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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

After A-Class

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


Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Paterson Clarence Hughes[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Paterson Clarence Hughes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Another Australian fighter ace, this time our highest scorer in the Battle of Britain, Pat Hughes. Given his seventeen victories in less than two months during the battle, one can only wonder if, had he lived, he would've challenged Clive Caldwell as Australia's leading ace of the war. Beyond the air fighting, though, this is a bit of a love story, as Hughes' English bride Kay figures prominently in the main sources. Thanks Cliftonian for his recent GA review, and in advance to everyone who comments here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment from GA reviewer: looks like I was right about why he transferred to the UK. Takes one to know one I suppose ;) —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

250t-class torpedo boat[edit]

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

250t-class torpedo boat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it passed GA in May 2015, and I believe it meets the Milhist A-Class criteria. The 250t-class consisted of 27 boats built prior to and during WWI. Many of them served past WWI, and some even saw active service in WWII and into the late 1950s. All constructive criticism will be gratefully received and acted upon. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States[edit]

Nominator(s): Mark D Worthen PsyD

Veterans benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have done everything I can think of to improve the article; I requested feedback/suggestions/edits from other editors, but received only one suggestion; I have asked experts in the field for feedback, and I have incorporated their feedback into the article; I think the article is at least close to A-class, and I hope this process will yield feedback and suggestions such that it can become A-class. Please see What is needed to make this an A-class article? on the article's Talk page for specifics. Thank you! Mark D Worthen PsyD 06:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

House of Plantagenet[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

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

Featured article candidates/House of Plantagenet/archive1

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

Donald Hardman[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Donald Hardman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Time for another RAAF chief, this one being the second and last RAF officer to run the service. That caused resentment, but he soon proved his worth. He had a good pedigree: fighter ace in WWI, foreign postings between the wars, and group command in WWII. He also seems to have been a likeable chap, as well as an imaginative organiser. His main claim to fame is that he transformed the Air Force from its WWII-era geographically based command-and-control system into a functional command system, which essentially exists today. I'd originally thrown this at GAN but enhanced it to what I think is A-Class level while awaiting review there, so decided to cut to the chase and nominate it here. I don't know if I'll take it to FAC after this, as the article's post-military section is a bit thin, but I welcome any comment in that regard as well. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Malvern Hill[edit]

Nominator(s): ceradon (talkcontribs)

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

Featured article candidates/Battle of Malvern Hill/archive1

I believe I erred when submitting this article for FA-review before A-Class review, so here goes. I'm trying to get this article and a few more to FA status or at least A-class status within the next few months. I believe the article is in good shape, save for some things that don't flow. I'll work on those as soon as I can. Thank you for your consideration. ceradon (talkcontribs) 04:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Support on sources Just one minor nitpick:

  • One of the external links is a uncategorized redirect.

A fine article.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 12:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Tomandjerry211: Thank you. In regards to the link, which one is it? I can't seem to find it. Thank you, --ceradon (talkcontribs) 03:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Hermann Fegelein[edit]

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk)

Hermann Fegelein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating the article on behalf of Diannaa (talk · contribs) and Kierzek (talk · contribs). I believe the article worthy of a Military History A-class rating. I have contributed a little to the article myself, but I don’t think I should be credited much for the progress made so for. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:SS-Gruppenführer_Collar_Rank.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
There's literally hundreds of Nazi military rank insignia on the Commons, and none of them have any copyright information about the original designs. They are probably PD-shape. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

M13 Multiple Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...I think it should be good for A-class, and maybe later on at FAC. It passed a GA review way back in May of this year and has gone through some minor changes since then. I'm welcoming all comments and suggestions. Thanks for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 13:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

« Return to A-Class review list

Halifax Explosion[edit]

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk)

