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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

After A-Class

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


Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

John Hoskins (officer)[edit]

Nominator(s): BusterD (talk)

John Hoskins (officer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the page contains an accurate, complete and concise profile of a biographical figure almost unknown to the English-speaking public. The subject's story is inherently compelling. Article contains some of my best work, research and writing, and while more detail may be found, what appears is quite a good framework upon which to build further. Reviewed for B-class and DYK by User:Hawkeye7 yesterday. That editor was highly complimentary of my effort and encouraged me to improve and promote the work further. Another editor who originally looked over my work, User:Zanhe, a frequent DYK reviewer, also very strongly encouraged me to put this forward for further review. I've applied for GA review simultaneously. BTW, I've been editing for over ten years, and this is the first candidate I've ever put forward for A-class review. I hope that when I get more experienced in this process, I'll be able to improve other work to A-class and FA-class. Finally, I want to learn how to review better. Someone of my tenure should feel more comfortable doing reviews of others' work. Even a failing A-class review in this case will help me learn to be a better reviewer. BusterD (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Buster, and welcome to Milhist ACR. Overall, I think this looks quite good. I made a few minor edits and have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • article title: I'm not sure about the disambig of "officer", perhaps "naval officer" would be better? I wouldn't advise changing immediately, though, best to wait and see what other people think (I could well be wrong!) [MOS seems to prefer a one word disambiguator, possibly (aviator) or (admiral); in any case, I'll wait until the DYK is posted before changing the name]
  • I'd suggest putting his date of birth into the body of the article in the Early life section;Yes check.svg Done
  • there is one dab link that should be repointed: "Pacific Fleet";Yes check.svg Done
  • " exit from the navy..." --> " exit from the Navy" (as it refers to a specific navy);Yes check.svg Done
  • "Recovering in Naval Hospital Philadelphia..." (this seems like it is missing a word);Yes check.svg Done
  • "Essex-class carrier USS Valley Forge..." (move the link for Essex-class to its earlier mention);Yes check.svg Done
  • " North Korean army" --> " North Korean Army";Yes check.svg Done
  • watch out for irregular capitalisation: "Promoted Captain in 1944" --> "Promoted captain in 1944" per WP:MILTERMS (there are a couple of examples of this). I also think "Promoted to captain..." might sound better (but maybe this is a US English thing?)Yes check.svg Done
  • "Valley Forge spent five days restocking and embarking a new air group..." (I suggest splitting this sentence as it seems to run on a bit);Yes check.svg Done
  • watch out for date format consistency: the majority of the article uses one version (e.g. October 22, 1898) but the accessdates use a different version (e.g. 28 August 2015)Yes check.svg Done
  • in the References section, "VICE ADMIRAL JOHN M. HOSKINS" --> per the guidance at MOS:ALLCAPS this should be reduced to title or sentence case (I'd go title case, but either is fine apparently)Yes check.svg Done
  • the sentence starting "The reviewer especially praised..." seems a bit awkward due to the quotation. There might be a smoother way of inserting that.Yes check.svg Done
  • Anyway, that's it from me. Good luck with the review and thanks for your efforts so far. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Appreciate your attention. Anything else I should be looking for (source wise) to advance this to FA level? BusterD (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, no worries. Not a lot leapt out at me when I took a second look; the only thing I'd note is that you could include details (in the body of the article) about when and where he and his wife, Sue, were married. Also, potentially the birth and death information on her in the infobox might be considered to be uncited. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments by MONGO...

  • At some point, though the article is not extremely long as of yet, a third intro paragraph may be needed, or slight expansion of existing into and splitting info three parts.--MONGO 23:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • In Early Life section, "Hoskins was born on October 22, 1898 to Thomas Jefferson..." perhaps make it clear that "Jefferson" was his father's middle name by adding Hoskins to his father's name and dropping it from his mother's name?--MONGO 23:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • If possible, lets expand on the significant issue of Hoskins getting flight training. I imagine that since this was in the infancy of naval aviation, this must have been a rare opportunity to be there any more info about this issue? I've left notes in my edit summaries to help guide this along, and added a few cite needed and question templates which can be removed as you wish.--MONGO 23:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Coast Guard City[edit]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Coast Guard City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it meets the A-Class criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This need some significant work to be A-class. Some comments below:
  • Reference for the list of cities.
  • There are only seven sources. An A-class article is supposed to have broad croverage. More sources needed.
  • Footnotes in lead are unnecessary.
  • Footnotes go after the period.
  • DAB link to "The Day"
  • This could be helpful.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • An A-class and GA review should not be run simotanuously. I suggest holding off this review until that's finished. Thanks, --Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Tomandjerry211; I've now fixed these issues:
  • references for list of cities added
  • sources increased from 7 to 12, or approximately 1 RS for each 35 words of text
  • removed footnotes from lede
  • copyedited positioning of footnotes
  • DABed link to "The Day"
LavaBaron (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, I have to still keep it at an oppose for coverage and accuracy. MILHIST A-class standards are set close to FA standards. Good luck taking this article further, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Comments from AustralianRupert: G'day, and welcome to Milhist A-Class Review. Thank you for your efforts with this article so far. I've had a quick look at the article and a couple of things stand out to me as potential issues at A-class. The main one, for me, is that the article is currently very short. This indicates that potentially there isn't depth of coverage/it isn't comprehensive. The ACR process aims to produce articles that are very close to Featured Articles in terms of quality. In this regard, the standard expected is quite high. As such, I'd recommend withdrawing this ACR and focusing on the GAN that you have also submitted for this (I note Tomandjerry's comment above in this regard, and concur with this). Once that is done, you will potentially have a better idea of where this article sits on the assessment scale. Additionally, if you would like ideas for expansion, perhaps the peer review process might help. I hope you won't be discouraged by these comments, though. Good luck with taking it further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list


Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

Æthelwulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have done a lot of work on it and I hope to get it to FA. Mike Christie contributed, especially on coinage, and also reviewed. Dank, Nortonius and Tim Riley also gave very helpful comments at PR, and it has also been reviewed by a historian, Barbara Yorke. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim riley[edit]

I'll gladly review, but, as I've never taken part in an A class review before, I shall need to go and do some homework first. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Later: My credentials as a reviewer of Military History article can be gauged by my having received the Queen's Award for Cowardice (available for inspection in the trophy cabinet of my user page). Be that as it may, having checked the criteria I think the article meets them all. Happy to support, and I look forward to meeting Æthelwulf again at FAC. Tim riley talk 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

USS New Mexico (BB-40)[edit]

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

USS New Mexico (BB-40) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... it seems to meet all expectations for A-class. It is my first battleship article that seems to be able to make it up here. Launched in 1917 and commissioned soon after. She escorted the ship carrying Pres. Woodrow Wilson to France for the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. She was involved as a test ship in the development of PID controllers, and was put on Atlantic neutrality patrol in 1940. She was scrambled to the Pacific in 1941 and accidentally rammed into a freighter off Nantucket Lightship. She participated in many bombardments of islands in the Pacific and was put on Operation Magic Carpet duty. After a disagreement between officials, she was scrapped in Newark, New Jersey in 1947–1948 It passed a GA back in July and had a recent DYK. I hope this passes. Thanks for your comments, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I made a start at copy editing, but I think it probably needs a bit more work before it is up to A-class standards and I think it is beyond my skill level (sorry). Do you have a copy editor that you could ask to take a run through the article? @Dank: Not sure if you are keen, but if you are, would you mind potentially having a look at this article?
  • with regards to the access dates for your web citations, I suggest adjusting the date format so it is consistent with the rest of the articleYes check.svg Done
  • From a MOS perspective "File:USS New Mexico BB-40 1921.jpg" would probably be better if it faced into the article. Yes check.svg Done
  • I've swapped the infobox image with this one now, which I think solves the problem. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest deleting the "Battle of Newark Bay" header as it seems redundant to the Post war headerYes check.svg Done
  • in the Awards section, were these awards actually presented to the ship, or to personnel who served on her? I suggest potentially adding a sentence to clarify this.Yes check.svg Done
  • Your change looks good, I wonder about whether a note should be added though, explaining the process. How can a ship be awarded a medal? Not a warstopper for me, if the information is a bit too esoteric, but I think it might add to the readers' understanding. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I will try to take another look in a week or so. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, AR, but no, I'm not taking copyediting requests until I get some things off my plate. - Dank (push to talk) 11:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, no worries, Dan, thanks for getting back to me. Hope you are well. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the point about the destruction of the eight Shinyo suicide boats probably could be explained in a bit more detail as it seems significant. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose From a quick look at the article, I found a significant number of factual errors in the section on 1945:

  • "She fought under a sky of Japanese suicide planes" - obvious exaggerationYes check.svg Done
  • "She fired the pre-invasion shelling of Lingayen Gulf" - the bombardment force was large, but the current wording suggests that only New Mexico was involvedYes check.svg Done
  • "The designated commander of the British Pacific Fleet (Bruce Fraser) narrowly escaped death while on her bridge" - Fraser was the actual commander of the fleet Yes check.svg Done
  • "Her heavy guns opened up on Okinawa on 26 March. Her guns were not silent until 17 April" - the ship obviously didn't fire her guns continuously for almost a month as this loose wording implies Yes check.svg Done
  • I'm also a bit concerned about the sourcing: there's a heavy reliance on DANFS, which needs to be used with great care given its a US Navy source whose authors often omitted embarrassing topics, and "USS New Mexico (BB-40): The Queen's Story in the Words of Her Men" is from an obscure publisher which doesn't seem to even have a website - are you sure that it's a reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I should also note that the level of detail provided on the ship's history is considerably less than other A-class articles on American battleships - there are lots of sources which can be tapped on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. As a copyeditor, I rarely oppose ... either I dig in and help fix problems, or I don't. I might be wrong, but per Nick, I get the sense that I can't fix the problems here ... and copyediting would probably make things worse rather than better, because it's the things that don't sound quite right that provide clues concerning what might need to be fixed. So, largely per Nick, I'm opposing for now. - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav submarine Nebojša[edit]

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

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


Most of the Yugoslav Navy was captured intact in port during the April 1941 invasion, but Nebojša escaped and joined the Royal Navy, and was returned to the Yugoslavs after the war. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

