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

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

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

  1. Please double-check the MILHIST A-class criteria and ensure that the article meets most or all of the five (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 (talk)

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


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is my namesake article, that has just become a good article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

INS Vikrant (R11)[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

INS Vikrant (R11) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review. This is first A-Class nomination for an article, apart from the four in past, which are lists. Regarding the article, built by United Kingdom, it is India's first aircraft carrier. Commissioned in 1961, participated in 1971 Indo-Pak war, and decommissioned in 1997, after 35 years of service. After her short stint as a museum ship, she was finally scrapped in 2014. I welcome comments to help to promoted the article to A-Class, and eventually to FA. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The article was recently promoted to GA, reviewed by Sturmvogel_66. After that I have come across this link, that hints about a conspiracy the carrier was involved in. But I am not sure about adding this to the article in a separate section. Because the source is kind of blog (may not meet WP:RS). Secondly, no other sources have anything about this. Even though there are some links they blogs or discussion forums. Please suggest me over this. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Jastrebarsko concentration camp[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Jastrebarsko concentration camp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Jastrebarsko concentration camp was one of several children's concentration camps established by the Croatian fascist Ustase regime for Serb children in the Axis puppet Independent State of Croatia during World War II. At least 450 children died at the camp in its short history. It was partially liberated by the Yugoslav Partisans, which caused it to be closed down, with the children largely farmed out to sympathetic families. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: What is the copyright status of the original design in File:Ustaše_symbol.svg? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Good question, Nikki. The symbol was created by the Ustaše soon after it formed in 1929, and was worn as a badge by members from then on. After WWII the surviving movement was divided and no entity claims to be descended from it or would hold any copyright. The symbol is a bit like Nazi symbols in that respect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: what a hideous aspect of the war. Just a few nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

  • in the lead, "Jastrebarsko concentration camp was a concentration camp for Serb children..." I wonder if the redundancy could be reduced... "Jastrebarsko concentration camp housed Serb children..." (or something similar?)
  • "Preparations for the reception of the children was done in haste..." --> "Preparations for the reception of the children were completed hastily..."?
  • "...garrisoned by Italian troops..." (suggest moving the link for "Italian" from here to the earlier mention)
  • " July - 153; August - 216; September - 67; and October - 8" --> the hyphens should probably be dashes here
  • "Lukić states that this figure, and the figure of 468 victims which is engraved on the monument to the victims of the camp in Jastrebarsko, are unreliable" --> "Lukić states that this figure, and the figure of 468 victims which is engraved on the monument to the victims of the camp in Jastrebarsko, is unreliable"?
  • "believed that the figure on the monument is too low..." --> "believed that the figure on the monument was too low"? (tense: believed and was / believes and is)?

« Return to A-Class review list

Alan Rawlinson[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Alan Rawlinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Al Rawlinson's name has been a long-standing redlink in several articles on the RAAF in WWII. His fairly recent death means he has no ADB entry as yet, and the paucity of details on his post-war RAF career prevented me from attempting an article on him before now. Aided by Lex McAulay's short bio (a Kindle book, BTW, hence the citation of section titles rather than page numbers), I've produced an account of Rawlinson's military career that I believe should satisfy A-Class requirements, but as coverage of his later life is next to zero I'll be leaving it at that for now. Oddly, considering his apparently successful career in the RAF, not the Times nor the Independent nor the UK Telegraph carried obits for him as they did for fellow 3 Sqn commander Bobby Gibbes, who died the same year, never served in the RAF, and had a similar official victory score. Rawlinson also seems to have been forgotten by Australian papers that I've checked. Well, perhaps we can give him due attention here... Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I recently reviewed this article for GA, and have subsequently done a light c/e for duplicate links, little else drew my attention.
  • all the tool checks are green.
  • images are all ok
  • a quality article covering his whole life, nothing much I could see that needed addressing for ACR.
  • it is possible that his death was noted by The Border Watch or Naracoorte Herald, but I'm not sure Trove has digitised them.
    • Tks PM! I found evidence of a death notice in the Herald via the Ryerson Index but it was presumably little more than the one I found in the Advertiser on microfiche -- c'est la vie (or perhaps c'est la mort in this case)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: G'day, Ian, not much to pick fault with as usual. Just a couple of queries/observations: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • was his father a professional AFL player, or did he have some other occupation?
    • I don't know for sure if the WAFL was pro back then but no sources I came across mention him being anything but a footballer...
  • capitalisation: "RAAF Officers Personnel files" --> "RAAF officers personnel files"? or "RAAF Officers Personnel Files"?
  • as above: "RAAF Unit History sheets" --> "RAAF unit history sheets" or "RAAF Unit History Sheets"?
    • Heh, I thought those were a bit odd too but it's the way they're capitalised in the NAA catalogue. 'Course it could be argued that WP convention (title case probably) should override and I have no objection to that...
  • there are a couple of duplicate links in the lead, but these seem fair enough in the circumstances
  • images appear to be appropriately licensed.
    • Tks for that Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list


Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

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


It is ages since I nominated for MilHist as none of the article I was working on were eligible. However, Æthelflæd was the daughter of Alfred the Great and the chief - perhaps only - female military leader in Anglo-Saxon England, so she is eminently eligible. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: G'day, overall this looks quite good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks, and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