Halifax Explosion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The Halifax Explosion was one of the largest non-nuclear explosions of all time. This article recently passed GAN and I'm hoping to take it to FAC at some point in the future. Any and all comments are welcome. Thanks, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "with the recently formed Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Halifax "became internationally known as a centre for care for the blind".": WP:INTEXT may be a problem here, and more so because the source may not tell us who said it. Also, more is quoted than is indicated by the quote marks.
  • "$35 million": This might be a dumb question, but ... Canadian or American?
  • "It has now become a "fashionable neighbourhood" and shopping district.": I'm not a fan of unexplained quote marks in Wikipedia (except in my reviews!). Readers who know the context might not get confused, but many readers will get tripped up. (Are you quoting someone? The meaning and value of a short quoted phrase like this one tends to vary depending on who's saying it. Are you giving us the name the area was known by? Expressing skepticism?)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Great work, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 00:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dank! I think I've addressed all of these issues, let me know if not. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Looks great. I'm used to seeing C$, but I'm sure you know better than I do. - Dank (push to talk) 00:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • From what I understand it's always C$ in the US but Canada uses both, or at least I've seen both here. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Mont-Blanc was under orders from the French government to carry her highly explosive cargo to Bordeaux, France" Maybe "cargo from New York via Halifax to Bordeaux"
  • "The two main points of departure were on the East Coast at Sydney (HMCS Landsdowne) in Cape Breton and Halifax." I would link Sydney and Cape Breton, and what does the ship in brackets mean.
  • "Hospital ships returned the wounded, and a new military hospital was constructed in the city." What does "returned the wounded" mean? Transported people wounded in U-boat attacks?
  • "guarded by patrol ships of the Royal Canadian Navy." You say above that the RCN had virtually no ships - maybe mention that they had acquired some by 1917.
  • " "special protections" for the ship" What does this mean?
  • I found the explanation of the collision confusing:
  • 1. Comparing the map with an atlas, It appears Bedford Basin is in the north-west, and ships proceed south-east between Dartmouth to the north and Halifax towards the open sea. If this is correct it would be helpful to explain it.
  • 2. "Navigating from the inner harbour into Bedford Basin required passage through a strait called the Narrows." This appears to mean that ships proceeding to sea had to go from the inner harbour through the strait and Bedford Basin and on the Atlantic, but presumably this is wrong - the inner harbour is between the basin and the sea. I suggest "Navigating from Bedford Basin towards the Atlantic required passage through a strait called the Narrows"
  • 3. *"The Mont-Blanc started moving at first light on 6 December" What time was first light? Was the Imo overtaking the Mont-Blanc or were the ships coming from different directions.
  • 4. I think it would be better not to mention geographical locations which are not explained (or which do not help to explain what happened), such as inner harbour, George's Island, Pier 9 and McNabs Island.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your comments, Dudley - I think I've addressed all except the last. I'm trying to track down a reliable source describing how far apart the two were when they first saw each other, and will sub that in for Pier 9 when I do. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • More comments
  • Caption: "Map of present-day Halifax; Bedford Basin is in the northwest and is accessed via the Narrows between the North End and Dartmouth." Maybe "Map of present-day Halifax. Bedford Basin is top left and the Narrows between Dartmouth and Halifax leads towards the Atlantic off the bottom on the right."
  • "but was likewise too late to venture up the harbour before the nets were raised" I see that I misread what the Mont-Blanc was doing - I thought it was coming out of the harbor like the Imo. My carelessness but "likewise too late to venture up the harbour" may have made me think they were going in the same direction, so perhaps this could be amended.
  • "Mackey gave a short blast of his ship's signal whistle to indicate that his vessel had the right of way" - right of way because the Imo was on the wrong side of the channel?
  • Did all the crew of the Mont-Blanc escape?
  • "was felt as far away as Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island" "caused an earthquake as far away as"?
  • That would not be technically accurate - this was a shock wave but not an earthquake. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "The commission would continue until 1976, participating in reconstruction efforts.[" Did reconstruction really take 60 years? If so, why?
  • A very interesting article, but I am puzzled why the Mont-Blanc was (initially) blamed, as the article appears to show that the excessive speed and refusal to give way of the Imo was the cause. Could this be explained?
  • Interesting that the article also provides further examples of how WW1 led to advances in medicine.
  • Did Coleman get any posthumous award or other recognition? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Except as noted above, I've addressed these. Thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Support. A fine article. I would however add the explanation that the Mont-Blanc had the right of way because the Imo was on the wrong side. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi Tomandjerry211, I've corrected these, thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