SupportComments: G'day, I made a couple of minor tweaks and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I see a mixture of British English and American English spellings. For example "draught" (British) and "maneuvers" (US)
  • "sister ship of the Hrabri-class Hrabri" (this looks a little clunky). I wonder if you couldn't just say "sister ship Hrabri"
  • I wonder if it should be mentioned that the electric motors were for use while submerged? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
    • Really not much to find fault with, looks good to me.
    • "She served with the British 2nd Submarine Flotilla in 1942 and the British 3rd Submarine Flotilla in 1943,[1] and she continued serving in the Mediterranean until the end of the war..." The prose is just a little repetitive (specifically "serve" and "serving"). Consider perhaps something like: "She served with the British 2nd Submarine Flotilla in 1942 and the British 3rd Submarine Flotilla in 1943,[1] and continued working in the Mediterranean until the end of the war..." (minor nitpick, suggestion only) Anotherclown (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia)[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The image of the Australian light horseman is probably one of the most iconic representations of Australia's involvement in the First World War. This article is about one of about fifteen or so regiments raised as part of the Australian Imperial Force during the war. It saw service at Gallipoli, where it was used mainly to provide reinforcements, and then later fought during the Sinai and Palestine campaign. Disbanded after the conclusion of hostilities, it was re-raised as a part-time unit in the Citizens Forces. It remained a horsed regiment throughout the inter-war years but during World War II was converted into a motor regiment and then later an armoured car unit, being used in a garrison role only. It is currently perpetuated by the 12th/16th Hunter River Lancers. The article underwent a GA nomination several years back and has been tweaked a bit since then. Thank you to all who take the time to review and offer comments. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:12thALHRbadge.jpg: should fill in those "n.a." parameters. Also, what is the original date for this badge design?
    • Not sure, unfortunately, but it would have been between 1927 (when the motto was adopted) and 1943 (when the regiment was disbanded). I've added this to the documentation page and added some more info to the missing fields. Please let me know if you think it needs more work. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • File:12th_Light_Horse_Regiment_UCP.PNG: would suggest using {{PD-ineligible}} for this given its simplicity. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Good point, went with "PD-Shape" (a derivative of PD-ineligible) which seems to render a slightly more specific ineligibility clause. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images all have alt text except for the badge so you might consider adding it for consistency (suggestion only - not an ACR req).
    • The citation check tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • Image review completed above (no action req'd that I can see).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The lead is a little short, maybe expand to two?
    • "Although other units, such as part of the 4th and all of the 13th Light Horse Regiment, were sent to Europe to fight on the Western Front,[9] the 12th were to remain in the Middle East...", perhaps clarify that that bulk of the Light Horse remained in the Middle East? They way I read this it almost sounds like the 12th was the odd one out in not going to Europe, which of cse it wasn't.
    • "...while some men from the regiment were also detached to join Dunsterforce...", where?
    • Are there some words missing here: "Over 700 Ottoman soldiers captured and, more significantly for the Australians, over 400,000 litres of water secured."? It seems a bit rigid.
    • "In March, the 4th Light Horse Brigade, commanded by William Grant..." rank for Grant here (if available in the sources)?
    • "...further advance towards the railway junction at Deraa...", wikilink Deraa
    • There is possibly an inconsistency here: "..." the Germans manning the station killed them..." (them suggesting multiple killed), followed by "In the battle, the regiment lost one man killed and 10 wounded..." Is there an issue here, or were these men from a different unit. If it is an inconsistency in the sources perhaps reword to "the Germans manning the station shot them..." or something similar.
      • There were several killed from both the 11th and 12th LHRs. I've tried to make this clearer. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Add isbn for Hogan (ADB entry) and oclc for Stanley (also mention that it was part of the proceedings of the 2001 Chief of Army's History Conference etc). See entry for the details. Anotherclown (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the review, I think I've got all of these. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
          • Those changes have addressed all my points, I made a few tweaks at the end to the lead [1]. Pls review and change any you don't agree with. In particular I though it was redundant to say "12 LHR was a LHR" so changed it to "12 LHR was a mounted infantry regiment". Do you think that is workable? Anotherclown (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
  • First of all, and I know you hear this every Anzac day, but light horse were not mounted infantry. Mounted infantry were infantry that rode to the battle on horseback, dismounted and fought as infantry. From the Australian Light Horse article, which gets it right:

Light horse were like mounted infantry in that they usually fought dismounted, using their horses as transport to the battlefield and as a means of swift disengagement when retreating or retiring... However, unlike mounted infantry, the light horse also performed certain cavalry roles, such as scouting and screening, while mounted.

Contrary to your article, the light horse were trained for some cavalry actions, but they were just not intended to fight as cavalry on the battlefield
Mounted infantry were organised as infantry, in platoons and companies, but light horse were organised along cavalry lines, in troops, squadrons and regiments. Note how much smaller light horse regiments were than infantry battalions
G'day, I've had a go at addressing this. Would you mind taking a look and seeing it needs further adjustment? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the lead should mention the the 12th Light Horse was raised in New South Wales.
  • Galloping Jack Royston could be red linked, as he was a general, but it's up to you
  • Red linked. Agreed, definitely could have an article written on him. Might have a go at it myself sometime if someone doesn't beat me to it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Update: I have created a stub article for Royston now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The 12th Light Horse was reformed because it was intended to become the mounted regiment of the newly-formed 5th Division; but the TO was changed so each division had only one squadron.
  • G'day, thanks for this, I haven't been able to find a ref for this yet. Do you have one at hand? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing in Gullet while Bou 2010 Light Horse: Au History of Australia's Mounted Arm pp. 150-151 skirts around the issue and provides some context to the period but doesn't mention this specifically. There is something in here [2] on p. 67 which is pretty close though. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Added something, but it is kind of like citing your boss' work back at them...I feel *inadequate* and worry that I might have misunderstood. Hawkeye, would you mind taking a look? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • They were later put down, according to Hollis, because of "cost constraints and quarantine restrictions" and concerns they might be mistreated if left behind. No, that is not correct. The horses were sold to the British Indian Army; many went on to other wars in India. Only horses in too poor a condition to be sold were put down.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I added something from Perry on this and tried to merge the two views. Could you please take a look and let me know what you think? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate your comments, Hawkeye. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I guess the emphasis on MI in the lead was really due to my edit [3], as describing the 12th Light Horse Regiment "as a light horse regiment" seemed a little redundant to me that's all. Certainly they did fill a number of roles somewhere b/n mounted infantry and cavalry (which I wouldn't think would be a correct description either) so I wonder how we describe them to the reader in two words if mounted infantry is not correct (I'd note Kuring at least calls them exactly that and I'd imagine so do quite a few other sources). Anyway happy to self-revert if I've buggered it up. Anotherclown (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

G'day, I just went with a generic "...was a regiment of the Australian Army". It might be a bit dry, but maybe less confusing. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder about describing them as a "mounted unit", its seem to be a bit more descriptive of what they were rather than just saying a "regiment was a regiment". Anotherclown (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Tweaked to mounted unit. @Hawkeye7:, does this work for you? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure. Moved to support. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Runaway Scrape[edit]

Nominator(s): Maile66 (talk)

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


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

Prior nomination here.