  • "In Keynes's view, "The..." (you probably could silently decaps "The" here...);
  • " well as reverence for their great Northumbrian royal saint at Gloucester," for stem sentences like this, I'd suggest probably a colon, rather than a comma;
  • "p. 93–94" --> "pp. 93–94"
  • in the References, " The Electronic Sawyer: Online Catalogue of Anglo-Saxon Charters" probably should be in italics for consistency;
  • I am not sure how to deal with this. I put the charter as the title and The Electronic Sawyer as the publisher, which is probably wrong. The Electronic Sawyer is mounted on a server at King's College, London, which is described as an integral part of the Kemble website, mounted on a server at Cambridge University. So maybe I should show King's College as the publisher, The Electronic Sawyer as the title and the charter as the chapter? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, I just went with The Electronic Sawyer as the work, and King's College as the publisher. I think that works, but please feel free to adjust if you disagree. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • are there page numbers for the two Heighway (1984 & 1999) chapters in the References?
  • same as above for Ryan?
  • be careful of overlink. I removed one for you, but I think Alex Woolf and Mancus are also overlinked;
  • Done. (Personally, I do not see why overlinking is wrong, but it is not worth arguing about.) Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments, leaning support -- with the caveat that although medieval times of course interest me I know little more about them than the next guy...

  • Pls let me know any concerns with my copyedit (a fair bit was fixing apparent typos and inserting punctuation where I felt it helped); I think there was only outstanding point for me:
    • In the lead: "In 909 Edward sent a West Saxon and Mercian force to raid northern Danish territory" -- I don't think you've introduced Edward at this point. The Elder I presume? I debated just putting that in and linking but you may want to mention him earlier, will leave to you.
  • No issues with structure or level of detail AFAIC.
  • I might leave image and source reviews to others...

Nice work bringing this unique woman to the fore on WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review and copy edits. I have mentioned Edward earlier as you suggested. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


  • Hi Dudley, is this one headed to FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


  • Great work! Really minor comments below.
  • "to rule all English not living in areas" - felt odd to me. "English people" or "all the English"?
  • ""Æthelflæd (from The Cartulary and Customs of Abingdon Abbey, ca 1220" - elsewhere in the infobox and captions, you're using "c."
  • Done. (This was added before I started working on the article.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "The most important source for history in this period is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle but Æthelflæd is almost ignored in the standard West Saxon version in what F. T. Wainwright calls "a conspiracy of silence". - might have added a comma after "version", breaking a fairly long sentence
  • "although it is lost," - "although it is now lost"? Obvious, but would smooth the sentence flow
  • " semi-legendary Irish chronicle" - I wasn't sure what "semi-legendary" meant in this context.
  • This is how it is described by historians. I take it to mean a chronicle which has both stories of miracles and descriptions of events which can be verified from other sources. Do you have any suggestion for a better wording? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "In the twelfth century, Henry of Huntingdon paid her his own tribute: Heroic Elflede! great in martial fame..." - personally, I found the whole quote a bit much, but that might just be me! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It seemed to me mildly funny (although of course not intended to be) and throwing light on how she was viewed in the post-Conquest period, but maybe it is not suitable for the article. Any other views on this Dan, Ian, Rupert? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've no strong preferences on this either way, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for the review and support hchc. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of Indian naval air squadrons[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga

List of Indian naval air squadrons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this list for A-Class review. With the first squadron commissioned in 1959, Indian Navy currently operates twenty-one squadrons. From the previous A-class reviews I have faced, I constructed this list with care and consistency. All the ranges are per the MOS, and also everything is referenced. Unlike the FA, FL criteria allows citations in the lead if it is not the summary of the immediate tables. So there are a few citations in the lead and all the uncited sentences are the summary of the table, in the which they are completely cited. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, nice work as usual. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • emdashes should be unspaced per WP:DASH. For instance, "another Sea King squadron — INAS 339 — was commissioned..." should be "another Sea King squadron—INAS 339—was commissioned..."
  • there are probably too many images in the lead, as it seems a bit cluttered
  • the header "List of squadrons" should probably just be "Squadrons"
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be in the last section of the list, which in this case is the External links section
Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • there is one dab link that should be resolved: "Britain"
What is the dab in there? Britain directs to United Kingdom, it is correct. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It was fixed with this edit: [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • in many cases the nicknames and aircraft do not appear to be cited
The end citations in "Established" column covers all the data in the row. I have changed the format of the table so that the end citations covers the entire row. The aircraft are covered by the citations for their operation period. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • some of the grammar should be revised, for instance: "The squadrons commissioned until 1971, saw action in 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, especially the ones stationed on the aircraft carrier Vikrant".
  • given that the lead does not wholly replicate the list below, I would submit that each paragraph should end with a citation to meet WP:V
@AustralianRupert: Done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks good; I've made a couple more tweaks, and have added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Antioch (218)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk)

Battle of Antioch (218) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I am now confident that the article meets all or most of the A-class criteria. In the last review one of the major opposing reasons was the dependence on the article on primary sources. I have cut out all but a half-dozen references to Dio for only minor trivial information. The other question was with regards to the prose of the article. I believe I have addressed both of these concerns and am now resubmitting this for another A-class review. Summarizing the article topic; The article is on an ancient battle fought near the ancient city of Antioch between the forces of Emperor Macrinus and his rival and successor Elagabalus. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