M15 Halftrack[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

M15 Halftrack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Prior nomination here.
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I have fixed all problems from the previous review. The article has been expanded to include all of it's Korean War history, a major problem in the previous review. I hope this passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom)[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk)

80th Infantry (Reserve) Division (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


The 80th Infantry (Reserve) Division is an overlooked training formation that remained within the United Kingdom throughout its existence during the Second World War. Very few sources talk about this division, or its sibling training formations. The article has just passed its GA review. All comments are welcomed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support: I had a look at this during the peer review and not a lot stood out to me. Great work, as usual. I have a couple of minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Cox's full name was Lionel Howard Cox if you want to use this: [1]
    I had forgot about that website! I could not find that chaps name anywhere, so thank you. Just a pity that his full name does not bring up any photos on the IWM website to use.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • this sentence seemed a little awkward to me: "The notional Fourth Army's VII Corps, which after being transferred south to FUSAG, included the newly created fictitious 80th Infantry Division"
    Had a little play with the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, that looks good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • is there a citation that could be added for "footnote a"?
    Added.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • irregular capitalization: "General officer Commanding"; this should probably be "General Officer Commanding", or "General officer commanding" (I'd probably go with the first one)
    Meant to address this a while ago, and forgot!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • in the References, some works have locations of publication, but others don't. For FAC, this will need to be consistent. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks mate for the support and comments. I have also addressed your concern regards the location of publication.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    No worries, good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Thanks Dank. I have inserted the missing word, to complete the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Source review

That source uses a template. I have updated the template to remove the OCLC reference.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • A few of the images lacks alt text so you might consider adding it (not an ACR req, suggestion only).
As you note, it is not a requirement, but I will try and sort this out soon.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions look fine (no action req'd).
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • "Major-General Cox took command..." should just be "Cox took command..." removing rank at second use per WP:SURNAME
Addressed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Is the typo in the quote here in the source or accidental - "preconceived notion of what FORTUTUDE would accomplish." - (should be "FORTITUDE" shouldn't it?)
Quite right! I have just checked the source, it is indeed a typo on my behalf and is now fixed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Otherwise looks very good to me. The deception aspect was particularly interesting. Anotherclown (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review and comments. I, likewise, found the deception aspect of these forgotten training divisions to be very interesting.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries, added my support now. Anotherclown (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Russian battleship Oslyabya[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Buggie111 (talk)

Russian battleship Oslyabya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


Oslyabya had a very brief career before she became the first ship sunk during the Battle of Tsushima in 1905. She took about eight years to build and had only about two years of service before she was sunk. The ship was one of three Russian second-class battleships built to support their strategy of commerce raiding if war had broken out against the British. While not intended to stand in the line of battle, the Russians had no choice to use them that way once the Russo-Japanese War began. As usual I'm looking for infelicitous phrasings and any jargon that needs to be explained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


  • I might mention in the lead that she was a second class battleship intended to support commerce raiders, and had a weaker main battery and thinner armor, since this is probably a significant factor in the ship's fate.
    • Added the fact that she was a second-class BB to the lede, but the rest is, I think, better dealt with in the background section.
  • You might give a bit of context on the 2nd Pacific Squadron (you know, that the 1st Squadron had been wiped out during the actions in and around Port Arthur).
  • No dupe links. More to follow later.
  • Did the ship participate in the Dogger Bank incident?
  • I might give a bit more context on Tsushima
    • Add a bit, see it you think that it's enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Check ENGVAR - looks to be US English but I see a "draught"
  • Standardize whether you include states/countries in refs. Parsecboy (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Only if they're not prominent cities like London, New York, Boston, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Anything actioned here? Parsecboy (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments As always with your nominations, this article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

