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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
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 (a good way of ensuring this is to put the article through a good article nomination or a peer review beforehand, although this is not mandatory).
  2. If there has been a previous A-Class nomination of the article, before re-nominating the article the old nomination page must be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article/archive1 to make way for the new nomination page.
  3. 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).
  4. 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.
  5. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  6. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  7. Consider reviewing another nominated article (or several) to help with any backlog (note: this is not mandatory, but the process does not work unless people are prepared to review. A good rule of thumb is that each nominator should try to review at least three other nominations as that is, in effect, what each nominator is asking for themselves. This should not be construed to imply QPQ).

An article may be 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 considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal). In this case, please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

There are no formal limits to how many articles a single editor can nominate at any one time; however, editors are encouraged to be mindful not to overwhelm the system. A general rule of thumb is no more than three articles per nominator at one time, although it is not a hard-and-fast rule and editors should use their judgement in this regard.


The 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.

If you are intending to review an article but not yet ready to post your comments, it is suggested that you add a placeholder comment. This lets other editors know that a review is in progress. This could be done by creating a comment or header such as "Reviewing by Username" followed by your signature. This would be added below the last text on the review page. When you are ready to add comments to the review, strike out the placeholder comment and add your review. For instance, strike out "reviewing" and replace it with "comments" eg:

Comments Reviewing by Username

Add your comments after the heading you have created. Once comments have been addressed by the nominator you may choose to support or oppose the nomination's promotion to A-class by changing the heading:

Support / Oppose Comments reviewing by Username

If you wish to abstain from either decision, you may indicate that your comments have been addressed or not addressed. For instance:

Comments Reviewing by Username addressed / not addressed

This makes it easy for the nominator and closer to identify the status of your review. You may also wish to add a closing statement at the end of your comments. When a nominator addresses a comment, this can be marked as {{done}} or {{resolved}}, or in some other way. This makes it easy to keep track of progress, although it is not mandatory.

Requesting a review to be closed

A nominator may request the review be closed at any time if they wish to withdraw it. This can be done by listing the review at ACRs for closure, or by pinging an uninvolved co-ord. For a review to be closed successfully, however, please ensure that it has been open a minimum of five days, that all reviewers have finalised their reviews and that the review has a minimum of at least three supports, a source review and an image review. The source review should focus on whether the sources used in the article are reliable and of high quality, and in the case of a first-time nominator, spot-checking should also be conducted to confirm that the citations support the content. Once you believe you have addressed any review comments, you may need to contact some of the reviewers to confirm if you have satisfied their concerns.

After A-Class

You may wish to consider taking your article to featured article candidates for review. Before doing so, make sure you have addressed any suggestions that might have been made during the A-class review, that were not considered mandatory for promotion to A-class. It can pay to ask the A-class reviewers to help prepare your article, or you may consider sending it to peer review or to the Guild of Copy Editors for a final copy edit.

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Lagos[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk)

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


A naval battle from the age of sail. One where Clausewitz's friction was working overtime and few things went right for either side. I am attempting to break away from late-medieval articles, so haul up your jolly rodgers and I'll stand by to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:HMS_Namur_IMG_4822.jpg and File:Battle_of_Lagos_1759_Detail.jpg: the caption on File:Battle_of_Lagos_IMG_4822.jpg has more details on the original source - suggest including those in this image's description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

  • suggest dropping naval from the first sentence, as the mention of fleets clarifies it
  • suggest "The two fleets first fought south west of the Gulf of Cádiz on 17 August, which was followed by engagements east of the small Portuguese port of Lagos on the following day."
  • is he just La Clue, La Clue-Sabran or De la Clue? I'm not familiar with the best approach to French double-barrelled names.
The sources all go with La Clue; except for one de La Clue, but Wikipedia/MilHist practice is to drop leading "de"s.
  • "Boscawen was under orders to prevent this, and to pursue and attack the French if it didif they broke out into the Atlantic."?
  • link Gibraltar at first mention and get rid of the later one
It is only linked once. As is "Strait of Gibraltar" and "HMS Gibraltar".
  • "By the beginning of 1759 neither alliance had the advantage, in either the land or sea campaigns,"
  • link French Navy at first mention and get rid of the later one
  • "Meanwhile, Britain's war efforts during the first three years of the war had been a failure"
  • what role was Pitt performing at the time?
How long have you got? Good point. I have inserted the simplistic answer.
  • for "direct invasion of Britain" link Planned French invasion of Britain (1759). I think doubling up on the Further template is justified given it will be piped.
  • link Vannes
  • link Brest
  • perhaps say where Lorient and Rochefort are? And drop " French Atlantic port of" later for Rochefort
  • "smaller and faster than ships of the line and primarily intended for raiding"
Oops. Done.
  • comma after "After great difficulties in preparing them for sea"
  • suggest "The British fleet was surprised by the approaching Gibraltar, which was firing her guns to indicate the enemy had been sighted."

I am not at all keen on that. What is it that you don't like about the current phraseology?

  • under way→underway?
Why? See definition 2 of this.
  • is it " stepping in" or "stepping-in"?
Wiktionary claims that it is only hyphenated if you are referring to women's underwear! I was checking to play safe; one steps in a mast as one would step in anything else.
  • disbursed→dispersed?
  • "but ineffectively"→"but this was ineffective"?
I have gone with "but with little effect".
  • "90-gun flagship"
  • "80-gun Océan"
  • A bit weird that Souverain is the slowest ship initially, then later one of the fastest?
Whoops. Thank you. Fixed. These French ships all look the same to me.
  • what does weather mean in "failed to weather Cape St. Vincent"?
Wiktionary has "(nautical) To pass to windward in a vessel, especially to beat 'round: to weather a cape ... " I have inserted a Wikt link.
  • "it would be illegal" I think it might be worth adding a sentence about the law that this would breach.

  • suggest "HMS America"
Er. I do at first mention. The other mention is "The British America", so it is not going to confuse.
  • "Téméraire also struck her colours"
Really? OK. Done.
  • Lieutenant-General? I thought that was Vice-Amiral for the French Navy?
Nah. Click the link.
  • comma after "Souverain and Guerrier"
Removed as they have already been named.
  • Broderick→Brodrick
Good spot. Done.
  • "to be known as an annus"
Bleh! Done.
  • link Abolitionism
  • is there a citation for the Fireships in the ORBAT?

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias[edit]

  • Quick initial comment from me that the talk page query from 2009 remains partially unresolved: "the infobox lists 14 English ships of the line, but in the "Ships involved", it shows 15" Harrias talk 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Ljubljana was a bit of a bad-luck ship. Commissioned after WWII had begun, she came a cropper soon after, running aground. She was still under repair when the Italians captured her as part of the Axis invasion of her homeland in April 1941. Repairs were completed and she was refitted, and she then mainly worked the North Africa convoys under the Italian flag for six months before running aground again off Tunisia in heavy seas in April 1943. That was the end of her. She is part of a Good Topic on the ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy that I am slowly moving towards Featured. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Again with the refbegin and end tags?
  • Suggest author links for Michael J. Whitley, H. T. Lenton and David K. Brown
  • There is a later edition of Rohwer, although I don't think that you have access to it?
  • Ampersand for Rohwer & Hummelchen
  • Footnotes consistently formatted
  • References are RS and consistently formatted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I don't have access to the newer edition of Rohwer unfortunately. The rest are fixed. You wouldn't have a source for the speed that goes with the range would you, Sturm? Lenton and Whitley don't provide it, just the range (from Lenton). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I even checked Vego's article, but nothing. Article is good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "and declared a total constructive loss." I am not sure what the word "constructive" adds.
    Good point, deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Despite the fact that three large destroyers were not going to be built, the idea that Dubrovnik might operate with a number of smaller destroyers persisted." I am struggling a little with this. Why should the cancellation of two (not "three", as the current wording might be read) large destroyers have any effect on whether the one which was built would operate with smaller destroyers?
  • "acquire three such destroyers" As both "large destroyers" and "smaller destroyers" are mentioned in the previous sentence, it is not completely clear what "such" refers to.
  • Rereading the first paragraph of the main article, I may have got my assumptions above wrong. Regardless, feel that you have may have boiled the information there down a little. Could you unpack it slightly?
    Tried to make it clearer that the flotilla leader concept had two possible permutations, and they ended up going for the second one. See what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if I was being picky there. (It is always difficult when you already understand the point being explained, to decide if it is clear enough explication for a reader who doesn't.) But I am now reassured that I wasn't. Much clearer IMO. Thanks.
  • "had a range of 1,000 nautical miles" Usually a range is only meaningful if the speed assumed is also given.
    Sadly, none of my sources have this information. I asked Sturm and he doesn't have a source for it either. My last hope is that Parsecboy might have one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. If we don't have it, we don't have it. Not an issue at GAN I suppose.
  • "1942–1943" The MoS suggests '1942–43'.
    • Not exactly. MOS:NUMRANGE says to use the full date unless constrained by space (table, etc.) or by citation format.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Very tactful Sturm: "Not exactly" as in 'not at all'? Face-smile.svg Well, I think that you are both wrong and right. I was remembering MOS:DATERANGE, but misremembering that when it says "Two-digit ending years (1881–82...) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years ... " there is a "may", so as you were and apologies. (MOS:NUMRANGE is only referring to non-date ranges, but very confusingly uses "pp. 1902–1911" as an example. Is one allowed to simply change that?)