PS: I think I've done everything right. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • the citations use clickable citations but the links do not work due to what are called "harvnb" errors as they are missing anchors (such as "ref=harv" in the citation templates). If you install this script, it will help you to identify these errors;
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for all the works in the References section? These can usually be found at
  • Yes check.svg Done - Anything pre-20th century won't have ISBN's and OCLC's although I've added ISBN's for Dunstan, Mennen and Goldsworthy.
  • I found a couple of OCLCs, so I've added these in for you. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Huh, apparently they may have OCLC's. Well, thanks for the additions. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • page ranges in citations generally use "pp." instead of "p.", for instance "pp. 179–180" (if a range) or "p. 179" (if a single page)
  • the infobox seems a bit lopsided, is there a way to make it split evenly between the two sides? I think if you use break tags, it might fix the issue
  • Have to be honest, I am not sure what you mean by this. I think you mean that that the left hand side for Macrinus is larger than the side for Elagabalus. I think is a trick of the eyes as both sides are set to the left side making one look larger than the other. That and the image is a copy from a book that was taken at a slight angle. If it's the strength section of the infoboxes, then I hope this makes it look more even. Cheers for the review AustralianRupert. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Regarding Volume 2 of A History of Rome, is it this: [2]? If so, it is part of Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopædia. The citations probably should be changed to reflect Robert Bell as the author, with the series appended also. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, thanks for that. Yes check.svg Done Mr rnddude (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • All my concerns have been addressed, and I reviewed this last time, so I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Close to a support

  • Looking a lot better in terms of the referencing - thanks for all your work on this. Comments below:
  • In the lead, it talks about "a disenfranchised soldier"; this is later explained to be "a soldier who was incensed at being declined the rank of centurion". Is "disenfranchised" really right? I think most readers would assume this has something to do with the right to vote etc.
  • I was using disenfranchised in the sense of; deprived of a privilege. Which Materianus would have been by having been denied the position of centurion. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It can mean that (e.g. a privilege of automatic promotion etc.), but without any additional context in the lead, I don't think any reader will conclude that is what was meant. I'd recommend "a disgruntled soldier" or some similar phrasing, avoiding the "disenfranchised" word altogether. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Dudley suggested disaffected to replace disenfranchised. So already dealt with, but, disgruntled would have worked equally well. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "was proclaimed emperor by the soldiers of Legio III Gallica (Gallic Third Legion) at the camp in Raphanea on 16 May 218" - "the camp" doesn't seem right, as we haven't mentioned it before. "their camp"?
  • Yes, I meant their camp. Yes check.svg Done Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The lead tells us a lot about the background and aftermath, but not actually very much about the battle itself; it just says "The battle took place less than a month later. Having lost the battle, Macrinus returned to Antioch once again." I'd expect to see a bit more of the "Battle" section summarised in this, to be honest.
  • I've expanded the lede to summarize the actual battle, hopefully is better. Yes check.svg Done Mr rnddude (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Could we describe in line (and perhaps link) who some of the historians are when first introduced? e.g. "based on a story mentioned by Herodian and supported by Gibbons (sic)" depends on the reader knowing who both Herodian and Gibbon were. If that ran "based on a story mentioned by the Roman writer Herodian and supported by the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon", for example, you wouldn't have that dependency. Similarly Scott, Dio, Icks, etc.
  • "Other sources either agree with Dio that the battle took place near Antioch, with one source, Downey, " - "sources" read oddly here. I'd normally assume a "source" was contemporary with the period, but Downey is presumably a modern historian? "Other historians either agree..."?
  • "Despite the numerical superiority of Gannys' army of at least two full legions, faced with what levies Macrinus was able to accrue, the engagement had begun in Macrinus' favour with the soldiers led by Gannys turning to flee after the Praetorian Guards had managed to break through the enemy line." - I found this a bit of a mouthful. How about: "Gannys' army, comprising at least two full legions, had a numerical superiority over whatever levies Macrinus had been able to accrue. Nonetheless, the engagement began in Macrinus' favour with the soldiers led by Gannys turning to flee after the Praetorian Guards had managed to break through the enemy line."? (NB: I might have gone for "raise" rather than "accrue" myself - you normally "raise a levy", don't you?)
  • Yes check.svg Done and changed accrue to raise. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Prior to battle Macrinus had the Praetorian Guard set aside their scaled armour breastplates and grooved shields in favour of lighter oval shields, thus making them lighter and more manoeuvrable and also negating the advantage of light Parthian lancers (lanciarii)." - if we're solely using a primary source, this needs to be attributed to Dio; similarly one or two others like it. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review Hchc2009, I've made an attempt at addressing each of your concerns. For the disenfranchisement comment, I've explained the context behind my word choice. Any chance you know of a better term that would mean the same thing? Mr rnddude (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