Image review

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

Support: I reviewed this last time and have reviewed the changes made since then. I have one suggestion/comment: AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • in the References, there is some inconsistency about how you present locations of publication. For instance, some have state locations, and some don't. Some spell out the states, and some use abbreviations. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY AustralianRupert Thank you for the support. I've corrected the location issues in the References. Also, thank you for reviewing the changes. Reading this article after having been away from it for months, I realized it needed some editing in regards to flow and in paring down of unnecessary minutia that added nothing to the content. — Maile (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

70th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

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


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

Support: I reviewed this at peer review, and have made a few edits (please check you are happy with these). I only have one suggestion: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • "File:British WWII 6th Infantry Division.png": the licence for this probably should be PD-Shape, not PD-UKGov
Sorry for the lateness of my response. I have amended the license per your comment.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


  • "On 1st September 1939" Per MOS:DATE, this should be "On 1 September 1939". Also, shouldn't it be 3 September, the date on which Britain declared war? (And don't think I didn't take Playfair off the shelf to check the reference.)
Changed the format per your comment. I have expanded the opening lines of the section a tad to explain the German invasion initiated the war, and the UK entered on the 3rd.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why don't we have ranks for O'Connor, Auchinleck, Rommel, Blamey and Wilson?
Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The issue came to a head on 18 July, when Thomas Blamey (commander of the 2AIF, and deputy commander Middle East Command) wrote a letter to Claude Auchinleck—the new commander of all forces in North Africa and the Middle East" The second link seems superfluous, and may confuse the reader into thinking that this was not the Middle East Command.
Link removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • The quote from Blamey in the box doesn't contribute much.
Removed the quote box.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "The war diary of the German 90th Light Division described the days actions" should be "day's actions"
Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "supported by a ad hoc formation" should be "supported by an ad hoc formation"
Fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Consider red-linking George Symes, who could have an article (Hmmm he is linked down below)
Added a link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You mention that he became Wingate's second in command. You should mention that he was senior to Wingate.
Mentioned it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "the newly arrived 81st (West Africa) Division could be used in place" should be "in its place"
Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Wingate (now a major-general)" You don't need to link major-general here. Other duplicate links: Royal Navy and Fourteenth Army

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate links removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. I have made the changes you have both suggested.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Images lack alt text so you might consider added it (suggestion only - not an ACR req though of cse).
    • In the lead "...The Royal Navy transported the division to Tobruk..." when?
    • " relieve the mainly Australian garrison besieged within the port...", in its brevity this lacks context. I think some indication of the length of the siege is necessary here. For instance: " relieve the mainly Australian garrison that had held the besieged port for nearly 8 months..." or something like that.
    • Repetitive prose here: "...reformed in Egypt.[2] Lacking artillery or other supporting arms, the reforming..." (reformed / reforming)
    • Is there a typo or missing words here: "...The Germans were able to penetrate into Heraklion resulting in the streets" before Anglo-Greek ..." (I couldn't understand the streets part)
    • "The supporting Matilda tanks..." - perhaps wikilink to Matilda II here?
    • "The next day, George Symes was given command of the division...", rank for Symes?
    • Is there a missing word here? "This operation saw the 77th Indian Infantry Brigade operate behind the Japanese lines, supplied via air drops, ambushed Japanese troops and destroyed rail lines..." → "This operation saw the 77th Indian Infantry Brigade operate behind the Japanese lines, supplied via air drops, it ambushed Japanese troops and destroyed rail lines." or something like that.
    • "Philip John Gardner won the Victoria Cross during the fighting." Rank for Gardner?
    • "During the action, James Jackman, Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, was killed and posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross..." Jackman's rank?
    • In the refs you have Woodburn (2004) and Woodburn (2004a) - I'd suggest this would be more consistent as Woodburn (2004a) and Woodburn (2004b)
    • Are there figures available for the number of casualties sustained by the division during the campaigns it participated in (either broken down by campaign or in total)? If so they probably should be added for completeness. Anotherclown (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your review and comments. Due to personal issues, I will not be able to address these until early next week.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Gottlob Berger[edit]

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

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


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

  • Support: to be honest I find it sometimes a little depressing to read about these characters, but there is no denying IMO the quality of the work that has gone into the article: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    • there are no dabs, ext links all work, and there are no duplicate links
    • the article appears to be well researched and referenced using reliable sources, employing a consistent referencing style
    • overall, the article is well written, but I have a couple of suggestions:
      • "rounding up of "political undesirables" and Jews" --> "rounding up of Jews and "political undesirables"..." (it is probably smoother if you put the shorter element of the list first)
      • "Between 1933–35" --> "Between 1933 and 1935" or "During the period 1933–35..."
      • "they began to be combined in new formations..." --> "they were combined in new formations"
    • the article is well structured, but I have one suggestion:
      • there are perhaps too many headings. It might be possible to merge a couple of sections (e.g. "Sentence" and "Review of sentence" could be merged and I wonder if the year range headers are truly necessary)
    • the article appears to be comprehensive in its coverage, however I have a couple of suggestions/questions:
      • do we know if he fought in any notable battles during World War I, or what regiment he served (or if there is limited information, which front he fought on)?
      • do we know what he died of?
    • "15th Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS (lettische Nr. 1), the 19th Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS (lettische Nr. 2), and the 20th Waffen-Grenadierdivision der SS (estnische Nr. 1). " --> should these names be presented in italics as they are foreign words?
    • "File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J27050, Panzergrenadiere der SS-Panzer-Division "Hitlerjugend".jpg": it would be more MOS compliant if this file could face into the article
    • same as above potentially for "File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-J16133, Lettland, Appell der SS-Legion.jpg"
      • Thanks for the review, Rupert. I know what you mean, generally I prefer straight soldiers than these machine people, and the sentence reductions after the war really stick in my craw. Berger's role in the recruiting of Waffen-SS in the Balkans put him squarely in my sights as I started to look at completing my work on the Balkan Waffen-SS divisions. I'll get right onto these comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
    • I reviewed this article for GA and have read over it again following its continued development and couldn't see any issues with the additions and other changes since my last review. I believe this meets the A class criteria now. Anotherclown (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Prokhorovka[edit]

Nominator(s): EyeTruth (talk)