Good stuff. Just the trivia above for me to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! See what you think of my changes to the Background section. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Spot on IMO. Supporting, but can I leave you with the suggestion that you link "bore" in the footnote to Gauge (firearms). Gog the Mild (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

  • she ran aground on a reef off the Yugoslav port of Šibenik Link Yugoslav and unlink Yugoslavia in the next sentence.
  • Link WWI.
  • The Beograd class was developed from a French design "were" instead of "was"?
  • Link full load.
  • was provided by the Dutch firm of Hazemayer No link for Hazemayer?
  • requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy Link Yugoslav here.
  • it sank close to shore, and some of the crew You mean "she"?
  • Only one of the crew died, and the captain was arrested Who's the captain?
  • captured by the Royal Italian Navy (Italian: Regia Marina) on 17 April Unlink Italian due common term.
  • Her original 40 mm (1.6 in) guns were removed Remove "1.6 in" here because the former section already mentioned the "40 mm (1.6 in) guns".
  • Pipe German to Nazi Germany.
  • escorting another series of convoys to Tunisia commencing Pipe Tunisia to French Tunisia.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Parsecboy (talk)

Francesco Caracciolo-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Francesco Caracciolo-class battleships were an Italian design begun before the start of World War I in response to the British Queen Elizabeth-class battleships. Had they been completed, they would have been the fastest and most powerful battleships afloat. Even before the Italians joined the war in 1915, shortages of steel and other material significantly slowed their construction and construction was suspended the following year to build ships that could be completed during the war. Italian financial difficulties after the war prevented their completion, although the navy flirted with the idea of converting the most advanced ship into an ocean liner or an aircraft carrier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Something new? The Italians joined the party. :p

  • with a main battery of eight 381 mm (15 in) guns Link to the gun?
  • She was sold to an Italian shipping firm for conversion Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
  • The Francesco Caracciolo class was the first type of super-dreadnought battleship --> "The Francesco Caracciolo class were the first type of super-dreadnought battleship"?
    • No, class in AmEng is always singular
  • with twelve 381-millimeter guns and twenty 152-millimeter (6 in) secondary guns What kind of guns?
  • The turbines were rated at 105,000 shaft horsepower (78,000 kW) Link kW.
  • limits for the Regia Marina was to be 60,000 long tons (61,000 t) Flip the units here.
  • in the infobox "8 × 450 or 533 mm (17.7 or 21.0 in)" is it possible to remove the nought?
    • Not when converting multiple measurements

Source review

  • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13-digit ISBNs?
    • Used to be, but I wouldn't do it anyway. Books should use the ISBN they were published with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Goldstein and Maurer's book's location is Hoboken but the online editions say totally different. One says in Portland other in Ilford and another one says Oxon, which one is correct?
  • Remove "December" in Ordovini's year.
  • What kind of title edition do you have of Zabecki's book the "World War 2 in Europe" or the "World War II in Europe"?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Libyan–Egyptian War[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk)

Libyan–Egyptian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Libyan–Egyptian War was a short border conflict that occurred over four days in July 1977. Twas a relatively minor chapter in world and military history, but it represents the much larger fissure between Muammar Gaddafi and Anwar Sadat in the late 1970s. This just passed a GAn, and incorporates material from American, British, and Egyptian sources. Comment away. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

  • link battalion in the lead and at first mention in the body
  • suggest "Under significant pressure from the United States to end the attacks, and attempts from the President of Algeria, Houari Boumediène, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation leader, Yasser Arafat, to mediate a solution, Sadat suddenly declared a ceasefire."
  • suggest "acquiring a significant amounts of weapons"
  • suggest "anti-Libyan groups in neighboring Chad"
  • suggest "determined to occupy the Libyan capital Tripoli"
  • "continued to stockpiles supplies"
  • specify that the Su-20 and Su-7 were fighter-bombers and link, and that the Mirage 5 was a strike aircraft and link
  • "Libyan forces gotengaged in a drawn out firefight"
  • suggest "Having participated in the Yom Kippur War, Egyptian forces also had a fair amount of combat experience, maintained a high level of professionalism, and were led by a skilled group of generals."
  • "The Egyptians forces also struggled" or "their equipment"
  • Libyan Arab Republic Air Force (LARAF)
  • specify that the MiG-23 is a fighter aircraft and link
  • specify that the MiG-21 is a fighter aircraft
  • the composition of the force that hit the Nasser airbase is odd. The Mirages and Su-7s would have been flying the strike mission and the MiG-21s flying cover
  • "primary interceptor siteairbase"
  • the "commando battalions" airborne raids are a bit unclear, were these paradrops or helicopter-borne attacks?
  • same for the "Commando attacks on Libyan logistics depots"
  • specify that the G-2 Galeb and Jastreb are ground attack aircraft. Odd that the narrative doesn't mention them, were they destroyed on the ground?
  • who is Mayada El Gohary? historian, author etc?
  • "Over the course of the border war the Palestinian Liberation Organisation leader, Yasser Arafat,"
  • "Shortly before the end of fighting, the Algerian President, Houari Boumediène,"
  • "However, several diplomatic sources" "However" seems editorialising here. Perhaps just state what sources say?
  • "in reaching Egyptian peace with Israel"→"in Egypt achieving peace with Israel"
  • in Effects of the war, perhaps mention and link the Arab Cold War, as the infobox links it but it is otherwise not referred to

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Libya-Egypt.png: what is the source of the data underlying this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Kges1901 (talk)

Soviet destroyer Soobrazitelny (1940) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Soobrazitelny was completed for the Black Sea Fleet days before the Germans invaded the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941. She was very active in the first two years of the war, participating in the Raid on Constanta, bombarding Axis troops and escorting supply ships during the Sieges of Odessa and Sevastopol and providing fire support during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in 1942 and the amphibious landings at Novorossiysk in early 1943. After three destroyers were lost to German air attacks in October 1943, Stalin banned further operations in the Black Sea except with his permission and the ship was mostly inactive for the rest of the war. Afterwards she was converted to a rescue and decontamination ship and was the last surviving ship of her class when she was scrapped in the late 1960s. The article is bound for an eventual FAC and we'd like reviewers to keep that in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle[edit]

  • In the background, it would useful to explain why the USSR was ordering more destroyers. Was it part of a general naval expansion program? Was the country in need of more escorts, etc? Also, why does it say she was ordered under the "2nd Five-Year Plan" in the infobox? No explanatory info is offered in the article for this.
  • Her first combat operation was the Raid on Constanța, I think its best if the subsections start with the ship's name before using pronouns.
  • Done
  • A brief mention of Operation Barbarossa, thus explaining that the USSR and the Axis being at war, would be useful.\
  • Done
  • Soobrazitelny expended 203 main-gun shells and drove off an approaching torpedo boat with 76 mm fire, being erroneously reported by partisans to have sunk a submarine in Yalta harbor. This could use some revision, as I'm not quite sure if the dependent clause is referring to the torpedo boat or the destroyer.
  • Done
  • Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946 is listed under Further Reading. Is there any information in that book that belongs here?
  • According to this source, Soobrazitelny was originally going to be named Prozorlwyi, as it was intended that all of the Black Sea boats would be given P names, but this idea was scrapped.
  • Already stated in the article using the Romanization Prozorlivny.

-Indy beetle (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Soobrazitelny (Russian: Сообразительный, lit. 'Astute') was Unlink Russian because of common term.
  • the German invasion of the Soviet Union Link Soviet Union.
  • participated in several raids on the Romanian coast Pipe Romanian to the Kingdom of Romania.
  • would exceed the 37-knot (69 km/h; 43 mph) speed of the Project 7s Link knots.
  • Anti-aircraft (AA) defense/AA gun is overlinked.
  • as well as four 12.7-millimeter (0.50 in) DK or DShK machine guns Unaccasary extra nought after the 5.
  • They were fitted with a set of Mars hydrophones for anti-submarine work No link for Mars?
  • Pipe German to Nazi Germany.
  • operation was the Raid on Constanța, which aimed to disrupt Axis supply lines Link Axis.
  • After leaving Sevastopol on the night of 25–26 June --> "After leaving Sevastopol on the night of 25/26 June"?
  • of the besieged port, under fire from Romanian artillery, on the night of 30–31 August --> "of the besieged port, under fire from Romanian artillery, on the night of 30/31 August" Also pipe Romanian to the Kingdom of Romania.
  • Having expended 364 130 mm, 80 76 mm, and 327 45 mm shells in Odessa Try to avoid two separate numbers next to each other.
  • the ship departed the port for Feodosia on the night of 2–3 September --> "the ship departed the port for Feodosia on the night of 2/3 September"?
  • Feodosia is overlinked.
  • Five bombardments were conducted on New Years' Day 1942 Typo at New Year's Day.
  • the ship expended 283 130 mm, 144 76 mm, and 146 45 mm shells Try to avoid two separate numbers next to each other.
  • she expended 67 76 mm and 100 45 mm shells Same as above.
  • the destroyer expended 36 130 mm, 121 76 mm, and 212 45 mm shells Same as above.
  • Soobrazitelny fired a total of 345 130 mm shells Same as above.
  • Soobrazitelny expended 196 130 mm and 11 76 mm shells Same as above.
  • expended a total of 605 130 mm shells in bombardments Same as above.
  • Stalin is overlinked.
  • expending 2,863 main-gun, 1,215 76 mm, 1,623 45 mm, and 478 37 mm rounds Try to avoid two separate numbers next to each other.
  • Question, is it normal that the "External image" is closed?
  • Probably. External links normally don't fully display unless you add text after a pipe--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

All done except the numbers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • May I ask you why not the numbers? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It isn't really possible to rephrase the numbers to avoid having them next to each other, and spelling the shells fired out would create a new problem. Kges1901 (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)« Return to A-Class review list

Liberté-class battleship[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

Liberté-class battleship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


As a bit of a break from the German warships I've been doing lately, here's another French one. These ships had interesting careers; the first one blew up in 1911 and the other three saw action in World War I and two of them got involved in the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War in 1919. Thanks to everyone who reviews the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Happy to see you again Nate. I hope you had a great holiday. :]

