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
review
Contest Awards Members
Instructions
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).

An article may be nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be considered for demotion (i.e. it needs a re-appraisal). In this case, please leave a message for the project coordinators, who will be happy to help.

Commenting

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.

edit

Current reviews[edit]

Please add new requests below this line

« Return to A-Class review list

Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Russian battleship Petropavlovsk (1894) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Petropavlovsk spent more time under construction than she did in service as she was sunk early in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05 after striking a mine. While her loss certainly weakened the Russian position in the Far East, the biggest impact was the death of the Russian squadron commander, the aggressive and charismatic Vice Admiral Stepan Makarov. I've thoroughly overhauled the article recently and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose and any jargon that needs linking or explaining before I send this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

SMS Braunschweig[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another one of my German battleship articles (we're nearing the end!) up for A-class review. This ship saw action in World War I at the Battle of the Gulf of Riga, but otherwise had a fairly quiet career that spanned almost 30 years (in the Imperial and Weimar navies). As always, thanks to those who review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • No DABs
  • Lots of duplicate links.
    • While you were out, the standard dupe link checker went haywire - see here for the improved tool. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Break out propulsion and power sections with appropriate links in the infobox. And tell readers that they're steam engines. And add boilers with links.
  • Hyphenate triple expansion
  • Link main battery, secondary armament, flagship
  • Need a cite for the source of the name.
  • in Helsinki, Finland and Gothenburg, Sweden commas after Finland and Sweden
  • Explain the abbreviation VAdm
  • Nothing else catches my eye on this pass.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Lawrence Weathers[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (talk)

Lawrence Weathers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Lawrence Weathers was born in New Zealand of Australian parents, and his claim to fame is that during the Battle of Mont Saint-Quentin in 1918, with some assistance, he captured 180 German troops and three machine guns, and was subsequently awarded the Victoria Cross. He was killed a few days after the actions which resulted in the award, and never knew he was to receive it. This is the first VC I've brought to ACR, hoping it is up to the required standard. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Support: nice article, Peacemaker. Interestingly (or not), I have lived on a street/place named for this soldier. Anyway, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • the only image in the article appears to be appropriately licenced to me
  • "a son" or "the son"? Do we know if there were any siblings?
  • I went with "a son" as there was at least one elder one, who died at Gallipoli. No idea how many other siblings there were.
  • Too easy, missed that somehow, sorry. Regards ,AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "...who suffering a gunshot wound to the leg on 10 June." --> "...who suffered..."
  • Fixed.
  • suggest spliting the paragraph after "he did not return to his unit until early December"
  • Done.
  • "During that battle, the battalion suffered 97 casualties": I wonder if the 43rd's role could be expanded here. From memory (it has been awhile since I wrote the Battle of Hamel article), it was assigned the role of capturing the village itself, which was the main objective of the attack. You wouldn't need to add too much more, but maybe expand the existing sentence just a little
  • Done.
  • suggest maybe splitting the paragraph after "Lance Corporal J. J. Weathers"
  • Done.
  • it might be worth noting that the Battle of St Quentin Canal was one of the last ground actions fought by the Australians of the war (the final stage of the battle around Montbrehain on 5 October was the last, I believe)
  • Done.
  • "NAA: B2455, WEATHERS LAWRENCE CARTHAGE" --> ""NAA: B2455, Weathers Lawrence Carthage" per MOS:ALLCAPS
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done.

Thanks for taking a look, Rupert! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the uncle's full name was John Joseph (although the AWM lists him as Wethers): [1]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I did have a look, but I didn't go there, as it might be considered OR to determine who it was. If true, that would be weird, as John Joseph was Lawrence's father's name. Two sons with the same name is bizarre. Maybe someone stuffed the detail up at ADB? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No worries. Actually, I wonder if the similarities in names was just co-incidental and that "uncle" was just a battalion joke that might have been conflated over time. Based on the Roll of Honour, John Joseph Wethers is the only name that makes sense for soldiers killed that day from the same battalion: [2]. His service record can be found here and it indicates that the name is spelt correctly on the AWM: [3]. Anyway, that is all conjecture and OR. I guess it will just remain one of those minor mysteries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