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


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

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

  • the Harv referencing script is identifying quite a few "harv" errors. I've fixed one for you, but can you please take a look at the rest? (If you install the script, you will see the errors identified in red in the References section);
I've looked into installing the script, but it's proving not to be a one-minute job. In the meantime, I removed a reference that was never used in-text. Did that fix it? EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that helped. I've done the others now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • there are a couple of paragraphs/sentences marked with a "citation needed" tag, which should be rectified;
One of the cn tags is because of an editor that argues the preceding two sources, together with the other three supporting sources, are flawed; although it's been a few days now and sources are yet to be provided. The other has always been in the article, hiding away under other citations. I'm still looking through the five sources I have access to, but so far have found nothing. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. All the citation needed tags have been fixed (citations found or unsourced content removed). EyeTruth (talk) 20:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • in addition, this appears to be unreferenced: "with another 212 tanks and self-propelled guns under repair, and 7,607 casualties". Could a citation be added for this?
It's just a simple summation of the cited numbers, and therefore technically an original research. I'll delete it if necessary. EyeTruth (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • watch out for English variation. For instance, currently it appears to use a mix of US and British spellings, for instance "defense" and "kilometers" (US), but also "defence", "kilometres", and "armour" (British). Either is fine, IMO, but it should be consistent;
I will start changing them to British spellings. EyeTruth (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I will try to come back later and do a more thorough review once I've had a look through some of my books at home. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers that could be added for the Achtung-Panzer and Lost Victories works in the Further reading section?
I couldn't find any ISBN for the original versions of the books. Maybe it's because they were written before ISBN was introduced. EyeTruth (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've added what I could find from If ISBNs aren't available, there will generally be an OCLC. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • please include a translation of the title of the Russian works in the Further reading and External link section. This can be done using the "trans_title=" parameter of the cite book and cite web templates. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Done for all the external links. EyeTruth (talk) 01:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Just the one in the Further reading left. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that one. I'll correct it asap. I've just been preoccupied with checking every passage in the article to make sure it goes along with what their cited sources say. And in the case where I can't find access to a source, I compare the text against the other sources I have. I've checked over 80% of the article already. EyeTruth (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. EyeTruth (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • ok, I've run through the article and copy edited it a bit. It could still potentially use another set of eyes prior to FAC, though. That said, I found the second half of the second paragraph in the lead a little awkward/abrupt: (the bit starting from "The German offensive was conducted by three armies"). I wonder if you could have a play with it to see if it can be smoothed out a little. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I could mention the third army? It was excluded because they have no connection to the battle, and were deployed hundreds of kilometres away. Well, their early failure (i.e. stalling on the third day) put a lot of pressure on the German forces that took part in this battle, since they became the only hope for Citadel to succeed. But that is not mentioned in this article, but is already in the Battle of Kursk article. What do you think if it reads like this: "The German offensive was conducted by three armies: In the southern side...." EyeTruth (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
G'day, yes I think the issue is that it talks about three armies then only really seems to mention one (the 4th). My suggestion to resolve this is to just remove the "The German offensive was conducted by three armies" sentence altogether. I think also the wording "In the southern side" is a bit inelegant. "On the southern side..." might be smoother, but I think you need to also define that a bit more. For instance, in/on the southern side of what? Anyway, good work on your changes so far. I will probably not be very active for the next five days or so (I might log in occasionally), but work will limit my time, so I will leave the article sit for a bit. I see that there are some issues being hashed out on the talk page, too. Ideally these should be resolved, and the article stable, prior to FAC. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. I have incorporated these suggestions. And yes, the article will be stable, hopefully, by the time it's done taking these A-Class critiques. EyeTruth (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi AustralianRupert, I've incorporated all of your suggestions; and content-wise the article is set, unless there will be new suggestions on here. Also the discussion on the article's talkpage has stabilized. Do you have new suggestions for the article? EyeTruth (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • G'day, good work, I only have a couple more suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • in the Bibliography, some have locations of publishing, and some don't. Of those that have them, some include state locations and some don't (e.g compare "Lawrence: University of Kansas Press" with "Mechanicsburg, PA").
Yes check.svg Addressed. City and country listed for all the locations, in addition to other corrections for locations. EyeTruth (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
  • some of your citations are a little hard to read because of the notes beside them, I suggest removing the notes from the citation and putting them in the dedicated Notes section. E.g. this is a little confusing: "Zetterling & Frankson 2000, pp. 48, 105–106, 793 tanks and 57 self-propelled guns." (the eye has trouble initially working out that it is 793 tanks, not p. 793) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Addressed. Added "reports" at the beginning of those notes, instead of converting them all to harvntxt. EyeTruth (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that works. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map size slightly
Yes check.svg Addressed. Not needed anymore, as explained below. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Kursk_south.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this map?
Yes check.svg Addressed. It had no source, but itself. And on a closer look, the info it presents is wrong. The map has been removed from the article. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • File:Rotmistrov.jpg: the given licensing tag requires publication of the image before 1951 and death of the creator - can you provide evidence of both of those?
The permission says it's currently in the public domain of the U.S. and Ukraine. EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The permission says "it is presently in the public domain in Ukraine, because it was published before January 1, 1951, and the creator (if known) died before that date". If you can't demonstrate that the two "because" conditions are true, then the tag is not valid here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The image is probably an official state-portrait of Pavel Rotmistrov (identical in style and form to other known state-portraits of Soviet commanders), and it was most likely taken before 1945 as he doesn't have his Order of Kutuzov medal (awarded in 1943) in that portrait. Like all the other state-portraits of Soviet commanders, the official creator would be the Soviet state. EyeTruth (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Addressed. The image has been removed. But the permission notes that "Russia jurisprudence states that no infringement is constituted when the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject." The image is very related to the subject of that section in the article that it was in. Don't you think that exempts it from constituting as infringement in this case? EyeTruth (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not an accurate interpretation of that note. "the work is an accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" is intended to account for cases where the 3D work is in the background or is otherwise incidental to the main subject of the image. For example, if I took a picture of my sister on the street, my sister would be the main subject and the buildings in the background would be accessory - that image would not be infringement. But where the work is the main subject of the image, it's infringing, whether it's relevant to the article or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I suspected so. I get it now. Thanks for the clarification. EyeTruth (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Nikkimaria, do you have more suggestions? Also about Rotmistrov's image, I can't prove that the particular person that snapped the photograph died before 1951. I highly doubt the individual is known, which satisfies the licence criterion. But the picture was most likely taken before 1945. Personally, what do you think, does the picture fall short of the minimum criteria? BTW, are there any other things regarding images (or any other aspect of the article) that you think requires some scrutiny? EyeTruth (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately it's not so much when it was taken but rather when it was published that is important here, and without information about that we can't say that the current licensing tag applies. It's possible another one might, but offhand I don't know of one as many others also rely on publication date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know when it was published, but what if it was never published in the traditional sense, just like many photos from archives. I did a little digging and here is what I found. In 2007, the uploader also uploaded another image along side this one, both from this site (now broken), with their dates of release. In 2010, that other image, along with some other image, were both put up for deletion by another editor on the grounds that there are no proofs that the authors died more than 70 years ago. But the request was turned down because they were released before the date prescribed by the licence tag. All the discussion happened for only one of the images, and was not repeated for the other, but both were kept and not deleted. We're scrutinizing the image here entirely because we automatically distrusted the information the uploader provided for the image, but after this little digging I'm dropping my automatic distrust as there are no reasons to doubt the uploader. My guess is that the now broken link most likely had the information on the release dates that the uploader included in the file's description. But you have much more experience with image stuff, and since I hope to take this article for other higher assessments, I'll like to know what you personally suggest? Remove it or keep it? EyeTruth (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Check out this table - if it was never published and authorship is unknown, then copyright persists until 120 years after creation. The situation with that other image is bit different in that it uses Russian rather than Ukrainian copyright law, although the deletion debate was...substandard. But if we can't recover the source, and we don't know anything more about authorship or publication, you'll probably need to either remove the image or try for a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to start a discussion on the file's talkpage at Commons before adding a fair-use tag, right? I'm not very conversant with WP's fair-use claim, but I'll give it a shot, and if it fails I will just remove the image and probably request a deletion too. EyeTruth (talk) 05:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
If you want to try for fair use you'll need to upload locally instead - Commons doesn't permit fair-use claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Done. File:Rotmistrov portrait WWII.jpg. Image in the article has also been updated. I also added a brief explanation in the file's talkpage, so now I'll wait and see. First time trying this, fingers crossed. EyeTruth (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Are there any other things regarding images, or any other aspect of the article, that you think requires some more work? EyeTruth (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Prinz Adalbert (1901)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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