It was pretty good - my wife ran the Chicago Marathon on Sunday
  • In 1916, the ships were sent to Greece to put pressure Pipe Greece to the Kingdom of Greece.
    • Done
  • were sent to the Black Sea to monitor German forces Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done, but linked in the first para instead
  • were sold for scrap in 1921 and broken up in Italy Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done
  • in the Fleet Law of 1900, which called for No link for the Fleet Law of 1900?
    • No, unfortunately - articles on the French Navy are poorly developed at this point (hopefully we'll fix that eventually!)
  • The law was a reaction to the German 1898 Naval Law Pipe German to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • battleship displacing 13,600 metric tons (13,400 long tons) Link for both tonnes?
    • Done
  • Link full load.
    • Done
  • the arrangement proved to have several problems --> "proved to have several problems one of them was the conning tower was"?
    • I'm not sure I follow your suggested wording
  • their crews were increased to 44 officers and 765 enlisted men to include an admiral's staff Why were they increased?
    • The admiral's staff
  • with six electric generators; two 500-amp generators Shouldn't it be "with six electric generators; two 500-ampere generators"
    • I suppose on first usage, yeah
  • It extended from .5 m (1 ft 8 in) below Americanised ".5 m" usage.
    • Fixed
  • with a 216 mm (8.5 in)-thick rear wall Remove hyphen.
    • Done
  • tube that was 200 mm-thick protected Same as above.
    • Done
  • in the western Mediterranean and Atlantic Link Mediterranean.
    • Done
  • the battleships of the fleet withdrew to Corfu and Malta Island or the Crown Colony of Malta?
    • Eventually I'll fix these beforehand, like the ".0"s and "0 in"s ;)
  • At the outbreak of war in August 1914 Pipe "outbreak of war" to WWI.
    • Linked directly
  • Dardanelles Division fighting in the last stages of the Gallipoli Campaign --> "Dardanelles Division fighting in the last stages of the Gallipoli campaign"
    • Done
  • Capitalise and link "Greek army"
    • Done
  • were sent into the Black Sea to oversee the demilitarization of Russian warships To where?
    • Jordan & Dumas aren't specific, unfortunately - presumably Sevastopol, though I know the Germans seized Imperator Aleksandr III in Novorossiysk (though the Brits took control of her, not the French - the point being there were other ports with Russian warships.
  • including visits to Spain, Monaco, and Italy Pipe Italy to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have some comments:

  • suggest "The Liberté class consisted of four pre-dreadnought battleships"
    • Works for me
  • suggest "In 1909, Liberté, Justice, and Vérité visited the United States" as "three of the ships" is redundant
    • Done
  • suggest "Vérité was briefly deployed to the Dardanelles in September 1914" if that is right?
    • Yep
  • "where itthey saw little activity"
    • Fixed
  • link Toulon
    • Done
  • suggest "France's primary enemy"→"France's principal potential opponent" as they weren't exactly enemies, just potential ones
    • Fair enough, but I wager if you asked your average Frenchman in 1913 who their enemy was...
  • lk=on for the first displacement conversion in the Design section
    • It is linked in the second para
  • "draft was limited atto 8.4 m (28 ft)"
    • Done
  • you could put lk=on for the displacement in the infobox
    • Done
  • suggest putting a note in the infobox about the variation in boilers for Justice
    • Done
  • suggest adding the range to the infobox
    • Done
  • where were the secondary guns located?
    • Added a description
  • "their propellant charges before ammunition"?
    • The turrets had a storage capacity of 12 shells and their associated propellant charges (each divided into three bagged charges) - does adding a comma at "...charges, before..." make it clearer?
  • I take it all the tertiary battery guns were in open mounts in the superstructure? Is there any information about their location that could be added?
    • Added details on this
  • suggest putting the lower belt range in the infobox
    • Added
  • is there a link for cemented steel?
    • There is, and it's there
  • "metropolitan France"→"Metropolitan France" and link
    • Done
  • no damage from the collision between Justice and Démocratie?
    • Added a bit on that

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Add ampersands to multi-author works to match those in the refs
    • Done
  • Why is Alger important for Wells?
    • Don't know that he is, but I figure if I have the editor, I'll add the info, seeing as it doesn't hurt
      • I don't agree, but not going to fuss about it.
  • Footnotes are properly formatted
  • References otherwise properly formatted
  • References are from RS authors and publishers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • "File:Liberté class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1906.jpg" needs a US PD tag.
  • Alt text?
  • Maybe left justify the image of Justice?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Japanese battleship Kawachi[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Japanese battleship Kawachi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The short-lived Kawachi fell victim to a magazine explosion only six years after she was completed in 1912. In between these dates, her only significant activity was bombarding German defenses during the Siege of Tsingtao during World War I. I've overhauled this article significantly since it was promoted to GA in 2013 and would like reviewers to look for the usual things in preparation for an eventual FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in great shape. I have a few comments:

  • given they were the first dreadnoughts, suggest stating that Aki was a semi-dreadnought
  • lk=in for knots at first mention in the body
  • "Eight 40-caliber quick-firing (QF) 4.7-inch (119 mm) 41st Year Type guns.,"
  • suggest putting the armour range for the barbettes and conning tower in the infobox
  • the deck armour measurements don't match (rounding?)

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • All three are licensed correctly (though you could update the PD-old-70 tag on File:Kawachi-classDrawing.jpg to PD-old-90).
    • Quibble, quibble! Hey, I've sent you a couple of emails recently, have you received them?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • All sources are formatted uniformly, though isn't Ahlberg credited as an author of CombinedFleet?
  • Sources used are reliable and high quality. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • under the 1907 Warship Supplement Program after the Russo-Japanese War as Japan's first dreadnoughts Link for the 1907 Warship Supplement Program? Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan. Also add the years of the war to make the reader clear that the war occurred three/two years ago.
  • Their design was based on the semi-dreadnought Aki with a uniform 12-inch (305 mm) main battery This is really odd to me, why is there a "was" when the person or object are plurals? I'd say "Their design were" instead of "Their design was" but correct me if I am wrong.
    • Design is almost always singular.
  • Yes I know but that the design was based on multiple ships got me in confusion. I thought because of the design was from multiple ships, it should be plural due it came from multiple ships. But never mind that. Cheers.
  • Her crew numbered 999 officers and enlisted men as completed During peace times or wartime?
    • That's all I know
  • propeller, using steam from 16 Miyabara water-tube boilers No link for Miyabara?
    • Nope.
  • and a dozen 40-caliber QF 3-inch (76 mm) 41st Year Type guns A dozen? Doesn't the source say that?
    • What do you mean? I didn't want to spell out twelve.
  • I forgot at that moment that a "dozen" also means twelve like a dozen of eggs. Cheers.
  • She was assigned to the First Squadron of the First Fleet on 15 August 1915 and began 1915 isn't necessary.
  • inch casemate guns for three-inch anti-aircraft guns Do we know what kind of guns?
    • Probably the same type of gun on a high-angle mount, but not specified.
  • Magazine is overlinked.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

    • Thanks for looking this over so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

  • Why the cite in the lead?
  • "although cost considerations prevented all the guns from having the same barrel length" a couple of queries spring to mind: 1. Which was cheaper?2. How much was saved? 3. Why were all the guns not the cheaper version then? In what way(s) did this effect their performances?
  • "¥11,130,000" Any idea what this was or is in "real" money?
  • Is it appropriate to use the term "private ship" for a non-RN vessel?
  • "She was assigned to the First Squadron of the First Fleet on 15 August and began a lengthy refit on 1 December 1916" It seems strange to have events over 16 months apart casually mixed in a single sentence.
  • "that were successfully adopted by the navy" What does "successfully" add to this?
  • "would delay the construction of one battlecruiser by over a year" Why/how?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Babylon Hill[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Harrias (talk)

Battle of Babylon Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Battle of Babylon Hill of little more than an early skirmish of the First English Civil War. Both sides were inexperienced and still learning the art of war. As such, the description of this engagement as "more muddle than battle" is fitting. Ralph Hopton was considered one of the more able of the Royalist leaders, and yet here he found himself needlessly ambushed by the enemy. All comments gratefully received. Harrias talk 08:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • A Parliamentarian army of between 3,500 and 7,000, led by the Earl of Bedford Maybe add the name of the Earl here.
  • culminating in a reported 800 on the night of 5–6 September --> "culminating in a reported 800 on the night of 5/6 September"
    • Changed as suggested. Harrias talk 17:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • the first led by Captain Edward Stowell, and the second (Hopton's troop) Link Captain.
  • Stowell rode to meet the challenge, and after Balfour shot his pistol from distance, Stowell held his fire until he was close enough to make the shot, and struck him on the breast before completing the kill with his sword This looks for me more a romance text than an encyclopaedia text. I could be wrong but it looks like that.
    • I've reworded this, how is it now? Harrias talk 17:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • and in the darkness the entire Royalist detachment was able to make good its retreat For me it looks like it should be used "were" and "their" could be wrong because we're talking about a detachment?
    • Changed; I'm not sure how much difference it made here. Harrias talk 17:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't note a have a citation?