  • I'd suggest adding in a bit of context about the Russian Fleet's deployment from the Baltic to the Far East, noting why this occurred and the scale of the movement.
    • Done some, but I'll probably have to dig out Pleshakov to fully respond to this and several of your other comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Likewise, some background on the immediate lead-up to the Battle of Tsushima would be helpful.
  • Also, can anything be said about the condition of the ship at this time? Much of the fleet was in a bad way.
  • "With the Russian fleet in two columns and not one, Oslyabya was forced to almost stop in its tracks, aggravating the situation" - this is a bit unclear: why was the ship forced to stop? Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


  • Pls let me know if I misunderstood anything in my copyedit; other points:
    • "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding armored cruisers like the Russian ships Rossia and Rurik and the Peresvet class were designed to support their armored cruisers." -- I'm assuming that "their" means "Russian" but pls confirm; in any case the sentence seems a bit convoluted and could stand recasting or splitting.
      • Since the Russian armored cruisers are the only ones mentioned, what others could "their" possibly mean? This sentence doesn't seem problematic to me, but I'm happy to take suggestions if it's still bothersome upon a re-read.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I know it seems obvious to you but I think it could be clearer. Maybe just some punctuation and clarification, e.g. "The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding armored cruisers like the Russian ships Rossia and Rurik; the Peresvet class was designed to support such Russian cruisers."
    • "Nebogatov had no idea that he was now the squadron's de facto second-in-command ... During the Battle of Tsushima on 28 May, Oslyabya led the Second Division of the squadron" -- can you pls clarify in the text just which squadrons these are?
      • Does the second para of the Russo-Japanese War section not suffice?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • I think it gets a bit confusing when three squadrons are mentioned in that para, i.e. the 1st, Second, and 3rd Pacific. At the very least I'd re-establish the name of the squadron in question when it's first mentioned in the new subsection for the Battle of Tsushima. BTW, did the Russians not name their squadrons consistently, i.e. "Second" instead of "2nd"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
    • "Flooding of her starboard forward magazine was ordered" -- do we know who ordered this so we could change passive to active tense?
      • I doubt it as I don't think that many bridge personnel survived. But I will check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • No dab/duplinks.
  • Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
  • Sources look reliable to me and no formatting issues leapt out, but could you add an OCLC for Busch in the absence of ISBN?
    • Dunno where that came from, but deleted it since it was only a supporting cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the image licensing in this case, perhaps Nikki could look over. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Oslyabya1903Bizerte.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Oslyabya14.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think that I've sourced these satisfactorily.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Marlborough (1912)[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

HMS Marlborough (1912) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


A bit of a departure for me, this was the second command flagship of the Grand Fleet for much of the war. She had quite an eventful career, being in the thick of the fighting at Jutland, where she was badly damaged by a German torpedo. After the Great War she was involved in the British intervention in the Black Sea during the Russian Civil War and ultimately served as a target for weapons tests. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


  • No DABs, external links OK.
  • Images appropriately licensed.
  • Some redundancies in the displacement section in the infobox.
    • Not sure what you're talking about.
  • Change HMNB Devonport in the lede to Devonport Royal Dockyard. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Good catch
  • I wouldn't advise abbreviating yards. Yd looks very odd as you very rarely see it ever abbreviated.
    • Done
  • group of battleships battering of the German light cruiser fix this.
    • Done
  • German cruiser launched probably two torpedoes awkward.
    • It seems fine to me as is, and I can't think of a better way to say it.
  • knocking the shores loose Is that what they're actually called? I've always heard of them as props.
    • Could be a BrEng vs. AmEng thing - Campbell calls them shores (and that's where the article here is, incidentally).
  • Might consider consolidating these into a single sentence: She was repaired by the Armstrong Whitworth shipyard at Jarrow. The work lasted until 2 August, and she thereafter departed for Cromarty, arriving on 5 August.
    • Merged.
  • Second command reads oddly to me, even though I think that it's proper RN terminology. Perhaps assistant or deputy commander?
  • I think that you mean that the ship was re-commissioned in 1919.
    • Fixed
  • Link to 4th Battle Squadron and kite balloon.
    • Added both.
  • Add the ampersand command to the entry for Perry and Pleshakov.
    • Done
  • Standardize publisher location data for state/country.
    • Fixed
  • Stationery office.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