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

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

Comments by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

  • in lead: suggest Baltic during the war.
    • Sounds fine to me
  • in body, speed is converted into kph and mph, but only into kph in infobox
    • Fixed
  • in body, the armor thickness is in m and ft, not mm and in
    • Whoops!
  • errant space after Heinrich (second mention)
    • Good catch.
  • what was the relationship between Prince Adalbert who the ship was named after, and the young man? It begs the question given the ship name.
    • They'd have been...1st cousins, thrice removed, I think?
  • suggest the work was eventually completed
    • Sounds fine.
  • I'm not sure about the use of Kzs when other ranks are not abbreviated
    • A good point
  • suggest adding the word "another" for the sweep of 22 January 1915
    • Works for me
  • suggest dropping "however" in Libau paragraph
    • Ok
  • suggest replacing for the duration of the war with "during the war"
    • Sounds good.
  • pics don't have alt text (not an ACR requirement)
  • no dablinks
  • no external links
  • no overlinking
  • Earwig indicates a close match for part of the final para of this article which appears to have been cut and pasted as the description of youtube (2011) and diveo (2014) wreck dive videos (which are worth a watch if you are into that kind of thing).

Looking very good. Comprehensive coverage and wide use of reliable sources. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 11:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Thanks - I might have to check those out. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support
    • What is a "KzS"? I couldn't see the abbreviation explained anywhere but might have missed it.
      • Kapitän zur See. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Removed, per PM's comment above. Parsecboy (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Otherwise I couldn't see any glaring issues after a complete read through. Anotherclown (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

August Meyszner[edit]

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

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


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

  • Support: I did some light tweaking (please check you are happy with my changes). I have the following observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • in the References, some instances of New York say "New York, New York" while others simply say "New York" - I'd probably suggest the secondary approach is best here;
    • forced labour is probably overlinked;
    • the navigation box for war criminals at the bottom of the article would probably be best displayed in a collapsed state
    • "File:Heimwehr PfrimerPutsch.jpg": I'm not certain about the licence used here. I don't think the uploader is the copyright holder, but I could be wrong. It might be worth checking this prior to FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks Rupert. Have made all loc fields consistent (city and state or country), rm overlink, collapsed navbox, and uploaded a new version of the image onto Wikipedia rather than Commons (and requested deletion of Commons version, as it is PD-Austria but not US URAA). Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • "and submitted his résumé to the Allgemeine SS..." should "Allgemeine SS" be in italics here? (or do you only do that at first instance?... I can't remember the requirement pls check this).
    • " prior to his seizure of power in 1933..." Should this be "Hitler's seizure of power" or something along those lines (rather than "his seizure")?
  • Hitler didn't seize anything, he was manoeuvred into office by Papen and the camarilla around Hindenburg. Keith-264 (talk) 10:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Otherwise this is a thorough, well-written article completed with obvious attention to detail and it was difficult to find much to fault it. Anotherclown (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Peacemaker67: - just checking that you saw my cmts here. Have you had a chance to have a look? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment. This one's long enough that I think it's likely possible FAC reviewers would ask for some significant pruning. I'll be happy to copyedit the shorter version. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Although ... is this headed to FAC? And, changed "likely" to "possible" ... it would depend on who you get for reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Well Dan, let me put it like this. I've lost a bit of interest in FAC since 4th Army (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) was failed for being too "listy". There is way too much gatekeeping going on there IMHO, and I don't rate it as highly as I used to. I have a ship article there now, but I'd rather have a comprehensive biographical article passed at Milhist A-Class and leave it there than cut down a comprehensive article so I could get it past FAC. Nothing against you at all, you've always been a major positive at FAC, but there is still too much personality and personal preference involved for my taste. My view on length is roughly the same as WP:SIZERULE, and I cannot for the life of me accept that an article with a readable prose size of 34K even gets close to stretching that guideline. Do we want comprehensive FAs or not? Bio articles are often larger than average. Nuff said. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No offense taken. Okay, I've just finished a big pile of copyediting, I'll come back to A-class as soon as I can. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
I see Rupert just listed this at WT:MIL two days ago ... hopefully that will produce another review, and I'll copyedit right after that. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