I think these are anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: All addressed, thanks for your review. Harrias talk 17:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Harrias: In have one comment left. In note b we have no citation It is likely that Morris conflated Balfour with either his father or one of his brothers who also fought in the war. at the end. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed (though significantly change the main text to reflect new information). Harrias talk 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:William_Russell,_1st_Duke_of_Bedford.jpeg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "more muddle than battle" The MoS requires that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" This is certainly an opinion and so should be attributed in line.
    • It is, but the quotation is attributed inline, in the body of the article: "The historian Richard Brooks described the ensuing fight as "more muddle than battle." If you feel it is absolutely necessary, I can add it here too, but personally I'm not convinced that it is necessary. Harrias talk 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's late. I shall return to this.
I remember when I first encountered this, on the other side of the discussion. I was not happy. I made a very similar point to yours. But - the MoS is clear" "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Actually it is clearer: "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion" emphasis in the original. I cannot off hand think of any other cases where the MoS emphasises its requirements. So, sorry, remove, paraphrase or attribute as you have in the article; but you can't have a quote which iis an opinion not directly attached to an in line attribution. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, irritatingly, you appear to be right. It's a nasty habit you're developing! Amended accordingly. Harrias talk 17:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg The next time you catch me in a complete howler, I shall claim that I did it deliberately in order to make you feel better. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Somerset predominantly favoured the Parliamentarians" It is not clear on first reading that this refers to a geographical area, and not a person. Eg the Duke of Somerset, who is mentioned in the same sentence; yes, I realise that he didn't become Duke for another 40 years, but still. (Or Edward Somerset who raised cavalry for the King (in Wales).)
  • "Somerset predominantly favoured the Parliamentarians, and the Royalist forces which initially mustered at Wells under the Marquees of Hertford were harried out of the county, retreating to Sherborne in northwest Dorset, an area more sympathetic to the Royalist cause." Optional: Rather a lot happening in that long sentence. Consider breaking it.
  • "Hertford's garrison was besieged" Is this the same force as "the Royalist forces which initially mustered at Wells" Is a reader to take it that "retreating to Sherborne" means 'retreating to Sherborne and garrisoning it'.
  • "Besieged" is not synonymous with 'blockaded'. I think that you need to decide which it was.
    • @Gog the Mild: Genuine question, not an argument: Our article Siege states "A siege is a military blockade of a city, or fortress.." The dictionary definition of siege is given as "a military operation in which enemy forces surround a town or building, cutting off essential supplies, with the aim of compelling those inside to surrender", while a blockade is "an act or means of sealing off a place to prevent goods or people from entering or leaving". While I accept that not all blockades are sieges, my own understanding here is that a typical siege is a blockade, making the two terms synonymous in particular cases? Harrias talk 19:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That is a - genuinely - interesting argument. Proposing that sieges are sub-sets of blockades. I had always understood a siege to be a close investment, while a blockade was a more distant interdiction; but even if that is correct, and I concede that it may not be, it does not entirely rule out your suggestion. I am rather suspicious of the definition of siege you provide above, Eg, see Wiktionary "siege: ... with the intent of conquering by force or attrition"; "blockade: The physical blocking or surrounding of a place, especially a port, in order to prevent commerce and traffic in or out."
Fascinating stuff. You make a very sound argument, which IMO is all that is needed on Wikipedia. I withdraw my objection to your mixing of besieged and blockade. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
PS Feel entirely free to argue with me. I don't mind, so long as you are polite. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully I am always polite. Blunt, but polite. Harrias talk 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I have only found you to be polite. I look forward to discovering the bluntness.
  • "Hertford's garrison was besieged in early September, but the blockade only lasted four days as the Parliamentarian army suffered significant desertions and withdrew to nearby Yeovil." Was "the Parliamentarian army" the garrison or the besiegers/blockaders?
  • As you may have guessed, I found the second paragraph of the lead a bit confusing.
    • I have reworked the second paragraph, and hopefully addressed each of the points raised (though probably created more), let me know how it seems now. Harrias talk 21:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Somerset was generally more sympathetic..." As above. (Person or place.)
  • "their superior cavalry and leadership granted them victory" IMO "granted them victory" is not encyclopedic.
    • Changed to "helped them defeat". Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "but in the country" "country" in this sense doesn't always travel well. Consider 'in the more rural areas', or similar.
    • Changed to "in more rural areas", without the definite article. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "unable to prevent the Parliamentarian bombardment" Optional: "the" → 'a'.
    • I'm not sure about this one at the moment. I'll re-read tomorrow. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hopton set his musketeers and dragoons along the approaches to the summit" Delete "his". (Which implies 'all of his'.)
  • This is picky, but lead: "to no effect"; article: "with little effect".
    • Change both to "little" to better reflect the source. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Stowell succeeded in breaking the enemy approach, but his inexperienced cavalry were outnumbered and routed" I don't understand tis. What does "breaking the enemy approach" mean? Colour change to remind me not to overlook it.
    • Okay, so I've read the source back, because frankly, I didn't have a clue what this travesty of a sentence meant. I'm just going to quote the source here, because I am really, really struggling to come up with an alternative which doesn't sound pretty much as awful as my first attempt: "Stawell charged the parliamentarians and initially routed them but his men being untrained and outnumbered was in turn routed" (No offence to the author either, but that text isn't getting through FAC anytime soon...) Put this here as (a) somewhere to summarise the thought and (b) a vain hope that someone else can suggest better wording for the article. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
      • @Gog the Mild: Query on this point: would "Stowell's cavalry troop routed the approaching enemy, but they were inexperienced and outnumbered, and themselves routed, ..." be any better? I'm a bit concerned about whether it paraphrases the source a little too closely? Harrias talk 08:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
1. That reads fine to me. Except it leaves me wanting to know who routed Stowell's force, if they had just routed "the approaching enemy".
2. Maybe 'Stowell's cavalry charge was initially successful, but his inexperienced troopers fell into confusion [or 'became disorganised'] and were routed' or similar would be a tad clearer and avoid close paraphrasing. (And even if its not in the source, can you think of any cavalry charge ever that didn't fall into confusion?) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
My concern with your suggested wording is that it suggests that "the approaching enemy" won that phase of the battle, and therefore gained the summit, which doesn't appear to have been the case. While I was going through all the sources, it is pretty clear that everyone has based this on Hopton's description: "Capt. Stowell charg'd verie gallantly and routed the enemy, but withall (his troope consisting of new horse, and the Enemy being more in number) was rowted himselfe" I've just discovered that the Thomason Tracts, a collection of contemporary pamphlets is on, so I should hopefully be able to find the Parliamentarian side of the story there to see if that helps. (But it is 932 pages long, and accurate spelling was definitely considered 'optional'. Harrias talk 17:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I am guessing that they routed "the Enemy" at which they charged, probably the leading horse, got carried away in pursuit and either ran straight into the following infantry - oops - or were scattered across the field on blown horses and counter-charged by a fresh force. Obviously a bit ORy. If you don't find anything, or despair, how about 'Stowell's charge was initially successful, but his troops were inexperienced and outnumbered and the Parlimentarians routed them'? Or '... drove them off in rout'? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
With some new information, I have reworked this quite significantly. Harrias talk 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "A second group of Parliamentarians had made it up another of the gullies" To my eye this phraseology suggests that the first group also made it up a gully, which you have explained it didn't.
    • Good point, trimmed to "one of the gullies". Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hopton's army" 350 men Suggest "army" → 'force'.
  • "where a duel may have taken place" Optional: change "duel" for some other word or phrase.
1. Arranged, regular combat between two private persons, often over a matter of honor.
2. Historically, the wager of battle (judicial combat)
3. Any struggle between two contending persons, groups or ideas."
It just about sneaks into the third definition, but for me it overwhelmingly brings the first to mind; to a lesser extent the second; marginally the first and last parts of the third; and I really had to strain to realise that you weren't flat wrong. Optional, as technically it is an (barely IMO) allowable usage; but I don't see why we need to put a casual reader through all of that mental effort.
  • That seems reasonable. I'll have a look at reworking this. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "lieutenant-general of the horse" Should that "the" be there?
    • Probably not. Some sources do phrase it that way, but it's better without. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. I don't recall ever coming across that phraseology. I assumed it to be a typo. But if you prefer it, fine.
  • "Hopton chose to withdraw his foot again, covering their flight with the cavalry and musketeers" Were the "musketeers" not part of the "foot"? (Or do you mean dragoons?)
    • Well, this is irritating. This is a very good point that I can't currently see an answer to. I have followed the source (Brooks) without really thinking about this. I will need to delve through the other sources to see if any more clarity is provided. I would guess that yes, those musketeers were dragoons: it makes sense given their ability to provide cover and then ride away at speed, but unless I can find it somewhere, that is just speculation. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Morris states that the foot were covered by the horse and dragoons for the initial withdrawal, but for the second only mentions that they were able to retreat in the darkness. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I hate it when you can clearly visualise the obvious military manoeuvre, but the source hasn't spelt it out; almost certainly because it is so obvious. Grrr!
  • "claim victory in the battle in the propaganda war" "in" twice in four words; suggest deleting "in the battle" - I think that it can be taken as read.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, lots of good points in there. I have done some work on the article, but still need to have a look at a couple of the points in more detail tomorrow. Harrias talk 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Good. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I've made a few notes here, but none have resolved issues. Delving through the sources to find resolutions to these issues, I've found a few contradictions between the sources that I haven't addressed, and I'm worried that I might have editorialised the article unintentionally. I'm going to have a thorough read between them at some point to see whether it is just a couple of minor points, or if this is endemic across the whole article, in which case I will withdraw this nomination for the moment. Harrias talk 18:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear. I feel guilty. But I suppose that it will result in a stronger article. And it's what I get paid my munificent reviewer's remuneration for. Good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, it wasn't as bad as I worried it might be. I have made a few tweaks and clarifications which have reconciled a few contradictions. Hopefully my changes have mostly resolved your issues with the exception of one that I have responded to above, regarding my awful phrasing. Harrias talk 10:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Everything you have done looks good on a skim. Two comments from me above for you. Once you say that the article is more or less stable I will have another more thorough reread. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I'm happy that this article better balances the sources now, so hopefully it should remain stable now. I've re-written most of the battle description since the initial review, so expecting a whole host of new issues now! ;) Harrias talk 22:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Take 2[edit]

I hope that you realise that I shall be invoicing you twice for this review.

That's much better. A nicely flowing read now. However.

  • I am still not a fan of the "successful in routing the approaching enemy" sentence, but I understand your difficulties and this won't stand in the way of my support.
  • The lead: It is relatively long for the size of the article (but acceptably so) and gives two and a half paragraphs to the background and prelude, half a paragraph to the actual battle, and no detail on the aftermath. A lead is required to give casualties. I think that you need to lose virtually all of the second paragraph and add a short concluding one.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"A lead is required to give casualties." Where does it say this? It isn't in the content guide. Harrias talk 13:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Oooh. Good question. And poor phraseology from me. What I was ineptly getting at was that leads should "summarize the most important points" (MOS:LEAD) and that I consider (and I believe that it is more widely considered) that in the leads of military conflicts (skirmishes, battles, sieges, campaigns, wars etc) the outcome and both side's casualties are automatically considered "important". As ever, I am open to being persuaded otherwise. You are of course correct that the MilHist guide does not specifically require casualties, but I would suggest that "What was its outcome or significance" is a hefty nudge in that direction. Specifically, are you content that the lead of this article covers "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" (MOS:INTRO), especially with regards to "What was its outcome or significance"? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. To clarify, I was always going to redo the lead, and Parsecboy's review below has also highlighted this, and given some further guidance. I did not intend to suggest that I shouldn't put the casualties in, but rather that as you had phrased it, it sounded like an MOS/content guide requirement. As I had not seen such a thing, I was worried there might be a whole page somewhere that I had missed. Like I said above, my own phraseology can be blunt at times. Harrias talk 15:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Blunt can be good. And it was entirely appropriate. Of course, I only used that misleading phraseology in order to make you feel better when you found me out. Face-wink.svg Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

You've been generous with reviews, so I ought to repay the favor, eh?

