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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The project coordinator election is ending soon! All project members are invited to vote by 23:59 UTC on 29 September.
Main page Discussion News &
open tasks
Academy Assessment A-Class
Contest Awards Members
Requesting a review

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

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (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. Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  3. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template (below the "Additional information" section header). This will open a page pre-formatted for the discussion of the status of the article.
  4. List your reason for nominating the article in the appropriate place, and save the page.
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.
  6. Consider reviewing another 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).

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

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

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


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

After A-Class

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


Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list


Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

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


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because the hastati were an early example of how small, flexible units can be better than large armies. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list


Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum

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


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because, it has been a good article for some time, more than 8 years, they can be seen as vital to the history of light, irregular forces. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

Hawker Hurricane in Yugoslav service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Hawker Hurricane Mk I saw service as a fighter with the Royal Yugoslav Air Force immediately before WWII and during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, then the Hurricane Mk IV saw service in the fighter-bomber role with Partisan air and ground crew as part of the RAF contribution to the Balkan Air Force in 1944–45. One squadron worth of aircraft remained in Yugoslav service after the war, finally being retired in the early 1950s. This is the first aircraft-type in service article I've brought to ACR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments -- what a great idea for an article, just a placeholder for now but look fwd to reviewing soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges[edit]
  • "with no aircraft being completed by the Rogožarski plant", maybe "With the rogožarski plant producing none"
  • I went in and changed the mark Is to mark I's.
  • Ill add more tommorow, For now im going to bed.

« Return to A-Class review list

Dick Cresswell[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Dick Cresswell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Unusually among the subjects of my Air Force bios, Dick Cresswell was not an ace, nor did he achieve high rank, but he did have the knack of being in the right place at the right time to achieve several 'firsts' in RAAF history. His main claim to fame was commanding No. 77 Squadron three times, most notably during the Korean War, when he oversaw its conversion from Mustangs to Meteors, and so became the first man to command an RAAF jet squadron in combat. He also seems to have had a reputation as a bit of a cowboy, so perhaps it's no surprise that he once got himself into hot water for practicing with his revolver near the feet of a fellow officer who was ticking him off... I plan on taking this to FAC if things go all right here -- tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments Great work as usual Ian, and a fine tribute to this remarkable airman. I have the following comments:

  • "Cresswell took command of No. 77 Squadron in combat for a record third time" - this record is noted in the first para of the lead, and could be omitted here
    • Will do.
  • Can the first para of the "World War II" section be expanded? At present it's not clear why Cresswell was appointed to what must have been one of the most significant squadron commands in the history of the RAAF (those three fighter squadrons service in 1942 now having near mythical status). Is there material you can add on Cresswell's flying and leadership skills here?
    • Funnily enough, Odgers doesn't give any clear reason why Cresswell, with so little experience, was chosen for such a responsible job. The implication is that he had useful familiarity with the P-40 as liaison with the 9th USAAF Squadron, and one can surmise that commanding 77 Squadron in Perth wasn't considered as big a deal as commanding 75 or 76 Squadrons up north, but nothing explicit.
  • Perhaps note what the role of a wing leader was
    • Heh, I'd considered that and searched long and hard to nail down a decent definition, only finding one in Darwin Spitfires -- didn't add it in the end but happy to do so now someone else thinks it might be worthwhile... ;-)
  • "he believed that attempting to resign their commissions en masse was not an appropriate response" - do we know what response he preferred?
    • Odgers states "He felt that other courses of action could have been pursued" but doesn't elucidate.
  • Why was Cresswell selected to command No. 77 Squadron in 1950? Presumably the RAAF decided that this unusual move was justified as the squadron needed an experienced combat leader with a record of whipping units into shape, but can this be said explicitly? Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • We don't have an official reason why, but Odgers offers his thoughts on Cresswell's suitability, and I can always add something along the lines of "According to his biographer..."
      • Given Odgers' status, that would be sensible. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Tks as always for your review, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, Nick, I think I've actioned everything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. As a final suggestion for improvements as the article heads towards FAC, extra material on Cresswell as a person (rather than as an aviator) would be particularly valuable. If Odgers doesn't have much extra material here, it would be worth checking Trove. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Tks Nick -- I was wondering when I finished the article if I'd included too much potentially extraneous detail but I think you're telling me that isn't the case! I've combed Odgers and Trove once more and added a couple more snippets, see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