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

Nominator(s): Constantine

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


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

Image review

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

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

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

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

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

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

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

Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive1

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

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the topic to comment on the content, but I'm happy with the changes that have been made since my review, so I've added my support. Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • There is a contradiction in the first paragraph. You say the Plantagenets ruled England from 1154, and then that they were preceded by the Angevins. But the Angevins ruled from 1154, so saying that the Plantagenets ruled from then denies that a separate Angevin dynasty existed. This is a view taken by some historians, as you explain below. As you have a section on Angevin kings, you appear to take both views, which seems confusing. The New Oxford History of England and ODNB both regard Henry II and his sons as Angevins, not Plantegenets, and there is a Wikipedia article on the Angevins, so it would make more sense to me to start the article with Henry III. (Apologies if I am raising a question which has been discussed previously.)
  • No need to apologise Dudley, as you might guess this has caused immense debate and no real consensus. In the end we agreed that both views were valid—that the Angevins were distinct and also they were also part of this dynasty. Afterall Henry III was the son of John and Grandson of Henry II but there is a distinct change of political paradigms following the loss of Anjou. I have tried to reword para 1 to take your point into account and also make this clearer. Do you think it worked? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • You describe Angevin Empire as a moniker. Moniker means nickname, which does not sound right. Why not just name? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree, amended to your suggestion—I think this slipped in during a copy edit. Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • "Through Henry's fourth son, John, a line of fourteen English kings was produced." I would delete as superfluous and not strictly accurate. Richard I did not derive his claim from John.
  • "This was not necessarily due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets." This seems an indecisive comment. Perhaps "only partly due".
  • Some of the second and third paragraphs of the lead, especially on the major buildings and the economy are not supported by citations in the main text so far as I can see.
  • "Towards the end of the Plantagenet dynasty, England was in a pitiful state. The English economy was in ruins". It was a bad time for the upper classes, not for the common people. A demographic history I read (many years ago, so it may be dated) argued that the fifteenth century was a good time for the peasants, when the Black Death and subsequent plagues created labour shortages which allowed them to demand higher wages and get rid of feudal restrictions.
  • This is true. However, while the peasants had done well, overall the economy was in a crisis known as the Great Slump (15th century). C.S.L. Davies describes this as a deep commercial crisis caused in part by the loss of France, piracy and poor relations with the Hanseatic League. Higher wages and lower prices hit the landlords and employers hard e.g. the income of the duchy of Lancaster fell by a third between 1400 and 1470. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • Your text gives the impression that everyone was doing badly, and your comments are not referenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Extra paragraph added to Lancastrian section to describe the state of the economy and also to differentiate between the peasantry and the economy as a whole This is supported by three separate references. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • Plantagenet. According to ODNB on Henry II the term did not come into common usage among historians until the late 17C, which is worth mentioning.
  • "The birth reduced the risk that the king's realm would pass to his son-in-law's family" Why should the crown have passed to Geoffrey's family if he did not children by Matilda?
  • There was no precedent for a female monarch. If the couple assumed power Geoffrey would be King. If Matilda then predeceased him without heirs he would remain king and the risk would be he remarried and fathered a dynasty. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • The article sometimes uses US spelling - rigor and quarreled.
  • "But Henry I quarreled with Count Geoffrey and Matilda about the succession." How quarreled? Did he not want Matilda to succeed?
  • He didn't want to hand over any power while he was still alive. Amended. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • Henry's children - why mention Eleanour's marriage and not those of other children?
  • "Becket was an inept politician, whose defiance alienated the king and his counsellors." Is this the general judgment of historians? It is hard to believe that an inept politician could have become Henry's right hand man.
  • "Henry II gathered his children to plan a partible inheritance: his eldest son, William, would inherit England" Presumably eldest son Henry?
  • "'s Great Seal of 1189]]On the day " Typo.
  • "On the day of Richard's coronation, there was a massive slaughter of Jews, described by Richard of Devizes as a "holocaust" This is wrong. There was a riot at the coronation, but no slaughter. There were massacres in 1190.
  • This matches the source - Richard of Devizes said the Jews in London, who were destroyed that day. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • Devizes is a long way from London and Richard may have received exaggerated reports. Gillingham in ODNB on Richard describes it as a riot, Carpenter in The Struggle for Mastery as one of a number of slaughters of Jews at that time. They both agree that the culmination of the attacks was the massacre at York the following year. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As the sentence doesn't add anything I have removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • "Richard was captured by Leopold while returning." Leopold had left the Crusade because Richard had humiliated him.
  • "On his accession, Edward I sought to organise his realm, enforcing his claims to primacy in the British Isles. At the time, Wales consisted of several princedoms, often in conflict with each other. Under the Treaty of Woodstock, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ruled North Wales as a subordinate of the English king, but he exploited the English civil wars to strengthen his position as Prince of Wales, maintaining that he was "entirely separate from" England." The chronology seems confused here. Llywelyn must have exploited civil wars before Edward became kin.
Tidied. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • "When Gaveston returned again to England, he was abducted and executed after a mock trial.[83] This brutal act drove Thomas and his adherents from power." "This brutal act" is POV.
  • "He is generally believed to have been murdered at Berkeley Castle by having a red-hot poker thrust into his bowels" This is dubious and based on Weir. It is not mentioned by ODNB, which says he was probably murdered but may have died of natural causes.
  • Not really dubious - he is widely believed to have died like this, although I have caveated this now to reflect the lack of evidence. Changed the cite to Schama, could equally have used Lee or Winston Churchill is the history of the english speaking peoples. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • I do not know who you mean by Lee and Schama and Churchill are not medieval specialists. Phillips in ODNB does not mention it, as I said above, and Prestwich in Plantagenet England p. 219 says "very possibly". It is "widely believed" by popular and non-specialist historians. Experts are more cautious. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Lee was quatercentary Professor of history at Wadham College, Oxford Uni. I have changed generally to popularly. The point of the sentence is that if any "fact" about E2 is generally known it is this, not whether it is based on historical fact. It was always clear as written that there was no evidence. The sources are perfectly adequate to support popular belief. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • Carpenter in The Struggle for Mastery, p. 525, describes Edward II as "the most hopeless king to sit on the English throne", which might be worth quoting. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "Though removed from power, Isabella was treated well, living in luxury for the next 27 years.[" A bit odd? What else could Edward do with his mother?
  • " destructive chevauchées" A bit euphemistic for attempting to weaken the enemy by a scorched earth policy.
  • "Henry asserted that his mother had had legitimate rights through descent from Edmund Crouchback, whom he claimed to have been the elder son of Henry III of England, set aside due to deformity" - according to Weir - not mentioned in ODNB on Henry.
  • Quite widely sourcable - I have added another (Schama) to support. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • Widely sourceable to popular and non-specialist historians. It is not mentioned by Harriss in Shaping the Nation or in ODNB on Henry. No doubt such a claim was made, with or without Henry's approval, but experts do not consider it significant enough to be worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You comment is not completely accurate, in fact Ian Mortimer (historian) describes it as so well known that it isn't worth repeating the detail. There are at least three contemporary chronicles that detail this. However, I have amended and sourced a reference. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY
  • "Many saw it as a punishment from God when Henry was later struck down with leprosy and epilepsy.[" ODNB says that this was disproved in the 19C when his body was examined and no sign of leprosy found.
  • "Humphrey's wife was accused of using witchcraft with the aim of putting him on the throne" Again wrong and based on Weir. According to ODNB on her she was accused of treasonable necromancy for employing fortune tellers who predicted that Henry would suffer a dangerous illness, but not of trying to put her husband on the throne.
  • Your revised wording is: "Humphrey's wife was accused of the reasonable act of using witchcraft to predict the kings death which would have put him on the throne, and Humphrey was later arrested and died in prison." This has a typo and is still not right. She was not accused of using witchcraft to predict the king's death but employing fortune tellers who predicted a dangerous illness. It is also still cited to Weir, even though it presumably is not what she said. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting article but I do not think it is ready for A Class. There is too much reliance on Weir, who does not seem a reliable source. I also think it has too much general history covered in other articles, but this is obviously a difficult matter of judgment. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weir is a thorough researcher if not an historian and is largely used for births, death, marriages only all of which are a matter of record rather historical interpretation. I've replaced the cites on the two pieces of history you challenged. What would help and be appreciated is if you could give some more detail on the general history you think can be excised. @SabreBD: did an incredible job of removing history from this and into England in the Late Middle Ages - details can be found at Talk:House of Plantagenet/Archive 2#Split Article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Dudley Miles:—I'll aim to get to a response on these next week. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:40, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I am still doubtful about the heavy reliance on non-specialist writers such as Weir, with 27 citations. This is not my period and I have not read Weir, but judging by your citations she seems to adopt the most sensational interpretation, which is not always accepted by medievalists. What does Hchc think? 11:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I have removed all references to Weir's book on the Wars of the Roses and the book from the Bibliography. I have left those related to her Genealogy on the same basis as back on the 5th August — it largely used for births, death, marriages only all of which are a matter of record rather historical interpretation. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Green tickY