  • According to The Times Marlborough commissioned at Devonport on 2 June, 1914, and according to the Navy List completed to full crew on 16 June.
    • Do you have the full citation for the Times? I don't have a subscription. Also, Burt says she was commissioned on 16 June.
      • "Naval and Military Intelligence," The Times, 5 June, 1914, p. 14. This gels with the Navy List which is specific about when a ship commissions or otherwise (or doesn't mention it, especially during the war).
        • Thanks, corrected now.
  • Marlborough joined the First Fleet of the Home Fleets, not Home Fleet, which was renamed Grand Fleet on the outbreak of war. Given she was already flying Sir Lewis Bayly's flag in the Fleet by 30 June then she was already "fully commissioned."
    • Burt just calls it the Home Fleet, which is how I've always seen it - but added a reference to Bayly.
      • It was the officially the Home Fleets from 1912 to 1914.
        • Ok, added the "s".
  • When she joined the Fleet she wasn't the flagship of the deputy commander - Bayly was junior to the Vice-Admiral Commanding the Second Battle Squadron, Warrender, on whom supreme command would have devolved.
    • So what is Burt referring to when he says "2nd flag, Home Fleet"?
      • No idea. But Marlborough wouldn't be the flagship of the second-most senior officer in the First/Grand Fleet until 19 December, 1914, when Burney hoisted his flag in her. So Burt's pretty much wrong.
        • Odd that Burt's confused, but I suppose nobody's perfect.
  • Burney didn't become Second-in-Command of the Grand Fleet until August, 1915.
    • Wouldn't Warrender still have been senior until he left in December?
      • Burney was senior to Warrender. At any rate the title of Second-in-Command was more a method of delegating certain administrative functions in port. Jellicoe knew full well that if anything happened to him anyone could be appointed to succeed him in the long run (as eventually happened when Beatty was appointed in 1916).
        • Fair enough.
  • Post-War: Unless Marlborough was decommissioned then "recommissioned at Devonport" would be better.
    • Fixed per Sturm's comment above.
  • 4th and 3rd Squadrons: 4th and 3rd Battle Squadrons presumably. Seems incredible Burt got that wrong. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 10:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
    • My habit is to give a full unit name and then use a shortened form - it seems to bog down the prose if you give the full name every time, especially multiple times per paragraph. Thanks Simon. Parsecboy (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I'd suggest that that's taking author's license a bit too far, especially when for a brief period in 1912 the Royal Navy used "# Squadron" to describe Battle and Cruiser Squadrons combined. Your call, of course, but given the number of appearances one might as well be complete. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
        • That's a fair point, I think - they should all be fixed now. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


  • No dablinks; removed some duplinks.
  • Copyedited and did some reformatting of the text so let me know if any probs.
  • Structure and level of detail seem appropriate.
  • Sources look reliable and I didn't spot any formatting issues there.
  • Image licensing generally looks good although I'm wondering how we know for certain that the infobox picture is indeed UK Government given there's little info at the source site. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Hmm, that's a good point - I've replaced it with one that's demonstrably PD in the US. Thanks Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) & Hawkeye7 (talk) & Gecko G (talk)

List of United States Army campaigns during World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I think it meets all criteria. Just a list of campaigns that the U.S. Army served in, with a introduction to the U.S. army's campaigns in WWII. Found this about a week ago in a wrecked state (little more than a stub). Improved quickly, while Gecko G and Hawkeye7 helped me with formatting and prose. Passed a BL review several days ago. I hope this passes. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 21:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

SupportComment: G'day, good work. I only have a couple quick questions at this stage: AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  • in the References, the Center of Military History and Drea works appear to be missing years of publication. Would it be possible to add these in?
  • provides 1992 and 1993 as the years of publication. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • the Dandocollins work appears to be missing a place of publication. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the "blanket campaigns" could be explained a bit more in the lead; it probably wouldn't need much more than a brief clarifying sentence;
  • The American Theater doesn’t seem to get a mention in the Overview. AustralianRupert (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The Aleutians campaign seems to appear in both the Pacific and American Theater sections. Is there a reason for this? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles[edit]