  • "Emperor Macrinus and his contender Elagabalus" I would prefer "rival" to "contender".
  • I don't think it is worth mentioning Immae. I can't find any information about this place, so it will not help the reader.
  • You can't use disenfranchised as it means taking away a privilege, not refusing to grant it. OED quotes a writer in 1893 saying "There no legal act disenfranchising woman, since she was never legally enfranchised". You could say disaffected or a soldier who had been denied promotion.
  • "Macrinus successfully concluded a peace with Parthia, however, it came at further great cost to Rome." I don't think you can use "however" here (unless you put a semi-colon after "Parthia"). I suggest "but" instead.
  • "The sum was called into question by professor Scott due to its sheer enormity and because Dio is known for being unreliable when discussing finances." This is clumsy and refers to Scott as if he had already been mentioned. Maybe "The sum is questioned by historian Andrew Scott on the ground that it is too high to be credible and because Dio is known for being unreliable on finances."
  • "reinstating the fiscal policies of Septimius Severus" This looks wrong. Septimius Severus famous dying advice to his sons was "Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men". His policy was the opposite of Macrinus's.
  • Caracalla raised the pay of soldiers and increased spending elsewhere. Macrinus reversed Caracalla's fiscal changes thereby effectively re-instating the policies that Septimius had. Septimius spent more than his predecessors but still a lot less than Caracalla. Will think about possibly rephrasing this. Attempt made, nothing special, but, hopefully sufficient. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • There is no need to have references at the end of each sentence if they are all from the same source, particularly as you do not follow this policy consistently. See for example in the last paragraph of 'Death of Caracalla and rise of Macrinus' and the second of 'Rise of Elagabalus'.
  • I've removed redundant citations, I think I've hit them all. Yes check.svg Done Mr rnddude (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Julia Maesa took the opportunity to inform the soldiers, either truthfully or not, that Elagabalus was Caracalla's son". Well all statements are truthful or not. Maybe "it is not known whether truthfully"
  • "Elagabalus was immediately hailed Antoninus after Caracalla" There is no explanation of what Antoninus means here.
  • In Elegabalus' case, him being referred to Antoninus was to create a connection between him and Caracalla (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus). Explained a little in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Macrinus might have been able to stop the rebellion in this early stage, but could not decide on a course of action and remained at Antioch." *This is an expression of an opinion, so it should be attributed as "In the view of Gibbon,"
  • Yes check.svg Done - "In Gibbon's opinion" Mr rnddude (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "the archaeologist Downey" His full name should be given at the first mention. Below you have "one historian, Downey". You do not need "one historian" as he has already been mentioned.
  • "The balance of power had been transferred from the Senate to the army; as such the emperor of Rome was decided by the soldier while the Senate existed solely to officiate state affairs without any real authority." The grammar has gone wrong here.
  • "During and after Caracalla's reign the position of the Senate had been considerably weakened." This is misleading. The source says by the early third century - the change preceded Caracalla's reign.
  • You are correct, I'd written it differently on the basis that Caracalla's reign technically started in 198 - thus from him onwards. I've rephrased anyway so; Yes check.svg Done Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Downey, suggests that both battles" Both battles? You have only mentioned one.
  • Well, one battle but in two different places. Downey assumes that both the battle described by Dio (at Immae) and the one as described by Herodian (at the border of Syria Phoenice and Coele - in Lebanon basically) were two separate events. I've made an attempt at rephrasing for clarity. Let me know if it's satisfactory. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Had Macrinus remained in battle it is plausible that he might have won the battle and thus secured his position as emperor." This is another expression of opinion which needs attribution to Downey and/or Gibbon.
  • You need to give the full names of Crevier and Icks at first mention.
  • "Macrinus found out about his son's death" You have not mentioned his son's death at this point.
  • I've moved sentences around for chronological purposes. Should be satisfactory now. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Dio, Cassius (n.d.). Roman History." You need to give publication details of the edition you are using. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Published by Harvard University Press for the Loeb Classical Library in 1927 and reprinted in 1955. I believe the publisher and ISBN are the only things I put in the reference, not the publisher's date? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It does not look right to me. 1. Libraries index a Roman writer as Cassius Dio, not Dio, Cassius. I would use |author=Cassius Dio rather than the first and last format. 2. I think you should give the year, e.g. as |year=1927 |orig-year= c.230. 3. Similarly with Gibbon you should show the edition you are using (not the 1776 one unless you actually have it!) so people can check your actual source. I would add |orig-year=1776. Nikki have I got it right? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I have a PDF copy of one produced by Fred de Fau & Company and published in 1906. So no problem with handling that. Also dealt with Dio, Cassius -> Cassius Dio. Though that change made a mess of the harvnb citations which have also been fixed. - Yes check.svg Done Mr rnddude (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Yep, give the full bibliographic details of the source/version you looked at. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Dudley Miles thanks for your comments, I'll address them over the next couple days. Also, disaffected seems like a good replacement term. Will use that instead. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, accidental ping cause I moved my comment, I've covered most things done for the time being. Cheers. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. All my queries have been addressed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Edward William Purvis[edit]

Nominator(s): KAVEBEAR (talk)

Edward William Purvis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have found this subject to be such an interesting figure the more I researched into him. Edward William Purvis was British officers born in the Dutch East Indies who resigned his British army commission to settle in Hawaii where he was a major, a colonel and a vice-chamberlain. Even though the attribution has been doubted in recent years, his name is associated with the most well known Hawaiian musical instrument. I am confident with some suggestions and extra nudges I can get to A-Class quality. KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, I have a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