  • The lead section doesn't work for me - it seems odd to have what amounts to a summary of the battle and its background in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, and then a summary of that in the 1st paragraph. I'd leave the first sentence mostly as is, and then use the rest of the first para to explain the context (another problem with the lead is that it assumes too much on the reader's behalf - where is Sherborne, for instance?) - for instance, you might say "The Battle of Babylon Hill was a skirmish that took place between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in [southern England, South West England, whatever you want to identify the general location] on 7 September 1642, during the early stages of the First English Civil War. The action came after a failed Parliamentarian siege of a Royalist garrison at Sherborne in Dorset earlier that month. After the Parliamentarians withdrew to nearby Yoevil, the Royalist commander in Sherborne, the Marquees of Hertford, sent a small force under Sir Ralph Hopton to reconnoitre their positions." You could then have what is now the 3rd paragraph moved up to the 2nd paragraph, and then I'd think a new 3rd paragraph should be added that covers the aftermath and significance of the battle. I would probably drop the Brooks quote from the lead, since it's repeated in the body.
  • Sherborne is linked twice in the lead
  • Link Parliament, Somerset, pipe MP to Member of parliament, move the link to cavalry up to its first use, musketeer, rout, Wales, Devon, Cornwall. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • A little surprised at the age of some of the sources, but this is a pretty obscure skirmish, so most likely not much choice.
    • Mostly the older sources are used where they have quoted primary sources which haven't been mentioned elsewhere, particularly the Parliamentarian account of the battle, which is only available at the British Library. Harrias talk 09:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Batten, Junr, John What is this, Junior? I'm more used to seeing it formatted in bibliographies as Batten, John, Jr. Is this some sort of BritEng thing, or more a Victorian thing? I've asked how to format suffixes over at the Cite book template page and will relay the answer I get there.
    • From MOS:JR: "When the surname is shown first, the suffix follows the given name, as Kennedy, John F. Jr."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's right. I just hadn't realised how the citation template had formatted it, though it makes sense. I've left it as "Junr" as this is how the author spells it in the book, but I would have no objection to switching it to "Jr" if that is preferred? Harrias talk 09:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, please. Junr is a rather odd Victorianism that I've only seen once or twice before.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • References consistently formatted
  • Bibliography is consistently formatted and RS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sturmvogel 66, minor query relating to the "Junr" issue. Harrias talk 09:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) and Kges1901 (talk)

55th (West Lancashire) Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The 55th (West Lancashire) Division was originally formed in 1908, as part of the Territorial Force, and was active for nearly 40 years. It fought in many of the notable battles of the First World War's Western Front. During its time at the front, it was lauded for several accomplishments, but criticized for its perceived weakness during the fighting at Cambrai in 1917. Following the reformation of the Territorial Force, the division became part of the Territorial Army in 1920. The inter-war years were quiet, memorials were erected, and the division was transformed into a "Motor Division". During the Second World War, the division engaged in anti-invasion, draft-finding, and training duties and was not deployed. It was disbanded towards the end of the war, and also used for deception purposes. The article has been given a copy-edit by the GOCE, and recently passed a GA review. This is a joint nomination between myself, and Kges1901 (talk · contribs) who has helped expand the article in key ways.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

I just had a pretty detailed look at GAN, so have only a few things to add after another read:

  • link mobilisation for demobilised in the lead, and at first mention of mobilisation in the body
  • Linked, I've put in a more relevant link for demobbing. Kges1901 (talk) 11:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest links for North Lancashire, Liverpool and South Lancashire at first mention
  • Done
  • link Wales
  • Already linked
  • colon after "The infantry of the division comprised" then use semicolons to divide the brigades
  • Done
  • move note a to the sentence where the casualties for the tour are given
  • Done
  • suggest "In the right flanking 165th Brigade, the 1/5KR advanced..."
  • Rephrased, but slightly differently
  • Second lieutenant→Second Lieutenant
  • Done
  • suggest "The 165th Brigade's 1/9K was ordered..."
  • Rephrased to avoid contraction
  • suggest "The 1/4KORL and the 1/4LR of the 164th Brigade..."
  • Done
  • "until all ammunition was exhausted" did they then surrender? Or what happened next?
  • Added detail from VC citation
  • for gegenangriff use the lang-de template
  • Done

Down to Battle of Cambrai. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Perhaps make it clearer that the initial attack at Cambrai was made by the 164th Brigade, with 1/4LR attacking Gillemont Farm and the Liverpool Irish and 2/5LF attacking the Knoll?
    I have made a few tweaks, hope this works.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The 166th Brigade, held in reserve" but that brigade was in the frontline. Is this perhaps the 164th Brigade, which had borne the brunt of the earlier fighting? The later mention of a lack of defence in depth makes me wonder where the 164th Brigade was.
    Rechecking the source: 166th Brigade (as you state, on the frontline) were ordered to dig in and deny the village, and were reinforced with at least a battalion from the 164th. I have tweaked the article, hope this makes it more clear now.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "By 1918, the number of front line infantry within the British Army in France had decreased" why had it decreased? Was it lack of conscripts or something else?
  • Elaborated from Perry using google books preview. @EnigmaMcmxc: Can you verify that this is an accurate conclusion?
I have made a change per Perry, to state just eligible replacements. His is a prolonged argument on the situation, which includes the post-war attempt to use the situation for political gain and conflicting stats among official sources and the post-war political arguments. Boiled down, there was heavy casualties that decreased the frontline fighting strength (but not the overall strength of the BEF), and of the large amount of boys at home there was a shortage of men actually physically able (and of the correct age) to be drafted (the rest appear to be in training, under or over age, or assigned to an emergency pool of men in case of invasion).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • link 2-inch medium mortar for medium trench mortar, and 9.45-inch Heavy Mortar for heavy trench mortar
  • Done
  • "attacked by elements of three German divisions" but weren't there four?
  • Indeed, Farr's statement applies only to the first day.

Down to Interwar period. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • link St Helens, Merseyside
  • Already linked
  • "By the 1930s, this resulted in the TA having limited access to modern equipment, under-trained men, and officers with inadequate experience in command."
  • Done
  • when the div went motor, was the 164th Bde disestablished or moved to another division?
  • Done

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • comma between Home Forces and General Walter Kirke, and also after Kirke
  • Done, though it needs a 'the' before C-in-C Home Forces
  • "and the The Wash"
  • Done
  • "organised No. 4 Independent Company,"
  • Done
  • drop the quotes from "insufficiently trained" and "undertake offensive operations", just not necessary
  • Done
  • I think "The division continued to provide men to other formations through to 1944" could be moved to the end of the para
  • Addressed and removed the 'to', EnigmaMcmxc, can you verify that this is correct?
The full quote from the source:
"At the same time [would appear to be around October 1941] the Division was called on for drafts both of men and units and was reduced to a Lower Establishment Division. The hopes of overseas service receded, and the calls for drafts started, which were to continue until "D"-Day."
I think the placement at the end of the para I okay, as we have previously established this was an ongoing process. Do either of you suggest further refinement based off the full quote?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "In June, the division lost five men" killed?
    Per the source, yes. Updated article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "previously 10th Battalion" of the Loyal Regiment?
  • Done
  • "renumbered the 166th Brigade"
  • Done
  • perhaps say something about the success of Fortitude North
    I have added a brief sentence on it, and a note containing a bit more information.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That's my lot. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I think between myself and Kges1901, we have addressed all your points and concerns. Several comments have been left above for you to review as well. EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You have. Great job with this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Enigma & Kges, thanks for your work on this. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • in the infobox the Branch assignment to the Territorial Force is listed as beginning in 1907, but this seems counterinuitive given that the Active field provides 1908 as the year the division was established
  • Done
  • Coop stated it was believed that the German's --> remove the apostrophe here
  • Done
  • During January, the 55th --> probably best to add the year here
  • Done
  • Army of Occupation, to maintain a receiving camp for Army of Occupation cadres --> probably don't need the second mention of the Army of Occupation here
  • Done
  • "reorganization" or "reorganisation"?
  • Done
  • "motorized" or "motorised"?
  • Done
  • "demobilization" -> "demobilisation"
  • Done. I apparently can't instinctively write in British English, good catch. Kges1901 (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
  • By the 1930s, this had the result of the TA having limited access to modern equipment, the men being under-trained and the officers having inadequate experience in command --> "By the 1930s, the TA lacked modern equipment, its men were under-trained and the officers were inadequately experienced in command"?
  • I think PM's rephrasing works better
  • divisions of the British Army were divided between being listed as higher establishment formations, and lower establishment ones --> "divisions of the British Army were organised as either higher establishment or lower establishment formations"?
  • Done, but without the first use of 'establishment' as I think that's redundant
  • "Battle Insignia" --> "Battle insignia"?
  • Done
  • in the Citations "p. 56–57" --> "pp. 56-57"
  • Done
  • in the References Becke 1989a and 1989b seem to have same name -- should one of these be Part 2B?
  • Done

« Return to A-Class review list

Basil II[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): 20DKB03 (talk)

Basil II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I have been sent here to have this article reviewed for A-Class before I nominate to FAC in a peer review. I had this article pass on to GA, but it was not ready for FA yet. After my large contributions back in August of 2018, other people also had their share of improving the article to be more coherent, and I feel like it is ready now. I'm open to further ideas on improvements too. 20DKB03 (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Constantine[edit]

I hate to do be the one to do this every time, but really the most fundamental concern from the FAs has not been addressed: the article still is a jumble of loosely cobbled sections, worked on by various editors over various years, and now coated with layers of copyedits by Векочел, which for the most part only served to make cosmetic changes to the text and bring the references out of sync. Just as an example, I invite you to examine the original state of the "Campaigns against the Fatimid Caliphate" section, as written by me, with the current one. The textual differences are minor, almost the only change is the removal of some sources and their replacement by others, without apparent rationale. It says a lot that in one+ year and 1000 intervening edits (i.e., 50% of all edits in the article's existence), the article is still mostly the same size and with virtually the same content and structure as when you left it, 20DKB03. It is fine for GA, but needs a lot of dedicated work, not just window-dressing, to get anywhere near comprehensive enough to qualify for A-class status. I've tried to get myself to do it, but my other interests and RL do not allow me to dedicate myself to this sufficiently. Constantine 11:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Gog the Mild[edit]

I have had an eye on this article since taking five of his six immediate successors to GA last year. I have been put off working on it by the high rate of editing, IMO largely either trivial or deleterious. I probably have a slightly lower bar than Constantine re "comprehensive", but even so this isn't there. The use of language is also not good. Not so much "incorrect use", as a wall of facts in recondite phraseology with little flow or connection. Frankly, if this were up for GAN I would be sucking my teeth, and I agree with Constantine that it needs a lot of work before it will be ready for ACR. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review (oppose)[edit]

I have not looked at the prose at all, just a cursory look through the referencing.