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

  • "subsequently": soon, later, consequently, or none of the above?
  • "further offensive sweeps with USAF Sabres, and escorting": I can't tell which is meant, "and escorted" or "escorting".
    • Think I've dealt with those, tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Tks Dan. Have to admit I prefer my wording in a few of those instances, and reverted a couple where I felt the meaning was changed...
      • I realise that "three times" might sound repetitive with "twice" and "again" following, but the sources do tend to emphasise the total of three and I feel we should too -- left as is for now.
      • The lead now makes it appear that the conversion to Meteors took place upon Cresswell's arrival in Korea, which isn't the case, so I've changed back.
      • "Fired" is as in "fired the imagination" -- don't know if it's an EngVar thing but I've changed that back for now too ("Motivated" might also be correct but seemed less engaging somehow and "fired up" sounds a bit extreme to my ears)...
      • To me, "returned to Korea in March and April" sounds like he made a couple of trips but it was only one, so again changed back pending further discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - this is in very good shape to me, some minor points / suggestions:
    • All the tool checks are fine - no dabs, external links work, no citation consolidation errors, no duplicate links (that aren't necessary at least), Earwig tool shows no issues with close paraphrase / copy violations etc [1] (no action req'd);
    • The lead is a bit repetitive in that it mentions each of his "firsts" twice, I wonder if that is necessary?
      • I take your point, AC, and the possibility that this would come up was in my mind when I wrote it. My rationale was that given he wasn't an ace or senior commander, I wanted to establish his notability in the first paragraph in part by listing his "firsts", then expand upon those and the rest of his combat career in the second para. If you think there are other ways to achieve that, of course I'm happy to discuss.
    • Minor inconsistency in presentation / hyphenation of rank "Lieutenant General" Sir Horace Robertson vs "Lieutenant-General" Sir Horace Robertson (in the image caption);
      • Tks, made consistent.
    • Otherwise I couldn't find any major issues after reading through it completely. Quite an interesting article and I certainly learnt a few things about RAAF operations in Korea that I hadn't been aware of before. Anotherclown (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Tks for stopping by, AC! I guess I'm on a bit of a crusade to help drag Korea out of its "forgotten war" state, at least as far as the Air Force goes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Sorry, AC, did you happen to verify image licensing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Actually I did, but then I forgot to include it in my review (my appleoggies). Images are all public domain and have the required information to verify this. Anotherclown (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would like to improve this article as much as possible and the Russian-Soviet-CIS Military History Task Force hasn't had any Soviet Army-related A-class articles added in months. Kges1901 (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Portrait_-_Petrov,_Michail_Petrovich.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Image seems to come from В начале войны by Andrey Yeryomenko, from 1965. However, it may be reproduced from an earlier photograph. Kges1901 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Okay - that source would not seem to meet the requirements of the given copyright tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
        • The third bullet in PD-RUSSIA says "This work was originally published anonymously or under a pseudonym before January 1, 1943 and the name of the author did not become known during 50 years after publication." Petrov died in 1941 so the work had to have been published before. At least that's how I understand it. Kges1901 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Do you have a pre-1943 publication? It's quite possible that a work is not published until after its subject's death. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I don't have access to one. However, perhaps another editor has access to Pravda or Isvestia archives? Because there may be a photo of him in either of those newspapers from before 1943. Kges1901 (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, nice work. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I did some copy editing, please check you are happy with my changes and adjust as you see fit;
  • per MOS:LEAD citations aren't needed in the lead so long as the information is suitably referenced in the body of the article;
  • in the early life section it isn't explicitly stated that he moved to Petrograd, or when;
  • link "Bolsheviks" on first mention;
  • "Petrov was transferred to Central Asia..." do we know roughly when this was?
  • "...but was moved forward to Baranovichi to stop the German advance". When was this? Would this work: "but was moved forward to Baranovichi to stop the German advance, after the initial German breakthrough"?
  • link "Stavka" on first mention.