  • do we know what his parents were doing in the East Indies at the time of his birth? I assume his father potentially worked for the British administration?
  • From what I see in genealogy websites is that his father was also born in the East Indies and the family had been there since the day of his grandfather's time when it was a British colony. They seem to be merchants and businessman. Would those sources be considered reliable and the inclusion of stuff from that source be permissible? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm not sure. I would lean towards no, and therefore note that potentially your other citation to that site should be replaced if possible. However, I'm not sure, really, so probably it would be best for you to post a query on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This will be what the article will be after removal of the contents only found in the Purvis Family Tree. I am suspecting that may be the case. I went ahead and asked on there anyway. Beside this, there are no other sources I can find for his birthplace, exact date of birth, details about his British services (the Hindi, Bengal and Chatham parts), fact he resigned, education at the Royal Military College, why he settled in Hawaii, when he settled in Hawaii, first occupation in Hawaii as palace guard and government clerk, work in cattle ranching with Judd, his cause of death and etc. So those information will just have to be removed and the article access by the stuff we can find in the available sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Information from non reliable sources removed for the time being.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • do we know why he transferred from the 31st to the 70th Regiment of Foot?
  • No, not in the sources I know of.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • do we know why he received the Royal Order of Kapiolani? Perhaps this could be mentioned in the body of the article?
  • No, royal orders award were not track that well in the 19th-century. It may have been given out to him just because he was associated with the king .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "File:Edward W. Purvis, ca. 1880.png": needs a US licence in addition to the current one. I'd suggest PD-US-1923 would probably be acceptable
  • "Honolulu Star-Bulletin" should be presented in italics as it is a newspaper title
  • also is there an OCLC or ISSN or similar for that could be added for the "Honolulu Star-Bulletin"?
  • Included OCLC and italicized.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Project Y[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

Project Y (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The last of my series of Manhattan Project articles. This one is on the Los Alamos Laboratory. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: looks pretty good to me. I made a couple of minor tweaks and have a couple of nitpicks: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • not sure if the triple emdashes work here: "the problems of neutron diffusion—how neutrons moved in a nuclear chain reaction—and hydrodynamics—how..."
    I think it works okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "desirable accommodation was the apartments built by Sundt..." --> "desirable accommodation were the apartments built by Sundt"?
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Unlike his other project leaders—Lawrence at the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory, Compton at the Metallurgical Project in Chicago, and Urey at the SAM Laboratories in New York, Oppenheimer..." I think there should be an emdash before Oppenheimer here
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • " burning 1 cubic metre (35 cu ft) of..." probably should be "meter"
    Yes check.svg Done Blechh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "Groves personally issued instruction to clear Oppenheimer..." --> "Groves personally issued instructions to clear Oppenheimer" or "Groves personally issued an instruction to clear Oppenheimer"?
    Yes check.svg Done Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments. This is a great article ... I particularly like the images ... but it's also a very long one, and generally, your Manhattan Project articles don't have any trouble attracting reviewers. My current plan is to bail on this one, but if it gets stuck at FAC, I'll be back. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Spalding War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Spalding War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Here's another war memorial. This one isn't covered in as many sources as some of the others but it is covered in greater depth because of its interesting background and how the way its history is interwoven with the pain felt by a country and by one aristocratic family in the wake of the First World War. It's the third of several war memorial articles I'm hoping will reach featured article status. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Support: G'day Harry, nice work. AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • do the images need a Freedom of panorama tag?
    • I don't think so, otherwise we'd need to tag literally millions of files on Commons; besides, Lutyens has been dead since 1945 so the design is likely out of copyright.
  • the paragraph beginning "McLaren approached the council with her proposal..." appears to be uncited, or is it cited to [1][6]? If so, I'd suggest maybe duplicating the refs earlier to make it clearer
    • I've duplicated the citations to make it clearer.
  • per WP:LAYOUT the Commons link should be in the last section of the article, not the See also section
    • This arbitrary requirement has bugged me for a long time so I've raised it at the MoS talk page.
      • No worries, not a war stopper. Probably just have to have it cleared up either way for FAC. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "A central panel bearing further names was added in 2015..." do we know why further names were added? Were these soldiers who subsequently died of wounds?
    • The source doesn't say; it's possible they died of wounds but more likely they were forgotten (due to poor record-keeping) or were omitted (eg deserters).

AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, Rupert! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

102nd Intelligence Wing[edit]

Nominator(s): Lineagegeek (talk)

102d Intelligence Wing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Reviewing this article to determine the accuracy of a bot generated request to review links, I noted that several paragraphs lack references (partly, not entirely, due to link rot), so the article no longer meets even B Class criteria). It, therefore, needs a new review. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments: I made a few tweaks to try to rectify some of the issues that I found, but unfortunately can't help with other aspects. If these can be rectified, I am of the opinion that the article could retain its A-class status, otherwise it should unfortunately be demoted: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • there are numerous paragraphs that do not end in references, which is as noted above the main issue for this article to overcome
  • in the References, the Williams source - is there a specific article within the journal that relates to the unit? If so, this should be added to the citation
  • what makes the Middleton website reliable?
  • for the Rogers citation (currently # 16) is there a page number that could be added?
  • currently, I think the article potentially has too much room devoted to the 9/11 incident, when compared to the space devoted to other topics, so I think it might be best to reduce this a little
  • "File:Too-102fw.jpg": is there a link to a website where this was obtained from? Currently the only source is "US Defense Department".
    • Delist/demote: it doesn't appear that these issues will be resolved, so I think it best that the article be delisted as an A-class article for the time being. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


  • History:
"The 102d Intelligence Wing traces its roots to the 318th Fighter Group" The cited source does not support this statement (and without an idea of what "traces its roots" means it may be inaccurate. The 318th Fighter Group became the 102d Fighter Group, which is not the 102d wing, but a subordinate unit. The article as a whole confuses the group and the wing and compounds it by stating that the wing was also "previously the 69th Fighter Wing". Later the articles refers to the 67th Fighter Wing, but the three fighter units were not assigned to it, but to the 102d Fighter Group. One of the squadrons as well as other units listed are not supported by the cited reference (probably in part because one fighter squadron was in the Connecticut National Guard and the source is a Massachusetts National Guard website). This kind of sloppiness permeates the article. I question whether either B1 or B2 would pass a B class review.
"Guard units were generally neglected . . . Not supported by cited source (although this could be edited to do so)
Although the MA ANG wasn't mobilized for the Korean War. Per source cited, elements of it were, but not the 102d Wing (which was only established in 1950), so this is extraneous information. --Lineagegeek (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment, leaning to delist/demote -- I concur that without reliable sourcing for the uncited elements this can't remain A-Class, and since there's still a lot outstanding after almost three weeks (the USAF isn't my area of expertise unfortunately) I don't hold out much hope for this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

