations. Famous soldiers also should go to their own article or category. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I am finding silly errors or style errors in it (It lists the HQ of US Army North as being Houston, Texas? Is that right?). It does use a few odd phrases (It states the US army as having sent millions of men to the front in WW1 and being instrumental in the final push. Many US troops never even got to the front by the crucial phase of the war, milling about in rear assembly areas for training. The references are pretty darn poor as well. Could do with alot more inline considering how many qualifiers are in the text. Talking about future warrior like it will happen is almost comical as well. Apart from that though, on the whole it is well written and not /too/ far off. Narson (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas, and Fifth Army/ARNORTH is indeed there. But all your other concern are valid. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Object not enough refs and the list of famous people who were also in the army needs to be removed. Especially anyone in the their 20s in the 1940s would very likely have served and then you would end up with a massive list of Americans born between 1915 and 1920 roughly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous editors. It needs a hard-nosed peer review. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 09:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.