  • I know very little about modern war but in view of the shortage of comments I will have a go.
  • It does not bother me but starting a list article "This is a list" is forbidden at FLC.Yes check.svg removed
  • I am showing my ignorance but I do not understand the 2nd paragraph. "In all, 46 World War II campaigns were designated:" Designated by who?Yes check.svg Done For medals?Yes check.svg Done What is a blanket campaign - one in several theatres? Could the term be linked? – Unfortunately, but no.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor,[4] and the Japanese invasion" Repetition of Japanese.Yes check.svg Done
  • "While U.S. support for China was a reason for the war," No change needed, just my ignorance - did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour in revenge for US support of China?
    • No, I'm pretty sure that they bombed Pearl Harbor because of the U.S.-imposed oil embargo and several other issues.
  • partook - my dictionary says this word is old fashioned or humourous. I suggest "took part".Yes check.svg Done
  • Images. It would be helpful to give the date photos were taken in the caption.Yes check.svg Done
  • "Stalemate; Germans conduct a fighting withdraw to the Gustav Line." I would say withdrawal.Yes check.svg Done
  • A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • No dab links (no action req'd).
    • No issues with external links (no action req'd).
    • All images have alt text (no action req'd).
    • No duplicate links (no action req'd).
    • Images are PD and appear to have the req'd info (no action req'd).
    • Captions mostly look fine, one possible issue:
      • The caption for File:117th Infantry North Carolina NG at St. Vith 1945.jpg is contradictory. Specifically "... during the Battle of the Bulge in January 1945. Taken on 31 December 1944..." How can it have been taken before the battle it depicts? (Or am I reading this incorrectly some how?)
    • The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with ref consolidation (no action req'd).
    • This sentence is a bit repetitive: "Although many campaigns were fought in Asia and the Pacific, the major focus of the U.S. Army was always on the European Theater, where most of the U.S. Army was ultimately deployed." Specifically "U.S. Army" twice in close proximity. Perhaps consider rewording? To me something like "Although many campaigns were fought in Asia and the Pacific, the major focus of the U.S. Army was always on the European Theater, where most of its strength was ultimately deployed..." might work.
    • Otherwise this looks to a very good addition to the encyclopedia to me. Will glady support once the points above are addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat)

T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. Part of my series of variants of the M3 Half-tracks. Created this article back in January. Sent it to GA last month and passed quickly. I would say this is short on coverage, but since the low amount of refs mentioning it, I'm stuck with what I have for know. Thanks for your responses for now, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 00:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments: just a couple of suggestions from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

  • "declared as substitute standard" --> do you mean "substandard"?
  • the first paragraph of the Service history section seems a bit abrupt. Perhaps it would be smoother if you discussed how it was generally employed first before providing a specific example?
  • "because of the reconstruction of infantry battalions" --> do you mean their reorganization?
  • in the Citations, should "Hoffman (2013)" be "Hoffman & Staary (2013)"?
  • in the Bibliography you mainly seem to abbreviate the states where the works were published, except for Hoffman. Please make this consistent
  • in the Bibliography Zaloga is probably overlinked
  • "limited standard" --> is it possible to clarify what this means? For instance, did it mean that only certain types of formations would receive the vehicle, or it would only be used in an emergency?
  • regarding the encounter where the vehicle was used against German tanks, is there any information that states that after this the vehicle wasn't used in this regard, or was used differently in some way? The reason I ask is it just seems to hint at this, without explicitly saying it.
  • do you know if the US leased the vehicles to the French during World War II, or after it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • No worries, thanks for your efforts. I've added my support. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Support with the following suggestions: Freikorp (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • "could penetrate 3 in (76 mm) of armor at normal ranges", perhaps mention what a normal range for this weapon is.Yes check.svg Done
  • Prose states "Around 500 were produced", though the infobox declares 500 even. Would it be more appropriate for the infobox to state "Approx 500", or something similar? Also the article later states "312 T30 HMCs were delivered in their original configuration, as the last 188 were converted back into M3 Half-tracks", bringing the total number to exactly 500, in comparison to the earlier statement of "around 500". Does your source explicitly state 312 and 188? Or have you extrapolated one of the figures based on the other?Yes check.svg Done