2nd Canadian Infantry Division[edit]

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk)

2nd Canadian Infantry Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for an A-class reappraisal as unfortunately I don't believe it meets the criteria anymore (specifically based on its referencing). Ultimately, I would like to try to bring the article back up to A-class status, but if that is not possible, I believe it should be demoted. It was nominated for FAR in early 2015, and although I attempted to help deal with the issues raised in that review, I did not have access to the sources that its original author (now inactive) had. As such, it was ultimately demoted from FA and I believe that unless someone can deal with these issues it will need to be demoted from A-class also.

I am also concerned about the article's scope, as it appears to largely duplicate 2nd Canadian Division. The original editor, I believe, felt that the two formations were distinctly separate; however, the way that the 2nd Canadian Division article is written now indicates differently, so I think we also need to consider how this article is meant to nest with the other one. I guess there are a couple of options here. Potentially this one could be re-titled "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II" to make it clear that the article is limited in its scope, but there are also other options that could potentially be considered while we are here. I invite any interested parties to comment on the article's compliance with the A-class criteria, and to list anything that they believe should be fixed. If I have the ability to rectify these issues, I will, but ultimately unless someone can assist with referencing, I won't be able to fix issues in that area. Thank you to all who stop by. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: I have resolved some of the issues above now: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I have managed to resolve a few more of the missing citations, and have also added mentions of the commanders into the narrative as they were missing before. There are still a couple of citations required though. These are my recent edits: [3].
  • I still wonder if this article should be re-titled to "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II". If so, I think some mention of the units lineage to the First World War should potentially be added to the Formation section, and then potentially its later incarnations to the final section. Thoughts?
  • Firstly as a Canadian (want to establish my inherent bias outright) I want to thank you for working on this article. I have no expertise in the area of ground units, but after looking at the articles mentioned, I would agree that the title should be changed. The basic units are essentially the same just one is an overview while the other deals with a distinct period in the unit's history. Llammakey (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stopping by, Llammakey, I've managed to find the remaining citations now. These are this morning's edits: [4] @Ian Rose: G'day, Ian, as you took part in the FAR, would you be able to take a look at the recent changes and provide an opinion if it is still up to A-class standard. I think I've resolved most of the major issues. Equally, would you mind offering an opinion about whether this article should be moved to "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II"? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • Recent changes by Rupert and Llammakey have certainly been an improvement.
    • I added one more "citation needed" tag, is this possible to be resolved?
    • Are the figures of the number pers that served in the division, and total casualties etc available in the sources? If so adding them would make the article more comprehensive.
      • I haven't come across anything, sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
        • Actually, Google snippet view indicates that Maple Leaf Against the Axis: Canada's Second World War - Page 74 might have something, but I can't quite make it out, and my efforts to get the book sent to me here in Darwin have been thwarted, so I can't check. I wonder if any of our North American editors might have access to it? @Nikkimaria and Diannaa: G'day, do either of you by any chance have access to this book? If so, would you mind checking it to see if it lists consolidated casualty numbers for the 2nd Canadian Division during World War II? Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
          • I have ordered it in on inter-library loan. There's a copy at the U of A, so it might only take a couple of weeks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
          • There's a copy local to me, I can get it Monday/Tuesday. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I agree with AR's comments about the scope of the article and the need to rename it. Anotherclown (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Comments -- thanking Rupert for the ping:
    • So far I've just gone through the article at a very high level but on that basis I think it actually looks better than when it passed ACR the first time -- well done. I would need to go through it more to offer a final opinion, will try to do so in due course.
    • I agree in principle with renaming to distinguish from the overarching 2nd Canadian Division article, OTOH if "2nd Canadian Infantry Division" was its official name in WWII and at no other time then technically that does distinguish it. The alternative in that case would be calling this "2nd Canadian Division during World War II" (no "Infantry") -- do you see where I'm coming from? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of frigates of India[edit]