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

  • There is another Mikhail Petrovich Petrov, a Soviet Army lieutenant colonel and Hero of the Soviet Union, as well as another Mikhail Petrovich Petrov, this time and Udmurt Soviet writer. Kges1901 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Would it be possible to create a stub for at least one of those? - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients[edit]

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail)

List of Param Vir Chakra recipients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review. I constructed the prose and list closely observing the structure and style of List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Indian Army, which a featured-list. I cited each and every sentence and gave clarifications wherever needed. Further suggestions for taking the list of A-class status and subsequently to FL status are welcome. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

SupportComments: sorry, lists aren't my strong suite, but a couple of things stand out to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • the page ranges should have endashes instead of hyphens;
  • the page ranges should have "pp." instead of "p." (which denotes a single page)
  • watch out for capitalization per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • per WP:LAYOUT there is no need for the "External links" section when there is only the box link to Commons (it should just go in the last section - in this case the Further reading section)
  • dates should be consistent in style, e.g. compare "2010-08-08" with "4 September 2016"
  • "The Hindu" appears to be a newspaper source so it should probably be displayed in italics
  • some of the grammar could be tightened, for instance: "...provision for the award to be awarded for the second time, no one has been awarded twice yet..." (try to reduce the use of the word "award" here)
@AustralianRupert: Done. I have fixed the issues mentioned so far. Please have a look. Thanks for the review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
G'day, your changes look good. I noticed a couple more things when copy editing, which I will list below. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "Category:Civil awards and decorations of India": is this category appropriate as the award seems to be a military one?
  • Do the Topyaps and Factly sites qualify as WP:RS? If not, I suggest replacing them with other refs.
  • Should the article be titled "List of Param Vir Chakra recipients"?
@AustralianRupert: I corrected the categories. As per the sources, both of the qualify WP:RS, because the information published is verified and backed by data from official sources, before they are put on web, so they are reliable. You can confirm the same here, here, and here. And as for the title, I tried moving as the standard naming style of lists, but title you've suggested List of Param Vir Chakra recipients is already a redirect, since I am not an admin or page mover I was unable to do so. As you are an admin, please do so. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I've moved the list now and have added my support as all my comments have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Director General of the Indian Coast Guard[edit]

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail)

Director General of the Indian Coast Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review. This is currently a B-class list article. I have furnished the prose and list with required references where ever required. As a next step, I hope to take this to A-class status. The article has considerable importance as it provides information about the head of one of the major paramilitary forces of India. Please suggest improvements regarding citations, style, structure etc. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts on this list. Per the usual caveat, lists aren't where my talents (if I have any) lie. Still, I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I made some c/e like changes, please check you are happy with them and adjust as desired
  • I wonder if perhaps this should be titled "List of Indian Coast Guard directors general" or something similar.
This is not just a list, but about the position and in that, the list of appointees has been in included.
G'day, ok thanks for clarifying. To be honest, though, I think you would be better off just making it a list of appointees because in its current form that is what most of the content is about. While I think that what you have is sufficient to put the list into context, if you are wanting to make this into an article on the position then, IMO, you need to expand it considerably. Currently there is only one subsection, which is the list of appointees, but for an article on the position it would need more than that. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
So what is the title you would suggest, "List of Indian Coast Guard director generals", "List of Director Generals of the Indian Coast Guard" etc.?Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • the References section should be sorted alphabetically
  • link Indian Coast Guard on first mention
  • the date of the first appoinment (19 August 1978) probably should be mentioned in the prose, as should the first holder (Kamath), as well as the fact that they report to the Minister of Defence and are appointed by the Government of India
  • I would avoid using post nominals in text
  • this sentence probably needs a ref: "Besides the distinction of being the first three-star rank officer of the Indian Coast Guard, Rajendra Singh is the first Coast Guard officer to become the Director General."
  • inconsistent dates: "Singh succeeded Vice Admiral HCS Bisht on 29 February 2016" (prose), "since March 1, 2016" (infobox), and "29 March 2016" (table)
  • I wonder if the correlation between FOC-in-C and HAG could be clarified in the note. For instance, which is higher?
@AustralianRupert: Done, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Your changes look good, thanks. I've made a couple of tweaks, but still have a concern about the scope. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert:Thanks for the edits. Regarding the scope, that is all I can obtain from the book and web sources. That is all of it. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list


Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

K-25 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Next in the series of articles on the Manhattan Project facilities Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Support: not a lot stood out to me. I made a few minor edits and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

  • "File:K-25 (7609929206).jpg": the date parameter on the image description page should be the date the image was created, not uploaded;
  • "File:HD.30.359. (10427116025).jpg": same as above
  • "File:HD.30.360. (10427116085).jpg": as above
  • "File:HD.30.375. (10427417193).jpg": as above
  • "File:HD.30.374. (10427415313).jpg": as above
  • "File:S50plant.jpg": needs a date
    YesY Added approximate dates. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder if potentially the article should be titled "K-25 project" - not a warstoper, just a musing. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    The name K-25 went through a kind of linguistic drift, referring at various times to the product, the project, the facility, the site and the building. The article covers them all. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Operation Leader[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) and Manxruler

Operation Leader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


This article covers the only offensive operation conducted by the US Navy in northern Europe during World War II. Operation Leader involved aircraft flying from the USS Ranger attacking a concentration of German shipping near Bodø in northern Norway during October 1943. The German defenders were taken by surprise, and it's believed that five ships were sunk and seven damaged. In common with most of the Western Allies' operations by this stage of the war, Operation Leader was a multinational affair, with the aircraft carrier sailing with many British warships from the Home Fleet and Norwegian secret agents and airmen providing intelligence to guide the American aircraft.

This is a joint nomination with Manxruler, with whom I have enjoyed working with again to recently develop the article to GA status. As a result, it draws on both English language and Norwegian sources to provide a detailed coverage of the operation. The article has been expanded and copy edited since passing its GAN, and we're hopeful that it now meets the A-class criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: what is the copyright status of the memorial pictured in File:Memorial_pilots_from_USS_Ranger_in_Fagervika.JPG? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the details surrounding the memorial, and check what Norwegian copyright laws say about such things. Manxruler (talk) 00:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately the guidance at Commons says that freedom of perspective only applies to buildings in Norway. Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there is no freedom of panorama for works of art in Norway (applies until the artist responsible has been deceased for 70 years). The memorial was erected in 1987 and consists of one of the three blades of the propeller of an Avenger aircraft shot down in the operation. The propeller was recovered from the sea in 1987, one blade used in this memorial, one sent to the US and one kept on display in a Norwegian Home Guard base (will add this info to the article soon).
The question is, is an aircraft propeller blade mounted on a rock a work of art? If it is a work of art, then it is under copyright. I could find no mention anywhere of an artist, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Manxruler (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm working on adding info on the memorial, will have to visit a library to complete the job, which I'll do tomorrow. Manxruler (talk) 04:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I've replaced the Commons version of this image with a small fair use version. As the memorial is discussed in the article and it's not possible to get a guaranteed to be free equivalent, I think that the fair use claim is sound. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 01:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dank Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments:Support
    • Tool checks ok - no dabs, external links work, no duplicate links, no errors with ref consolidation, images have alt text, Earwig tool reveals no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrase [2] (no action req'd);
    • "...Rear Admiral Hustvedt remained in command..." its probably not necessary to include Hustvedt's rank here per WP:SURNAME;
      • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • "...escorted by 8 Wildcat fighters...", should "8" here be spelt out (i.e. "eight") per WP:MOSNUM?
      • Done Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Prose is a little repetitive here: "According to some sources 200 of the troops were killed, while Norwegian sources state that only one Norwegian sailor and a small number of German soldiers were killed. According to..." ("according to" used twice in close proximity to start a sentence, perhaps reword one slightly to vary the language?)
      • Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Minor inconsistency in use of both "World War II" and "Second World War";
      • Standardised on World War II as this article is focused on the actions of US forces Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Minor inconsistency in the use of both "percent" and "%" (I think "percent" is more accurate per WP:PERCENT;
      • Standardised to "percent" Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Minor inconsistency in presentation of isbns (some with hyphens, some without);
      • Standardised on no hyphens Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I made a few edits [3] (pls review to check you don't disagree with anything I changed);
    • Otherwise this article reads very well to me and is of a high standard, only a few minor points above to sort through / discuss. Anotherclown (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot for your review and edits Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
        • All my points have been addressed so I have added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