HMS Vanguard (1909)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

HMS Vanguard (1909) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Other than becoming the only British dreadnought lost during World War I to non-combat causes (her magazines exploded in 1917), Vanguard had a typical career for a WWI-era British dreadnought. A few shells fired at the Battle of Jutland mid-way through the war and that was all the combat she experienced. Aside from a few other unsuccessful attempts to intercept German ships, her war consisted of monotonous training in the North Sea. I've addressed all of the points raised by the earlier reviewers and incorporated the points made by the last couple of FACs for this generation of battleships and believe that it meets the A-class criteria. Also updated it to incorporate the centenary of her loss. As usual, I'm looking for infelicitous prose, AmEnglish usage and any jargon that needs linking or explaining before I send this to FAC.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Civil Service Rifles War Memorial (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Tucked away in a quiet corner on London's Victoria Embankment, we have the Civil Service Rifles War Memorial, a relatively modest tribute to a small and unique regiment from the First World War. The main historical interest here is not the architect (as with many of my previous nominations) but the record of a now largely forgotten regiment. It's not a long article because a relatively obscure regiment and a lack of any great controversy don't leave a great deal to write about, but I feel it's comprehensiveness. As ever, all feedback is very much appreciated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments From looking at my photos of London in 2015 it turns out that I actually saw this memorial (while visiting the excellent art gallery at Somerset House) - I had no idea it was by Lutyens. I've just uploaded one of my photos to Commons, though the memorial is already well illustrated - my attempt at a front view photo turned out less well than yours but an extra three quarter view might be helpful. Preliminary rambling aside, here are my comments:

  • The article discusses the Civil Service Rifles, but not the Cadet Battalion which the memorial's inscription makes specific reference to - can the Cadet Battalion's role be described? (was this the regiment's depot?)
    • I have no idea to be honest. I can't find any description of the cadet battalion, even in the ~240-page book dedicated to the CSR.
  • "Both battalions were disbanded after the war, having lost 1,240 officers and men killed" - this might be a bit pedantic, but can the casualty figure given on the memorial be cross-checked against other references? It's not unusual for the figures given on memorials to differ from those later calculated by historians. It might also be helpful to note how many men served in the regiment to provide context for the figure, if this is available.
    • Knight has an appendix covering attrition rates, including casualties, which I've now cited. It's a tricky issue, though, because of the regiment's recruiting base, many of its men were promptly commissioned and transferred elsewhere. I've also added the estimate of the total men who served in the CSR overseas, also from Knight.
  • "it was funded by donations, the regiment's funds, and also from the sales of a regimental history" - this was mentioned in an earlier section
    • Removed.
  • "By the time of the unveiling, the Civil Service Rifles had been reduced in size to two companies and amalgamated into the Queen's Westminster Rifles" - this is also mentioned in the previous para
    • I've combined the two paragraphs.
  • "In the early 1980s, much of the Civil Service was based elsewhere" - seems an under-statement given the size of the Civil Service: I imagine that it was also the case in 1914 (though as an aside, Roger Knight's excellent book Britain Against Napoleon: The Organisation of Victory states that virtually the entire British Civil Service was located in Somerset House during the Napoleonic Wars). Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • It was obviously a much larger organisation by 1914, but much of it was sill based at Somerset House, and many of the offices based there were relocated from the 1980s onwards. Thanks very much for looking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: There is a little more on this memorial in Philip Ward-Jackson's Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster (further details in this bibliography) – for instance, it was originally to have been designed by Herbert Baker and the Office of Works initially objected to its being situated in the centre of the quadrangle of Somerset House. If it's OK with you I could add incorporate all the important points in Ward-Jackson to the article next week. Ham II (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ham II: That's interesting. I struggled with sources for this article—it's barely mentioned in most of the books I have on war memorials, architecture, and Lutyens—so anything you've got would be appreciated. I've ordered a copy of that book because I have two other Lutyens memorials to do in Westminster but if you get chance to make the additions before my copy arrives please feel free. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Just a few nitpicky observations on prose...