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

List of frigates of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review. After my first list, List of destroyers of India, has passed the A-class review, and eventually a featured list. This list of frigates from the Indian Navy is constructed on par with the destroyers list. The GOCE edit was also complete, so I think there wouldn't be much MoS issues. Kindly suggest any further improvements required. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this list. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Indian Navy is overlinked in the lead, and the duplicate link script reveals a number of other examples which should be reduced
  • per MOS:LEAD there should be a maximum of four paragraphs in the lead
  • "File:HMIS Hindustan SLV Green.jpg" needs a US licence in addition to the Australian one, and the source link should be adjusted to link to the image if possible
  • the Reference list should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname
  • in the References, is there a date of publication for the Raymond source? Also, is there an ISBN or OCLC number that can be provided?
  • is there a place of publication for the Conway sources?
  • is it "Conways" or "Conway"?
  • is there a citation for Hooghly being scrapped?
  • the sentence ending "... capable of countering modern Western naval assets" appears to be unreferenced
  • same as above for the sentence ending "...was the only Anchusa-class sloop used by India"
  • same as above for the sentence ending "...two Godavari-class frigates in service are scheduled to be decommissioned in the coming years."
  • same as above for "...Eight ships of this class served in the Royal Indian Navy"
  • same as above for "...Two ships from this class served in the Indian Navy"
  • same as above for "The Type 41 or Leopard class was a class of anti-aircraft defence frigates built for the Royal Navy (4 ships) and Indian Navy (3 ships) in the 1950s.
  • same as above for "A total of ten ships from two different projects, Project 17A and Admiral Grigorovich classes, are expected to be commissioned into the Indian Navy. Most of these ships are in the planning phase."
  • are there decommissioning dates for the Whitby and Leopard class ships?
  • hyphens should mostly be endashes when spaced, for instance in citation # 4 and others
  • is there a citation for Baluchi being sold for scrapping?
  • is there a citation for Elphinstone being wrecked on the Nicobar Island
  • there are minor inconsistencies in the referencing format, particularly around the publisher/newspaper/website names displayed in italics
@AustralianRupert: I have addressed all your comments from 1–9. Regarding 10–14, is it necessary to cite these sentences as they are the summaries of the immediate tables following them, anyway, if it is a must, I'll add the citations. Unfortunately the decommissioning dates for the Whitby and Leopard class ships are unavailable. Regarding the last one, respective templates are used for news sources and web sources differently. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think they should be added. Regarding the citations, I would suggest at least converting the "colledge" template to the "citation" template for consistency then, or the "citation" templates to "cite book/web/journal" etc as there are subtle differences with commas and full stops. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@AustralianRupert: All done. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, I've cropped one of the images for you and added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:30, 23 November 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)

Comment by Dudley

  • I am doubtful whether this article and the one above on the Hastati are suitable A-Class candidates. They were taken to GA in 2008 by an editor who has long ago ceased editing, and the A-Class nominator has made no contributions to the articles. The references are all undated books, but most have an access date, and it is unclear whether this is the date the editor read the book or whether they accessed pages online. Neither the nominator or reviewers may have access to the sources, so they may not be able to check references, or assess whether the books are reliable sources according to current standards. A principal source is William Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, which was published in many editions between 1842 and 1890. This is far too dated, even if we knew which edition was used. There are a couple of citation neededs in one of the articles, and very little detail about the role these infantry classes played in specific battles. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I will work on what you have mentioned. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: I have fixed all of the citaiton, I am working towards adding more and citing more currently. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the Lucilius mentioned below is probably Gaius Lucilius, but the citation is a vague reference to an original source. So far as I can tell with no knowledge of the subject, the content is good, apart from the lack of dates in the lead. I would like to see more on specific battles, but if the information is not available that should not be a bar to promotion. The referencing is unacceptably poor. Only four of the 17 citations are OK. The others are vague citations of original sources or far too dated. I think all sourcing need to be re-done by the nominator. Some may be available online, but others will probably only be available in a library. I second Rupert's thanks for Iazyges's efforts, and hope they are able to bring this interesting article up to scratch. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Dudley Miles Which ones are good, and which need fixing.
Sabin and Southern are reliable sources, although in view of the original editor's standard of referencing, they need checking to see that they do really support what the article says. If you cannot get access to these sources then I probably can. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The other sources are not reliable and need replacing - and the text amending if the sources you find do not support the text. Krenz 1991 is an article in [5] - which is probably unobtainable unless you are willing to buy it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
You have introduced errors in citation 1 which I have amended. "accessdate=" should only be used for online sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: My bad, I was using the cite book tool, I have purged the polybius ones and krentz.

@Dudley Miles: would this be considered reliable?[1] I have sent the non sabin and southern to the gulags. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not know the book but I assume one published by Routledge should be an RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
I will try to look further over the next few days but some preliminary comments.
  • Refs 1, 3 and 7 are to primary sources. It is better to use secondary works as assessing the reliability of primary sources is original research.

Yes check.svg Done

  • I would delete 1st ed in ref 2 as only 1 ed has been published.

Yes check.svg Done

  • I get a bad link on ref 4.

Yes check.svg Done

  • Ref 13 is Elton (1996) 104. This needs expanding.

Yes check.svg Done

  • You need to delete the reference to Lucilius unless you can definitely establish who he is.


  • I believe this can establish it? [2]
  • You have linked to pages in Google books, but this link does not work for me. I just get sent to the bibliographical details. I may have to wait until I can get access to the sources to comment further, and this may take some time. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


  • I am still getting 404 errors or links to the bibliog details on your google books links. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have been able to check print copies of a few references.
  • Ref 8 Lazenby looks OK, although it uses an additional page which I have added to the reference. You cite 1998 as the publication date but the copy I consulted was the original publication in 1978, see [6]. Nikki can you advise please how this ref should be shown? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • We should use 1978 as |orig-year= and then the date of whichever version was consulted as |year=. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

  • Ref 1 Sabin. I did not realise there are two volumes and got the wrong one. You need to add vol 1 to the ref - it is shown in ref 3. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

  • Ref 6 Daly I could not check as there is no page number. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah that source has no page numbers in it for unknown reasons, if you search by term, you'll find it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Ref 11 Elton. The statement is not in the source cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Clear action edit remove.png Removed

Support Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. The topic is definitely well beyond my area of expertise, so I just have a few general suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • there appears to be a mix of citation styles: for A-class these should be consistent. There is no set style, but consistency is the key.
  • the full bibliographic details for Krentz should be provided in some way

Yes check.svg Done

  • what year was the Mommsen work published?