  • Lots of short references aren't linking properly: refs #3, #13, #14, #16, #23, #24, #25, #26, #28, #30, #36, #67, #106, #130, #146, #149 and #151.
  • Similarly, a lot of the sources listed in the Bibliography are not linked to: Ash, John (1995), Blöndal, Sigfús; Benedikz, Benedikt (16 April 2007), Cartwright, Mark (19 January 2018), Gibbon, Edward (1788), Gregory, Timothy E. (2005), Lopez, Robert Sabatino (20 July 1998), Nicol, Donald MacGillivray (1992), Reuter, Timothy; McKitterick, Rosamond, eds. (1999), Runciman, Steven (1988) [1929], Talbot, Alice-Mary; Johnson, Scott Fitzgerald (14 May 2012) and The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (20 July 1998).
  • There is inconsistency of whether sources include the publisher location or not.
  • Older sources such as "Vogt, Albert (1923)" should include an OCLC number.
  • Ref #1 uses "p." where it should be "pp." for a range, as do some others.

I have not carried out any checks for close para-phrasing or copyvio. Harrias talk 16:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia)[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

1st Army Group (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


This is the overarching article for the Yugoslav army group that tried to defend northern Yugoslavia during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia. It is part of a ten-article Good Topic that will hopefully become Featured soon. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • to the German-led Axis invasion of the Yugoslavia in April 1941 unnecessary article before Yugoslavia.
  • Germans seized bridges over the Drava river --> "Germans seized bridges over the Drava River"
  • the Royal Yugoslav Army Air Force (Serbo-Croatian Latin: Vazduhoplovstvo vojske Kraljevine Jugoslavije, VVKJ) Second Serbo-Croatian link in the body.
    The template isn't letting me unlink this, I have asked at the template talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • intact bridge over the Mura river at Gornja Radgona --> "intact bridge over the Mura River at Gornja Radgona"
  • Serbian/Serbs is overlinked.
  • withdrawing to a line south of the Sava river --> "withdrawing to a line south of the Sava River"
  • from the Drava to behind the Bednja river to conform --> "from the Drava to behind the Bednja River to conform"
  • air reconnaissance assets were based.[54][33] Re-order the refs.
    Done down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • across the Rječina river from Sušak, but the order was soon --> "across the Rječina River from Sušak, but the order was soon"
  • to the deteriorating situation in the flanking 4th Army.[60][42] Re-order the refs.
  • through the Dravinja river, Zidani Most bridge and the right bank of the Krka river --> "through the Dravinja River, Zidani Most bridge and the right bank of the Krka River"
  • towards Maribor, and crossed the Pesnica river in inflatable boats --> "towards Maribor, and crossed the Pesnica River in inflatable boats"
  • Standardise the usage of directions like I see "north-eastern" and "northwestern".
  • Triglavski fell back to the southern bank of the Krka river --> "Triglavski fell back to the southern bank of the Krka River"
  • counterattack v. counter-attack
  • on Yugoslav airfields in the 7th Army area, including Ljubljana Link Ljubljana and unlink the second Ljubljana in the body.
    Done down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't note a have a citation.
    I'm working on this being WP:BLUE. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Some time later, other elements of LI Infantry Corps attacked Merge "Some time".
    No, that's not right. When some is being used as an adjective regarding time, like long time or short time, they are separate. Sometime means an indefinite or unspecified time, ie he will wash the car sometime. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • endangered units on the right wing of the 7th Army --> "endangered units on the right-wing of the 7th Army"
    This is also not right. It should only be hyphenated when acting as a compound adjective, ie right-wing politics. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • but construction of a bridge near Maribor --> "but the construction of a bridge near Maribor"
  • divebombers supported the breakout of the 14th Panzer Division Split divebombers.
  • the 27th ID numbered about 2,000 effectives when the German attack began --> "the 27th ID numbered about 2,000 effective when the German attack began"
    No, effectives is the right word here, meaning effective troops. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Held up by freezing weather and snow storms Merge "snow storms".

I think I'd reviewed anything I've got. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review, CPA-5. I believe I've addressed all your points? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you did. Great job as always, keep them going PM. Always fascinating how you wrote an article. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass[edit]

  • "File:Junkers Ju 87B dropping bombs.jpg" - the link to the source is dead.
    Updated links with Wayback Machine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "File:Damaged bridge over the Drava, April 1941.jpg" and "File:German patrol returning from Yugoslavia.jpg" - could the page number be included in the source details in each case?
    Actually they both have the pages in the description or other info parameters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
All images are appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Why are you hampering visually impaired readers by using refbegin and refend?
  • Footnotes consistently formatted
  • Add an ampersand to your refs to match the formatting in the footnotes for multi-author works.
  • Add language to Geografski
  • Barefield is a master's thesis as is everything through the School of Advanced Military Studies. So not RS.
  • Otherwise all refs are from reputable authors and publishers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
    All fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Arthur Blackburn[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Arthur Blackburn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Blackburn is the latest in my series on South Australian Victoria Cross recipients. He is arguably the state's most famous soldier, having won the VC at Pozières in WWI, then commanded a machine-gun battalion against the Vichy French, then an ad hoc brigade-sized force in Java against the Japanese. Captured, he spent the rest of the war being shipped from one place to another with a group of senior Allied POWs, and was liberated in Manchuria, of all places. I recently finished reading Andrew Faulkner's excellent (but huge) 2008 biography of Blackburn, which resulted in a significant expansion over several months. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, PM, nice work, as always. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • the infobox years of service start date is 1914, but it should probably be 1911
  • suggest maybe moving the link for Gallipoli Campaign to earlier in the Gallipoli section (in the body of the article)
  • "Outer Harbour" --> "Outer Harbor" as a proper noun?
  • Blackburn returned to legal practice: rough date for this? Probably "In early 1917" would do
  • contentious period in the organisation --> "contentious period in the organisation's history"?
  • his words were chosen well and delivered with authority: suggest attributing this to Faulkner in text
  • labour in a industrial dispute --> "labour in an industrial dispute"
  • With the amalgamation of light horse regiments --> "Following the amalgamation of light horse regiments..."?
  • On 14 January, in --> suggest adding the year here, and removing it from "On 1 February 1942"
  • the Orcades armoury --> "the Orcades' armoury"
  • Melbourne is overlinked, as is Java, Boys anti tank rifle, Bandung, and Roy Inwood
  • "File:Football match between South Australian and Tasmanian members.JPG": probably should have a PD-AustraliaGov licence
  • I'm not sure about the use of the grenade image -- seems out of place in a bio, but it isn't a major concern if you don't agree
    G'day AustralianRupert, all done. Here are my edits. I reckon the Mills bomb is an iconic weapon of the Pozieres fighting Blackburn was involved in, and unfortunately there are no good pics of the aftermath of the battle that I could find on the AWM website, so decided on it as a reasonable illustration of the fighting and hopefully interesting for the general reader. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    No worries, looks good. I always find myself wondering how Robin and Blackburn must have felt out there alone around the Third Ridge, and what their horizon looked like at their defining moment. I came across the story on a plaque in a hallway what seems a lifetime ago when I was posted to a unit that was co-located with AUR and found it quite compelling. Must have been like being cast adrift and yet somehow they made it through. I always regret reading about Robin's fate; reminds me of so many others who were lucky, and then ran out of luck. Anyway, sorry for the ramble. Fascinating life story. Thanks for your work on it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    Bloody scary I would reckon. No wonder they high-tailed it back to the rest of the battalion. Thanks again, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • and after re-organising and training in Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
  • and was appointed the coroner for the city of Adelaide Link coroner.
  • became a prominent Sydney doctor Unlink Sydney.
  • Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo Add Ceylon after Colombo and pipe Ceylon with British Ceylon.
  • Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo, the ship arrived at Alexandria, Egypt Pipe Egypt to the Sultanate of Egypt.
    All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • He was soon promoted to lance corporal Link lance corporal.
    Already linked for Robin. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • establishing that the Germans were holding a trench Pipe Germans to the German Empire.
    Now done even earlier. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • 16 October for six months' rest, arriving home via Melbourne on 3 December Unlink Melbourne.
    Why? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As I can tell it has almost 4 million people and I watched some YouTube videos with non-Australians who talk about Melbourne.
  • Oh never mind that.
  • Standardise the directions like this. An example "north-east" v. "southwest".
    Standardised. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Allied.
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • in the aftermath of Japan entering the war Pipe Japan to the Empire of Japan.
  • Formosa and flown to Japan, Pusan in Korea Link Korea.
  • The next flight was across the Himalayas to Calcutta in British India Unlink the Himalayas too common to link it.
    All done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • About 12:00 on 2 March, five Japanese light tanks Maybe change 12:00 with noon?
    Prefer to stick to 24-hour clock. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • it did not even have any Bren light machine guns --> "but it also did not even have any Bren light machine-guns".
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In accordance with normal procedures, while serving in the AIF A little bit wordy here.
    This was questioned in previous reviews of similar articles, as most would not be familiar with the set-up of being promoted in one force while serving in another. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • See a lot of "machine gun"s without a hyphen.
    I think they are fine as long as it is consistent and not being used as a compound adjective. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Part 2

  • where they remained onboard for the next seven weeks. Split "onboard".
    Replaced with aboard, which is better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • but another four were killed by machine gun fire Merge "gun fire".
    I don't agree with this. machine gun fire is fine, AFAIK. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I ask you why not?
  • Sure. A machine gun is a distinct thing, fire is what the machine gun produces. Machine gunfire isn't right, because machine gun and fire must be separated (or if we were adopting machine-gun, fire would still be separated from machine-gun). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • May I ask you why not?
  • "Undercover" has a different meaning from "under cover". "Undercover" means "secret work within a community or organization", "under cover" means being under the cover of something, hiding behind a physical feature or moving under covering fire, for example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Blackburn embarked at Southampton for Australia onboard the hospital ship Split "onboard".
    Replaced with aboard, which is better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • after which Blackburn molded the various separately American molded.
    Quite right. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review, CPA-5! Just a couple I'm not sure about. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey PM I added more comments here and I replied to some of your responses, so have fun. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I again replied to your responses PM. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments Abstain from Harrias[edit]