« Return to A-Class review list

T48 Gun Motor Carriage[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (talk)

T48 Gun Motor Carriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because... I hope it meets (most) A-class criteria. The T48 Gun Motor Carriage was a widely unknown tank destroyer produced by the U.S. on a Anglo-American requirement. It served with the Soviet Union (which accepted 650), United Kingdom (which accepted 30), and the U.S. Army (which accepted 1), with the rest (281) being converted at Chester Tank Depot.

The article underwent a GA Review earlier on this month, while after the GA review it underwent some recent copyediting. It is currently undergoing a DYK, and I hope this passes this review. Tomandjerry211 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


  • "The original design had a gun shield taken from the T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" - should "T44 57 mm Gun Motor Carriage" be red linked?
  • "Learning from experience with the M3 Gun Motor Carriage, demountable headlights were mounted to avoid deformation of the hood" - this is a bit unclear: what was this experience, and why was deformation of the hood a bad thing?
  • "but by the time they arrived" - when was this?
  • Over what period was this vehicle produced? Is it possible to provide a breakdown of when deliveries took place?
  • "while some of these brigades took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" - given that it's earlier been said that only two brigades used the type, this is unclear (were they issued to other units?) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The sentence reading "When the M3 Gun Motor Carriage was rushed into service, hoods were deformed in the Phillipines, which while it was tested after the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, was fixed with demountable headlights" is rather over-complex, and not very clear: I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some of these units took part in the Berlin and Prague offensives" is still unclear: these operations occurred pretty much simultaneously, and you've only identified two units here. Was it one brigade per campaign, or where other units equipped with these vehicles? Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I could not clarify if it was used by one of the brigades in the Berlin offensive and one in the Prague offensive, since this is what Zaloga states on p. 36:

The first of these to see combat was the 16th Separate Tank Destroyer Brigade which went into action during the Dnepr River offensive in August 1943. The 19th Brigade fought during the Baranow bridgehead battles in August 1944, and some of these units served in the Berlin and Prague offensives from April to May 1945.

  • I'm surprised that the usually very precise Zaloga wrote that; it must have slipped through Osprey's rather hit and miss editing. The problem is that it doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I might have clarified it a little bit with an addition of two sentences about another unit it was used in, although it still may not make sense. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that text unfortunately still doesn't make sense. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


  • "The American requirement was dropped later." Does your source give any indication as to why?
    • Sorry, but it does not state why it was dropped.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "It was intended solely for Lend-Lease, the T48 was never officially type-classified." Do you think that should have a ";" instead of a comma?
  • "The gun on the pilot model had a traverse of 27.5 degrees" Consider wikilinking "traverse" to Gun laying. People without a military background might not know what a traverse is.
  • "the British had already won the war in the Western Desert and the appearance of the 75 mm gun," I'm sorry, I don't understand where this 75 mm gun has come from.
  • Wikilink "Dnepr River"
    • I addressed all of the issues except the first one.--Tomandjerry211 (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading this article. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments: I had a go at copy editing. It might still need a little work, though. I have a couple of minor comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Inconsistent: In the lead “Britain retained 31…”; compare this with the body of the article which says “Britain accepted 30”
  • “The U.S. Army also accepted one…” this seems inconsistent with “The US retained 281 vehicles”
    • @AustralianRupert:This is not inconsistent, since the U.S. retained 281, but 280 were converted, while one was accepted into the U.S. Army
      • I've reworded it slightly because it wasn't really clear, IMO, what the intention was. Please check you are happy with my change. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Are there any details about what units employed the British and US examples, and where they were used? AustralianRupert (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
    • I've done a Google search and a Google books search of all of it's possible names and I couldn't find anything that tells about it's service with the U.S. or Britain.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 10:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk)