  • Copyedited a bit but it generally read very well to me; let me know if any issues with my changes.
  • Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
  • I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
  • Reference-wise, formatting looks okay, but a couple of points:
    • "Cap Guir, assessed by Stern as probably destroyed, survived the damage inflicted by the American aircraft at Bodø, but was sunk by Soviet torpedo bombers in the Baltic in April 1945." -- if we explicitly mention Stern saying one thing, perhaps we should also mention inline who says the other.
      • German sources say Cap Guir was sunk in the Baltic. Will clarify that. Manxruler (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes check.svg Done Manxruler (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Great to see all the Norwegian references to go with the usual British and American but it seems to throw into sharp relief the relative lack of German sources, unless I missed some... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Have found a few German reliable sources, will add those, as well as go looking in my personal collection and the library nearby me. Manxruler (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Working on adding some sources now, haven't been able to visit the library yet, though. Manxruler (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
        • @Ian Rose and Manxruler: Is this now resolved? It might be something to work on after the ACR (I think that this article should be able to meet the FA criteria with a bit more work). Nick-D (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Have added two German sources (Rohwer and Schwadtke), hope this helps. I am going to look for more at my local library as soon as I can, but at the moment this is what I've found after going through my personal collection and what is available online. Manxruler (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Asad ibn Abdallah al-Qasri[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine

Asad ibn Abdallah al-Qasri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Another old GA from 2013, also from the era of the Muslim conquest of Transoxiana. Asad was a pivotal figure, being far-seeing enough to conciliate the local population (an unusual feature for an Umayyad governor), and laid the foundations for the Islamization of Central Asia in the process. More importantly, he defeated the Turgesh and the rebel Harith ibn Surayj and prevented the imminent total collapse of Umayyad rule in the region. The article is comprehensive, uses the major sources for the period and subject, and I think fulfills the criteria for A-class. Constantine 19:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments. Hi Constantine, is this one headed to FAC eventually? - Dank (push to talk) 23:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I will be in China for the next two weeks and will probably not be able to respond swiftly to any further comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance for your patience. Constantine 20:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


  • What I know about this theatre of operations I've pretty well learnt from Constantine, so I can't claim any prior expertise but certainly it reads very well, like all his articles; in fact I always find his prose engaging, even if I do want to tweak the odd word or two... ;-)
  • Image licensing looks okay to me.
  • Not familiar with the sources but the publishers look reputable, and couldn't see any obvious issues with ref formatting.
  • No dab or duplink issues.

Well done as usual. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of National Defence Academy alumni[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