Support, but a few further quibbles on re-reading.

  • In the bibliography Jones, Dan is out of alphabetical order.
  • "Henry perceived many similarities between himself and England's patron saint, Edward the Confessor, due to his struggle with the nobility." I am not sure how important the struggles with the nobility were as a reason for Henry's devotion. According to ODNB it was because both were orphans and men of peace, which sounds more likely.
    • Dudley, my reading is that something like "including his struggle" rather than "due to" was meant ... I'll make that change, but feel free to change it around, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • "but the cost of materialising the claim was prohibitive" Materialising the claim does not sound right to me. Making the claim good? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm copyediting this morning, I'll make that change if it's acceptable. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.

  • I'm not sure what position the reviewers are taking so far, but I enjoyed the article, and I copyedited down to Angevins. Please ping me when we get another support and I'll finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay I see the support this morning, I'll start back up. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I just changed all instances of "subsequently" (but not subsequent) to "later", because that seems to be the most common meaning at A-class and FAC. The problem is that "subsequently" is highly ambiguous ... so if something else was meant, please replace the word "later" by what was meant. - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I won't fix all of them because there are too many to fix: use a pronoun, or a more general noun, in cases where it's not necessary to repeat a noun. (For instance, there are paragraphs where "Henry" is repeated four or five times more than is necessary; "he" or "the king" would work.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • You will probably get some static at FAC over the formatting of lists of heirs. I'll leave it alone.
  • "Many Lancastrians asserted that his mother had had legitimate rights through her descent from Edmund Crouchback, whom it was claimed was the elder son of Henry III of England, set aside due to deformity.": This information is repeated from where Crouchback is first mentioned.
  • "preferment": doesn't list the meaning in the given context.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Dank:—much appreciated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)