United Nations Confidence Restoration Operation in Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it was developed further following its GA review (copyedited once more by GOCE) and I think it meets A-class criteria Tomobe03 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

  • "made no explicit reference to Chapter VI or Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.": The text should explain the relevance of these chapters.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comment - a brief explanation is added now.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Changed to "would have permitted" (which is best if that's correct). Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 11:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


  • Are there more images you could add?
  • Could not find any that specific to the topic. Generic images of UN peacekeepers are available, but none of UNCRO specifically.
  • Several external links are dead or have connection issues.
  • Updated a couple of UNGENSEC reports urls, and rescued the rest from wayback machine. All urls reported fine by checklinks now.
  • Please try to use American or British English, not both (ex. centred or criticize)
    I think I got them all now to BE (except one in references, reflecting exact source wording)
  • No DAB's
  • No bad citations
  • May want to seperate ORBAT
  • Give the size of the mission info, I'd rather not - if it is not a dealbreaker here.
Thank you for the comments, cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Support: good work, this looks pretty good to me, although I am not a subject matter expert so I couldn't really check it for content etc. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • in the order of battle table, I suggest adding the year to the month as it is not clear whether it is March 1995 or March 1996 you are referring to;
  • Added
  • I found the first paragraph of the "Response to Croatian offensives" a bit awkward. I had a go at copy editing, but wasn't really able to come up with anything better, so it might need another set of eyes, sorry;
  • Had another go at ce of the paragraph - could you have a look to see if it is any better now?
  • in the References, some works have place of publisher and some don't. For instance compare O'Shea with Ramet. If possible, please make this consistent.
  • All book sources now have the location parameter.
Thanks for your comments. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Image review: where did you get the data reflected in the map? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

From Balkan Battlegrounds, Map I: National Battalions in UN Forces in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Early 1993 - I just added that info to the file description at the Commons.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley Miles

  • "South Korean diplomat Byung Suk Min was the civilian head of the mission, while the military commanders of UNCRO were Generals Raymond Crabbe and Eid Kamal Al-Rodan." The generals are red linked but not the head of mission, who seems just as deserving of an article.
    • I'm not quite sure Byung Suk Min meets WP:GNG - please correct me if I'm wrong - and therefore does not merit a standalone article. The pair of generals, on the other hand, satisfy WP:SOLDIER criteria and are (red)linked in consequence.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". I see that was the legal name at that time, but I think "Serbia and Montenegro" would be clearer for readers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think such a change could lead to confusion of casual readers who might think that the reference is made to the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro rather than the federal republic which preceded it. I am aware there is no substantial difference to most readers, but I also don't see a point in deliberate introduction of an inaccuracy when the FRY term is linked to an article explaining away any doubt. If there's a consensus of all or nearly all reviewers to change this, I'd be more willing to accept such a move, but personally I don't see it contributing to clarity.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For someone like me who is colour blind, south and west in the map look quite similar. Could one of them be changed to, say, bright red?
  • "In 1990, following the electoral defeat of the Communist regime in Croatia, ethnic tensions worsened." I assume a Croatian nationalist party won and tensions between the Croatian majority and the Serb minority then worsened, but this needs spelling out.
  • "After the elections, the Yugoslav People's Army (Jugoslovenska narodna armija, or JNA) confiscated the weapons of Croatia's Territorial Defence Force (Teritorijalna obrana, or TO) to minimise any resistance." Presumably Serb-controlled JNA and what resistance. Again needs explaining.
  • "allow negotiations by neutralizing any influence caused by fighting" - problems might be a better word than influence.
  • "disarming Croatian Serb elements of the TO, overseeing JNA and HV withdrawal from the UNPAs, and return of refugees to the area." The multiplicity of initials is confusing - is it possible to re-word?
  • This is a first rate article, but I found it difficult to follow due to the excessive use of initials, which I think is unsuitable for an article intended for general readers. I think in many cases they should not be needed - e.g Croatian and Croatian Serb forces could be referred to instead. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments. I'll see what can be done right away to cut down a number of initialisms.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)