List of National Defence Academy alumni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review. The list is currently a B-class list. As a next step, I am nominating the list for A-class review. The list has a good lead and prose for individual sections have been expanded during the B-class review. Each and every alumni have been referenced with reliable sources. Also the prose content in the lead and individual sections were referenced. The list also holds considerable importance in the scope of WikiProject India as National Defence Academy is of top importance. As the article has undergone a copy edit by GOCE, I don't think there will be much issues with the grammar and MOS. Please suggest any further improvements needed regarding citations, style, structure etc. Regards, KC Velaga 11:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Comment: G'day, just a quick comment at this stage: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • The referencing system currently appears to be inconsistent. For instance "Bahukhandi 2004, p. 13" (which uses the sfn template) with "B.C. Chakravorty 1995, p. 166" and "Shankar Prasad (2005). The Gallant Dogras: An Illustrated History of the Dogra Regiment. New Delhi: Lancer Publishers with the Dogra Regimental Centre. p. 132" which do not. These (and the other examples) should be harmonized for consistency. I will try to come back later once this has been resolved. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I have fixed the issue. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I ping AustralianRupert to voice his opinion after the improvements are made. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • the References should be in alphabetical order (based on the author's surname);
  • in the References, some works have a place of publication, and some don't. Please make this consistent;
  • "File:Air Chief Marshal Nirmal Chandra Suri.jpg": the date parameter on the image description page should refer to when the image was created, not when it was uploaded
  • I suggest cropping the borders off a few of the images to improve their visual appeal
  • question: are there single-service academies also, which serve as officer producing establishments? If so, I think a few brief mention of them might be needed to improve the context. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: I addressed all the issues except the last one. Yes, in India we do have single-service academies also, which serve as officer producing establishments. They are Indian Military Academy (IMA), Officers Training Academy (OTA), [[Indian Naval Academy (INA) and Air Force Academy, Dundigul (AFA). Actually NDA produces officers, but they are not commissioned from NDA. After 3 years of training at NDA, the army , the navy, and the air force cadets proceed to IMA, INA, and AFA respectively, for their further training, and they are commissioned from the same. Apart from NDA cadets, these academies including OTA accept cadets at different levels for officer training. In this context, what is the information about these would you suggest me to mention, and where? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I think you just need to differentiate the alumni of this academy v. others. Actually, the system sounds very similar to that which exists in Australia (I think). It seems that not all officers go to NDA, just like ADFA here in Australia. Is this correct? So, perhaps you could make this clear in the lead? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Yes, you are correct. NDA and ADFA are similar to each other. So do you want add information about cadets proceeding to the their respective service academies after their training at NDA and all about that? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
G'day, I think probably just mentioning and linking the single service academies in the lead would be sufficient, and maybe making it clear that not all officers attend NDA. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: Please have a look at the lead, and I request a tweak if needed. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 06:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I've added my support as all my points have been addressed. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I wasn't sure what "notable" means in "Notable recipients include" and "Other notable alumni"; it should probably be made clearer why you're mentioning them and not others. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Dank: I have used the phrase "Notable recipients include" in three sections; Vir Chakra, Kirti Chakra, and Shaurya Chakra. Actually these are the third highest wartime, second highest peacetime, and third highest peacetime awards of India. They have been awarded many and articles of all those subjects don't exist on Wikipedia. So I mentioned those who have articles (which means they meet the notability guidelines). And for "Other notable alumni" section, it includes the subjects who made significant contribution but not covered in any of the above sections in the article, for example Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore was an Olympic medalist, and also a union minister in India, so he is worth mentioning. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Mark XIV bomb sight[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Mark XIV bomb sight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Mk. XIV was Bomber Command's primary bombsight for much of the air war over Germany, equipping the thousands of heavy bombers that grew to dominate the UK's air fleet. Although not nearly as famous as the US Norden, The Mk. XIV is still one of the most advanced designs to see service, and had a number of unique features that made it more useful than the Norden in many roles - notably low-altitude attacks where it was used by Mosquitos in several famed raids.