  • "..and along with the rest of the 10th Battalion, landed at Anzac Cove.." No need for the comma after Battalion.
  • "During his term as his articled clerk, on one occasion Hardy was being assaulted by two men.." I had to read this a couple of times to make sense of it, as the repetition of "his" caught me out. I can't think of an ideal solution, my own preference introduces more repetition: "During his term as Hardy's articled clerk, Hardy was assaulted by two men.." I don't know.
    These two done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 1911, compulsory military training had been introduced, and Arthur had joined the.." No need for "had".
    I think it is needed, as we are talking about the past, given the narrative has already got to 1913. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • " Morphettville, South Australia, before embarking on the SS Ascanius at Outer Harbor.." I wonder if it is worth mentioning that Morphettville and Outer Harbor are both in and around Adelaide, something that isn't clear from the text at the moment?
  • "By mid-September, the 10th Battalion had suffered a total of 711 casualties, 150 of whom had been killed." and then two sentences later: "The battalion lost 207 dead during the campaign." I don't think the repetition is needed so close together; maybe remove the first instance and add to the second: "The 10th Battalion suffered over 700 casualties during the campaign, 207 of whom had been killed"?
  • "The 10th Battalion was committed to.." and two sentences later "In the early hours of 23 July, the 10th Battalion was committed to.." Avoid the repetition.
  • "..which they were able to break down, and using bombs, they were able to push the Germans back." Repetition of "were able to"; possibly swap the second to "they pushed the Germans back." Or similar.
  • "Motorised infantry units, the machine gun battalions were equipped with.." I'm afraid I'm a bit lost with this sentence? Should it start with "As"?
    Done down to here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "..with Blackburn invariably marching.." Avoid Noun plus -ing.
  • "..with Blackburn driving.." And again.
  • "It took up positions.." "It" singular and "positions" plural jar to me, though I can understand why. Maybe "The force took up positions..", or just "It took up position.."?
  • "..a battalion of British infantry arrived and, under covering fire from the machine-gunners attacked and captured.." Needs another comma after "machine-gunners".
  • "..with the 25-pounders knocking out.." Noun plus-ing again.
  • "Meantime, the.." Hmm, I thought this should be "Meanwhile.." or "In the meantime.." but Google suggest they can be used interchangeably, so no matter. It sounds odd to me, though. (No change required, apparently!)
  • "..with Blackburn's machine-gunners supporting.. Noun plus-ing again.
  • Is there a more commonly understood word that can be used in place of "internecine"?

Reviewed to the end of the Syria-Lebanon Campaign section, and I'm going to have to take a break, and come back to this later. Harrias talk 13:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Harrias. Done down to here. Here are my edits so far. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Also on the Orcades were the 2/2nd Pioneer Battalion, engineers of the 2/6th Field Company, elements of the 2/2nd Anti-Aircraft Regiment and 2/1st Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, the 105th General Transport Company, 2/2nd Casualty Clearing Station, and sundry others. The ship, rated for 2,000 passengers, was loaded with 3,400." This is a long article, and there are a few places, such as this, when I feel the article goes into excessive detail. There were a few instances earlier in the article too, when stopovers on journeys are mentioned and things like that. I would suggest having a scan through the whole article and asking yourself whether each fact adds to the readers understanding of Blackburn. Of course, sometimes the minutiae helps to provide context, but at points this article gets distracted from Blackburn to go into detail about a slightly tertiary subject.
    This becomes important when they get to Java, as they are not infantry, but are required to fight as such. I will go through and check if there are any things that could be trimmed, though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
    In that case, it would seem more appropriate to highlight it at that point, rather than this one. Even so, to a layperson, they aren't going to pick up on the fact that none of these are infantry. Harrias talk 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • " senior officer on board, was appointed as the officer commanding.." The repetition of "officer" seems avoidable.
  • "..were kept busy with physical training, air raid and lifeboat drills and lectures." To avoid the "and xx and yy", maybe swap this around to "..were kept busy with air raid and lifeboat drills, physical training and lectures."
    Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "..did not even have any.." Remove "even".
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "In disgraceful scenes, Australian looters and deserters.." Remove "In disgraceful scenes", not encyclopaedic language.
    Quite. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "..into a killing ground and annihilated them." I'm not sure "annihilated" is encyclopaedic language here.
    OK. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "..and sought medical advice on the idea of continuing resistance in the hills." Why medical advice?
    They were worried about how long they'd last with tropical and other diseases etc. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "..only weighed 88 pounds (40 kg)." Could you make this consistent with previous weights, which are in the format "x stone y pounds (aa kg; bb lb)"
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that's me done. I will be going away tomorrow for the weekend, so I may well be slow to reply to any further comments; I would hope to do so on Sunday if I don't manage to get to them before that. Harrias talk 08:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thorough and perceptive review, Harrias. I will also go through and see what can be trimmed, although I am a bit of an inclusionist. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem at all. A few examples of things that could be trimmed out or at least mentioned in less detail:
  • "Sailing via Fremantle and Colombo in Ceylon, the ship arrived at Alexandria, Egypt, on 6 December, and the troops disembarked. They then boarded trains for Cairo where they made camp at Mena near the Great Pyramid of Giza on the following day, along with the rest of the AIF.[9] They remained at Mena undergoing training until 28 February 1915, when they entrained for Alexandria. They embarked on the SS Ionian on 1 March, and a few days later arrived at the port of Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos in the northeastern Aegean Sea, where they remained aboard for the next seven weeks." I appreciate the value of "setting the scene" for the reader to give greater understanding, but an explanation that it was a drawn out journey by various modes of transport could be put more succinctly.
  • I think that most readers today would not appreciate the nature of sea travel, and that the level of detail is fine. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "On 10 February, the ship departed Columbo, escorted by the British heavy cruiser HMS Dorsetshire, which was soon replaced by the Australian light cruiser HMAS Hobart." Which ships provided the escort is superfluous to an understanding of Blackburn.
  • "The Orcades was escorted across the Sunda Strait to Java by the British destroyers Encounter and Tenedos." And again. Harrias talk 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In both cases, this is a wiki as well as an encyclopaedia, and as someone who also writes ship articles, I think the linking of relevant ship articles with this article is warranted in the interests of the wiki aspect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, the A-class criteria says "..and does not go into unnecessary detail.", not "..and does not go into unnecessary detail, except to link to other articles the author is interested in." Harrias talk 06:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
They are not articles I am interested in, so your thesis fails. And I don't consider them unnecessary detail, and no doubt opinions will be divided on that score. They are just links to other articles that may be of interest to readers or other editors who might then add the information to the target article, which is how a wiki works. The fact that they may be of no interest to you is immaterial. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I never said that they were not of interest to me, I said that they are superfluous to an understanding of Blackburn, and therefore unnecessary detail. Blackburn was on the Orcades, and a link to that ship is clearly warranted. The ships were providing an escort to the Orcades, and absolutely should be included and linked in the article about the Orcades. The interlinking effect of the wiki still occurs, but without every article needing to go into too much detail to wedge in links to other articles. Harrias talk 06:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Note to closing co-ordinator: while I can not give my support to this nomination due to my concerns about it going into excessive detail, I am nowhere near directly opposing its promotion. This is a very well-written article which clearly meets four of the five criteria, and probably four-fifths of the remaining point. Harrias talk 07:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - images are appropriately licensed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • Fix the pagination in cite 61
  • No need for ampersands in page ranges
  • Be consistent about using title case for newspaper articles
  • Use ampersands for multi-author works to match the footnote format
  • Why are the editors for Wigmore & Harding worth mentioning?
  • What makes Genealogy SA RS?
  • Otherwise footnotes and references are RS and properly formatted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