Yes check.svg Done

  • "done away with" seems a bit informal. Would "disbanded" work?

Yes check.svg Done

  • "Lucilius suggests..." is there a link for Lucilius?

Yes check.svg Done I cannot for the life of me find out which lucilius it is.

  • suggest a paragraph split in the lead here: "Velites did not form their own..."

Yes check.svg Done

  • is there a link that could be added for the siege of Capua in 211 BC, if not it should probably be a red link as it sounds like it is most likely notable?

Yes check.svg Done

  • suggest linking Polybius

Yes check.svg Done

  • inconsistent spelling "principes" v. "princeps"; also it should be linked on first mention in the body of the article

Yes check.svg Done

  • is there some kind of image that could be added to the article to break up the text?
    • @AustralianRupert: there may be one, it is from pennsylvania state college originally, but im unsure of the licence,[3] there is another one im curently looking at.

Yes check.svg Done

  • File:Velites.jpg: this is a nice image (except for the large copyright attribution - is there anyway that the author would release it without this?), but the details on the image description page are not sufficient currently. You need to provide more details about where it was published (was it in a book, or on another website?), also if the author has given permission for its use, this needs to be documented through the OTRS system. You can find more information about this here: [7].
  • I note that you have many of the references now due to concerns raised above. Do you have suitable sources to replace these? The A-class referencing standards require at least one citation at the end of each paragraph. Regards,
@Dudley Miles: I am currently looking, I may have found one, would you consider this a reliable source? [4]

AustralianRupert (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

NB: I've uploaded a version of the image without the watermarking, since derivative works are covered by the OTRS release. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
@Hchc2009: thanks, for some reason if I try to insert it as a thumbnail, it has the watermark, but if i try to insert it at its full size it does not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Is their anything else you think needs to be changed for it to be up to A status? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC) @Dudley Miles:, @AustralianRupert:, and @Hchc2009:, Firstly, thank you all for your work on this article, secondly, I believe all the issues on this have been resolved (except for the thumnail still having the watermark for inexplicable reasons.) Do you also feel that it is ready? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

  • G'day, nice work. I've made a few more adjustments, and have some follow up observations/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • the lead contains some info not in the body: the length of the javelin and the metal points, the Battle of Zama, the use as a screening force, the fact of rarely wearing armour, and wearing wolfskin, the point about 1,000 velites in an early Roman legion, and the two theories (that rorarii and velities were interchangable, and that the leves' equipment was upgraded etc)? These points should be worked into the body of the article also

Yes check.svg Done

  • if the above information is added to the body with references, then the citations in the lead aren't required per WP:LEAD

Yes check.svg Done

  • there are still a few unreferenced paragraphs (I've marked where I think citations are needed)

Yes check.svg Done

  • reference 4 should be formatted so the bare url isn't visible

Yes check.svg Done

  • Added my support now as my comments/concerns have been dealt with. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have now had a chance to look at Sabin, and it is clear this article is nowhere near GA, let alone A-Class. It says that the velites "wore a headdress made from wolf skin to allow officers to differentiate between them and heavier legionaries" and "The velites could not receive decorations for bravery in battle if they fought within the ordered lines of the legion". Both statements are cited to Sabin p. 513, and neither are in this source, which says that the velites wore wolf skins so that they could be identified when they performed acts of valour, and nothing about them ever serving in the ordered lines. Sabin says "The velites were placed in front of the array, then, partly so that the boldest of the young men could distinguish themselves by seeking out combat with individual enemies. This is why they need to be identifiable, and why they, rather than the soldiers in the array behind, were awarded decorations." The article misses half the purpose of the velite system, which was as much about giving young men a chance to win glory as it was a tactical formation. There are also many other statements not in the source cited. I regret I have to oppose, although I will be happy to look at it again if you can get access to the print sources and re-write it. 08:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I believe I have fixed it.

Thanks for your efforts, and you have corrected a major error, but the whole article needs checking against the sources and re-writing. Can you get access to the hard copy books? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Ill check, are any of them downloadable as PDFs that you know of? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
No. You should be able to get them from your local library through inter-library loan, but that would probably take some time. Alternatively, you could enquire about access to the library of a local university or college. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles:, I bought a couple books about rome, ill search them for velites. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, I have yet to find the book, I am still searching. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support This short-er article has to be weighed against the potentially available information on a niche, ancient topic. It is well-sourced, composed, and seems to meet the Class A criteria by my judgment. LavaBaron (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The comment below has been copied from MilHist Talk: Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges has nominated four articles on ancient Roman military history, Principes, Triarii, Hastati and Velites. All were taken through GA in 2008 by an editor who ceased editing in 2011. I have looked in detail at Velites. My initial impression was that the content is OK but not the referencing, but when I checked the sources I found that the original editor had misinterpreted them on several important points. Iazyges does not have access to the sources, but has made considerable improvements to Velites in response to my comments, and is looking for reliable sources to bring the article up to A-Class standard. I would therefore suggest that Velites should be kept as a candidate, but it would be better if the other three are withdrawn, as they almost certainly need a complete re-write to get them to the standard to be considered for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

  • @Dudley Miles: I have been unable to find anything more, as it stands I don't think anything more can be added, unless a new book happens to come out, which I will be looking for. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Have you tried googling Velites? It appears to give access to extracts from reliable books in Google Books with information about Velites. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Yes I have, a lot of the sources added in are from Google books. There are no google books out that I haven't looked at. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)