The article has been extensively researched, illustrated by ORTS-released images directly from the surviving units in the RAF Museum, and has been stable for some time now. It's time to take this through to FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day Maury, interesting article. Overall, seems like it meets the criteria, although I can't really judge the content. I only have a few nitpicks, which should hopefully help you on your way to FA with it: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

  • "Working with Henry John James Braddick..." could we get away with just saying "Henry Braddick" here?
  • "An image of the Mk. XI is available at this page." --> I think this would be better presented as a lettered note rather than a citation
  • for consistency, the Zimmerman citation should also use the short citation format
  • "File:462 Squadron RAAF Halifax bombsight AWM P01523.007.jpg": also needs a US licence in addition to the Australian one. "PD-US-1996" should work here, I believe;
  • Bibliography: probably should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname;
  • Bibliography: titles should use title case capitalisation, e.g. " A forgotten offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's anti-shipping campaign" --> " A Forgotten Offensive: Royal Air Force Coastal Command's Anti-shipping Campaign"
  • per WP:LAYOUTEL ("Do not make a section whose sole content is box-type templates...") the "External links" section header should be removed and the sister links box moved up to just below the Bibliography header.
All complete except for the image tagging - is that something I can do or does it have to be the original uploader? Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries, anyone can do it, but I've done this for you now. One thing I missed, this appears to be unreferenced: "In other respects the basic operation of the CSBS was considered fine as it was, there was no demand for greatly increased accuracy for instance." Is there a citation you can add for this? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find it quickly so I just removed it. It's certainly not a loss to the article. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments -- Been through about half the article so far, copyediting as I went, so pls let me know any concerns there. As far as the content goes, I know a lot more about British bombers of WWII than their bombsights, but I should be able to do a bit of fact-checking as I go. None of the info so far sounds problematic though; it also reads quite well and seems to be comprehensive without going into unnecessary detail. Will try to return soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent edits Ian! Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Returning to complete copyedit plus source review -- as always, pls let me know if any concerns with my edits...

  • You should probably use the convert template for your various measures, e.g. altitudes.
  • Citation for end of second para under Operation?
  • Source review:
    • Might be worth putting "SD719" in the Armament, Volume I; Bombs and Bombing Equipment entry of the Bibliography to make the connection between citation and source clear.
    Added... but is there a better way to do this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Looking again, and checking its entry in WorldCat, where does SD719 come from anyway? I think the citation should simply be "Air Ministry 1952" and leave SD719 out of things entirely (by the same token the "A.P.1730A 1943" citation should probably be "Air Ministry 1943", to also follow the usual author and date format). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Done! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
    • FN14 link seems to need updating, it just goes to the front page of the RAF site.
    Indeed... it's a bit surprising that the RAF didn't keep this around themselves. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • What makes Henry Black a reliable source?
    I'm not sure how to answer that... although the website in question is simply a personal one, the original article is published in a source that has been used in many places on the Wiki. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    Can you clarify which source and point me to some of the articles, Maury? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The source is the Bomber Command Association newsletter. One can find other articles from this source in RAF Bomber Command and night bomber, for instance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for not returning sooner -- tks for those, but they're not articles that have had extensive review so not sure how much they help. @Nikkimaria: could I get a second opinion on the Black source? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Hm. So the immediate source is what appears to be an amateur website; one of the articles but not the other notes publication also in the newsletter. Do we have any information about the expertise of either the website originator or the author? Is the newsletter an official publication, and does it have an editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Maury Markowitz I think your response to this is holding up the review, which otherwise looks ready for closure. Is that right, Nikkimaria? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes - we need more details about this source to be able to determine whether it is reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The Bomber Command Association newsletter was published for decades, but over time has gone moribund. The collection is now maintained by the RAF Museum, but the person in charge of the collection has not responded to my calls or emails. If someone in the UK is willing to take a shot at this, free of the time difference, I will provide the contact info if you email me. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's it for now, I'll try and return to do some spotchecking of sources. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - this looks good to me, only a few minor cmts / suggestions:
    • "...was to fly at night, which was taken up as the primary goal of Bomber Command..." was it a goal or would it be more accurate to describe it as a tactic or method of operation?
      • Indeed it would, this is a much better term. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Minor inconsistency in presentation here " AC Spark Plug" vs "A.C.'s" and "A.C. Spark Plug" (i.e. use of fullstops in the acronym - I suggest adopting consistent style at the least, although my reading of MOS:ACRO is that stops should generally avoided but I'll leave it up to you to determine).
      • I'll take your suggestion, all stops removed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • This might be potentially unclear: "bombing altitude be increased from 20 to 30,000 feet." I'm assuming "20" here means "20,000" and not "20" but perhaps it should be clarified?
      • Actually I should have used the convert tag on these, and now I have. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • "...proved almost useless for operations in jet aircraft, as the limited distances visible through the sight from high altitudes made it almost impossible to aim before the aircraft had already passed the drop point." The implication here, as I interpret it, was that this was due to the increased speeds at which jets flew but I wonder if this might need to be spelt out for some readers?
    • Question / suggestion for further development: I'm unsure if its relevant or usual for inclusion is such articles (which I admit I'm not all to familiar with), but I wonder if the article would benefit from some mention of just how in-accurate bombing was overall during this period. Most of our readers probably would be surprised at how limited the technology actually was in comparison to the "precision" bombing that is used today (this limitation arguably necessitated the use of area bombing etc). I'm not suggesting a detailed discussion (which would be undue weight), but perhaps a short sentence in the first part of the article mentioning this might provide some context. Also did the development of improved bomb aiming (i.e. through the Mk XIV etc) have an impact on tactics during the war etc? And is there any assessment of the Mk XIV's impact / performance in general etc?
      • Well there is some of this covered in the bombsight article itself. But certainly a comparison to the Norden would be useful here, and especially the CSBS. Unfortunately, I have not found any really good source on the accuracy of this sight. I think it's the case that all of them were so bad that the accuracy wasn't improved so much as the ease of use. I'll poke about though, I agree it's useful. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • And of course Google's ever improving Books makes a liar out of me, there are now several references available on the topic! I've added a section on the topic and it is indeed a great improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Overall, the article reads well to me although there are some places where the prose could potentially be tightened with more economical wording. Although this might come up at FAC it seemed a very minor issue to me.
      • If you have any prose suggestions, by all means, suggest away. I'm here to improve the article, not to gain badges (not that those hurt...) Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Other than this I added some information to a reference but didn't see any obvious issues. My edit is here [4]. Anotherclown (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Sorry for the delayed response. These changes / additions look good to me. Anotherclown (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • One thing ... where I tried "in the dark", you may want "in dim light" or something, if that's more accurate. - Dank (push to talk) 23:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I made that change, it is an improvement. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Image Review: All images are appropriately licensed, source links and license tags verified. No issues with images. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SMS Geier[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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