ASV Mark III radar[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

ASV Mark III radar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


This is the radar that won the Battle of the Atlantic, along with its ship-mounted counterparts like the Type 271. With some fortuitous timing, which included the arrival of B-24s, the new frigates with huff-duff, and the Mark III, the German U-boat force was broken in a matter of months, never to recover. Also, the whole disinformation line is fun. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day, Maury, overall this looks quite good and comprehensive. I have a few minor comments/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • H2S radar is overlinked in the lead
Fixed. Did a link sweep over the entire article.
  • inconsistent spelling "realized" and "realised"
Urg, this is one of my pet peeves about Grammarly, which is otherwise superb and I recommend it to everyone, it gets confused about US vs. UK spelling.
  • in the body the following terms are overlinked: cathode ray tube, Eureka transpoding radar, night fighter, time base generator, lobe switching, waveguide, coaxial cable, slant range
All fixed.
  • advantage — the: should be an unspaced emdash or spaced endash depending on your chosen style
I hate both, I used the later.
  • where their higher resolution allowed them to detect small lifeboats.: needs a citation
  • a 9 inches (230 mm) cathode ray tube (CRT) --> "a 9-inch (230 mm) cathode ray tube (CRT)" - this can be achieved by adding "|adj=on" to the convert template
  • on a 6 inches (150 mm) CRT --> "on a 6-inch (150 mm) CRT"
  • citation 21 has page numbers on the source, so it is probably best to use these in your citation - the work itself appears to have identified authors and a year of publication here: [2]:I added the page numbers but
  • citation 26 is inconsistently formatted - compare with Brown which you also only use once
  • citation 27 "Hanbury_Brown 1991, p. 311": the underscore should be a hyphen (or a space without the underscore, depending upon the answer to the next point below)
HB will be used more widely in the future.
  • in the Bibliography, Hanbury Brown should have a hyphen for consistency with the other entry (see Smith), or they should both have a space if you choose to render it that way
There is no dash etc in any reference I can find. How do I remove it from the SFN?
Removed this for you now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • inconsistent caps: "notably the new "Fliege" or "Additionally, fliege..."
  • in the Bibliography, Campbell should appear after Bowen; Gordon should appear before Hanbury-Brown
Done. Personally, I think we need to stop demanding this. We don't read these lists looking for entries, we link to them and click, so ordering is simply not important. The wikipedia is not printed, we shouldn't slavishly follow guidelines that only make sense in that medium. But no one listens to me.
  • ISSN for the IEE proceedings journal? Can probably be located here: [3]
Can't find it.
  • which corresponds to the introduction of Naxos --> "which corresponded to the introduction of Naxos"?
  • Unfortunately, these loops also...: best to avoid the word "unfortunately" per WP:EDITORIAL
  • available units. Bomber Harris: rank and full name on first mention
G'day AR, are you happy with Maury's responses here? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, most of them have been addressed. The ones that remain are very minor. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • -ise vs -ize in some words which one should the article use?
ize I'm assuming as the UK spelling?
  • Both are allowed but -ise is more widely used in the UK. -ize is more part of university English.
  • 10 cm band compared to Mk. II's 1.5 m wavelength No English units and British units should be the primary units here.
Actually no, these were never measured in british units, wavelength has always been in meters since the very early days. I had a US radio from the 1940s that used inches, but the UK had switched over before this period and the US used the same units after the Tizard mission so their radars also used it. Every contemporary reference uses m and cm. "s-band" means "sentimeteric", a deliberate misspelling of the actual unit. You might think that "1.5 meter" implies something like "4 feet", but it's not like that, these bands are really just names.
  • Link MHz in the infobox.
Added, and s-band.
  • No English unit in the "Range" part in the infobox.
Someone else added?
  • Link kW and add volts too in the infobox.
Added kW. Watts measure power, volts measures, well, volts. These are not equivalent units so there's no conversion.
  • of reasons, the 1.5 m wavelength of the radar system No English unit?
  • produced microwaves at around 10 cm No English unit?
  • Link both kilowatts and microwave in the File:Original_cavity_magnetron,_1940_(9663811280).jpg image.
  • I believe it is safe to add a link in an image because it is easier to click on the link instead of searching the link or searching it on Wikipedia itself same with tables. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • broadcast power from 7 to 100 kW Link kW here and add also volts here.
Again, where should the volts go here?
  • that operated on a 50 cm wavelength English unit?
  • the radar horizon being only 27 nautical miles (50 km; 31 mi) Link nautical miles here.
This is the convert tag, how do I do that?
  • the night of 1-2 March 1943 --> "the night of 1–2 March 1943" or "the night of 1/2 March 1943".
  • the end of the month, a full 30% of the U-boat Use per cent not % we only use it in tables and infoboxes.
Changed, but why is this?
  • while flying at 6,000 feet altitude No metric unit?
And, oddly enough, altitude is only ever measured in feet and angels. Even today.
  • detect signals in the 120 to 150 cm range No English units?
  • was sensitive between 75 and 300 cm No English units?
  • on the order of 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) Round the nought here.
  • I believe it is unnecessary to use an extra nought here.
  • added antennas to detect 3 cm signals No English unit?
  • the Blind Approach Beacon System (BABS) at 173.5 MHz Link MHz.
Already linked in body.
  • Lucero was a transceiver tuned to the 1.5 m-band Remove the hyphen.
  • Lucero's 500 W transmitter periodically Link watt.
Already linked on kW.
  • line with fixed steps indicating 1 mile (1.6 km) Use one instead of 1. Because every number below ten should be written in letters. Thus 3 should also be written in letters.
Convert tag, how do I do this?
  • and instead fixed at 1 mile range
  • This caused a -3 dB reduction What's a dB?
  • in signal below about 40 kHz Link kHz.
Linked on first instance.
  • the 200 kW CV192 magnetron, compared to the original 40 kW version No volts?
  • would take 30 miles / 186,282 miles per second How much is that number in km/h?
It doesn't matter, it's still 0.00016 seconds.
  • submarine at 14 miles (23 km) at 1500 ft, 11 miles (18 km) at 1000 ft a number more than 999 should have a comma in each nummber.
  • this significantly to 38.5 miles (62.0 km) Round the nought.
  • All the refs with more than one page should be written in "pp" style not with a single "p". Also all the refs with more page numbers should have an "–".
Most of these are not page ranges, they are the format for single pages used in the reference. That is page 3 dash 4.
  • Ref 10, Remove the second 3 in the page numbers.
  • Ref 11, Switch the numbers.
  • Ref 12, Same as above.
  • Ref 16, "p. 3-4." --> "pp. 3–4."
  • Ref 26, No link of Blair?
Do you mean a link to the book? Added.
  • Ref 30, Switch the page numbers.
  • Ref 32, Same as above.
  • Ref 33, Same as above.
  • Ref 34, "p. 3-16." --> "pp. 3–16.".
  • Ref 35, "p. 3-15." --> "pp. 3–15.".
  • Ref 36, "p. 3-17." --> "pp. 3–17.".
  • Ref 43, "p. 372-375." --> "pp. 372–375.".
  • Ref 44, "p. 372-373." --> "pp. 372–373.".
  • Ref 45, "p. 3-9." --> "pp. 3–9.".
  • Ref 46, "p. 3-10." --> "pp. 3–10.".
  • Ref 47, "p. 3-11." --> "pp. 3–11.".
  • Ref 48, "p. 3-12." --> "pp. 3–12.".
  • Ref 49, "p. 3-13." --> "pp. 3–13.".

That"s anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

G'day CPA-5, are you happy with the above? Need any tweaks, have any additional points? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of my comments are adressed, but I am waiting until he addressed the rest. I'll ping him @Maury Markowitz:

Support from Comments by Nick-D[edit]

The Battle of the Atlantic is one of the most interesting aspects of World War II, so it's great to see a high quality article on one of the most important Allied tools in this campaign. I have the following comments:

  • I'd suggest expanding the lead and the later sections to make it clear that this radar was a key element in the Allies' slaughtering German subs until the end of the war (and when the subs started using snorkels to minimise their vulnerability to radar they became largely ineffective) - the narrative sort-of stops in 1943
Indeed, expanded.
  • " becoming the first radar system to be mounted on an aircraft in a combat setting" - could this be changed to something like " becoming the first radar system to be mounted on combat aircraft"?
  • " However, the system was soon converted to follow the H2S model" - this is the first time H2S is mentioned in the article, and I think more information on what it is would be helpful
Indeed, expanded.
  • "Bomber Harris objected" - I'd suggest tweaking this to his proper name and position
  • "commander of Coastal Command, Philip Joubert de la Ferté" - I'd suggest adding his rank
This changed during this period and I'm not sure what it was at this point.
  • "The next night the same aircraft spotted a submarine at 7 miles (11 km) and successfully dropped depth charges on it" - does the source say which sub this was?
It does not, Lovell wasn't terribly interested in filling in details like this (which, admittedly, was somewhat out of context in his book).
  • "By May, the U-boats were being attacked continually from the moment they left port to the time they returned." - This is a bit of an over-statement. The Allies didn't operate close to German ports, and couldn't maintain contact with subs indefinitely
Improved, but it was continuous, they could encounter aircraft or hunter-killer groups anywhere from the Bay on, and this is the period where the mid-atlantic gap was covere:
  • "Even if they escaped into the Atlantic, boats were then attacked hundreds of miles from the convoys while they attempted to form up the wolfpacks. This was combined with the arrival of new frigates mounting microwave radars and huff-duff receivers, further hindering U-boat operations. Successfully forming up and pressing on to the convoys proved almost impossible" - what was the role of code breaking in this? (though, as I understand it, Huff Duff was more important). In general, the Allies sank subs when they approached convoys rather than roaming around the ocean.
It was the near simultaneous arrival of the ASV Mk III, the US versions of the same concept (ASG and DMS-1000), huff-duff, the new frigates and the enigma break of late 1943 that did it. If these had arrived peacemeal I don't think they would have been remotely as effective. Mark III was perhaps the least important of these, but that is what the article is about.
  • "one of the most effective disinformation campaigns of the war" - this doesn't seem to have been a "campaign". It was something a single quick witted officer said when interrogated. Disinformation campaigns were longer-lasting and very complex.
A better term? I used campaign simply because that's the term people use.
Something like "In spite of this early warning of a new system, German efforts were crippled by misinformation" seems more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "that they finally began to consider" - specify who "they" is here
  • " It would later become clear that the Battle of the Atlantic was won with the introduction of Mark III" - this is also an overstatement. Historians generally argue that the Battle of Atlantic decisively turned in the favour of the Allies in mid-1943 due to multiple factors which became effective at pretty much the same time (this radar, code breaking, more and better aircraft, etc)
  • As a suggestion for further improvements ahead of FAC, I suspect that Clay Blair's huge and authoritative works on the Battle of the Atlantic will have some useful material. Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
    G'day Nick-D, are you satisfied with the responses here? Anything further? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    G'day Nick-D, if get a minute could you check and see if you are happy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Yes, my comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

G'day Nikkimaria, if you get a chance, could you please take a look at the image licensing on this one? I'll do the source review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

All the sources look of high quality and reliable. For verification purposes, it would be helpful to add the OCLC for the NSA archival documents, which is 122396382. The only thing I would think might be needed for FAC would (per Nick-D) be Blair's works on the Battle of the Atlantic and other less gizmo-focussed texts on the campaign covering the operational effects of the radar and Coastal Command aircraft/unit/formations that used it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Vickers_Wellington_Leigh_Light.jpg: why is this believed to be UKGov?
  • File:U-243.jpg: when/where was this first published? Why is it both UKGov and AustraliaGov?
  • Doesn't need publication date for both PD tags, but both tages are there because it is in a British government official photograph collection and was presumably taken by an Australian serviceman. Kges1901 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The Australian tag currently in use requires that you "provide information of where the image was first published". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:FuMB-7_Naxos_and_FuMB-26_Tunis_antenna.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • That information is not necessary for it to be PD in Canada. Kges1901 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It would seem based on authorship that the work would have been subject to Crown copyright, and the given tag states that in such a case copyright would have expired because the work "was first published more than 50 years ago". In order to ascertain that that is the case we would need to know when and where it was published. This detail would additionally affect its status in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Short_Sunderland_Mk_V.jpg: what is the date and authorship on this image, and what is its source? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maury, just checking to make sure that you have noticed that a source and image review have been carried out. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)