Another old German cruiser article for your delectation - this one ended up as a US gunboat that was sunk after a merchant ship collided with her, and she's now a popular diving site. Thanks for all who review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:USS_Schurz_NH_94909.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Don't know, but the NHHC position is that all photos in their collection are PD unless otherwise noted. Parsecboy (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Okay, do we have a different licensing tag to indicate that? The current tag can't be used unless we can show that it's valid. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I suppose we could do a {{PD-because}} with a link to the NHHC page. Parsecboy (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: Great work as usual, I have a couple of observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

  • "LOST AT SEA" per MOS:ALLCAPS should be title case
    • Fixed
  • slightly inconsistent presentation of body v infobox: "83.9 meters (275 ft)" v. "83.9 m (275 ft 3 in)"
    • Fixed the conversion templates for these three
  • same as above: "10.6 m (35 ft)" v. "10.6 m (34 ft 9 in)"
  • same as above: " 4.74 m (15.6 ft)" v " 4.74 m (15 ft 7 in)"
  • link revolver cannon
  • "decommissioned temporarily in Kiel" --> do we know why?
    • HRS don't say why - I'd assume the foreign stations were all filled, so there was no need for the ship at the time.
  • Honolulu and gunboat are overlinked
    • Both fixed. Thanks, AR. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments I suggest to adding the service history with the United States to the info-box. the "fate" field in the German service must be removed. Because it was sunk while it was with the US not Germans.Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC) Here is my suggestion for US service:

United States
Name: Schurz
Launched: 9 June 1917
Commissioned: 15 September 1917
Fate: Sunk 21 June 1918 after collision
A good idea - added to the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Added my support and also listed at ACR. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)