  • Lede: I read "stone flags", then looked at the picture and thought that they're obviously not stone. Maybe it should read "painted stone flags"?
    • Done.
  • Background, 1st para, Lutyens established his reputation designing country houses for wealthy clients but the war had a profound effect on him.... Needs a comma after "clients"?
    • I'm sure I was taught not to put a comma before a "but"; not something I'd go to the wall over but I don't think it's necessary.
  • ...for the Cenotaph on Whitehall.... "at" Whiteall?
    • Whitehall is a street, so "on" seems more appropriate.
  • 3rd para, ...came under the command of the 140th (4th London) Brigade, under the 47th (London) Division. "under...under"?
    • Fixed.
  • Is it worth linking Salonika and Palestine?
    • Done.
  • History, 2nd para, Queen's Westminster Rifles is a redirect.
    • I'm aware, but I don't think it's immediately clear to the uninitiated that "Queen's Westminsters" refers to an army unit.
  • 3rd para, ...The Royal Green Jackets (the regiment resulting.... There's no explicit link between the Civil Service Rifles and the Royal Green Jackets. Maybe something along the lines of "...the successor regiment...", or anything to make clear that there is some lineage between the two?
    • I thought the parenthetical note was doing that, but I can add the word "successor" if that makes it clearer.
  • More for my own benefit really, but you picked up on my quote of the Fifth Gloucester Gazette as requiring a ref, and it looks to me that you put some things in quotes that are not ref'ed: in the 1st para of the Background section about "leading English architect of his generation" and in the final para of the article relating to listed buildings. Should they be ref'ed?
    • Probably. End of the sentence is probably sufficient, but certainly the reference was too far away for the "leading architect" quote.

I see no other issues. Nice article. FactotEm (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Bougainville counterattack[edit]

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

Bougainville counterattack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Launched in March 1944, the Bougainville counterattack was a large-scale assault by Japanese forces on the US lodgement that had been established around Cape Torokina on Bougainville. Aimed at destroying the Allied base, the attack was hampered by poor intelligence and a failure to concentrate forces in sufficient numbers to achieve break in. The Japanese attackers ultimately suffered heavy casualties before the counterattack was called off. Afterwards, the fighting on Bougainville largely petered out until the arrival of Australian forces in late 1944. The article is the result of a collaboration between Nick and myself, and was partially developed by Nick in draft space in 2012, before being expanded by both of us and moved to article space in 2016. It went through GA in September last year and is presented here now for further development and review. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps and providing a legend in the caption for the first. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Brilliant Pebbles[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk)

Brilliant Pebbles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Brilliant Pebbles was the "crowning achievement" of SDI, although given that it was cancelled shortly after getting that crown, that might not be saying much. This isn't ready for FAC because there's some loose ends I'd like to get in there - better weights and budget numbers, and more on Teller's attack on Smart Rocks - but it seems up for A in the meantime. One question: the "description" section is based on the images in the body. How do I cite those? Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: G'day, Maury, haven't had a full look through the article, yet, but have been looking into your question above about the description section. I think the way around it depends on where the images are sourced from. If they come from a book, the sfn template allows you to use a "loc" instead of a page number, e.g. {{sfn|Smith|2017|loc=Image p. 8}}. If they come from a website, potentially you could just use the cite web template to cite the page the image came from, using the "|format=" or "type=" parameters to clarify the source is the image, or using the "|at=" parameter to specify the in-source location. Thoughts? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Ltg_graham.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Brilliant_Pebbles_presentation.png FUR should be more complete. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • A lot to digest here. So this pass is only what struck my eye.
  • What are Brilliant Eyes?
  • And GSTS?
  • The link for Black Brant goes to the bird, not the rocket.
  • Watch for overlinking, I saw multiple ones for Wallops Island for one.
  • Be consistent in formatting your bibliography. Magazines should have ISSN and books ISBNs, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

Will come soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Supermarine Spitfire[edit]

Nominator(s): FriyMan (talk)

Supermarine Spitfire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because this page is in a very good shape and I have been editing it over a course of four months or more and it is in a very good shape right now. Supermarine Spitfire is an important fighter for WW2 and I intend to bring it to Featured class. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 13:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Comments from FactotEm (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

General

  • Quite a lot of overlinking throughout. For example, Rolls-Royce Goshawk, Rolls-Royce Merlin (piped as PV-XII), Duralumin, Longerons (piped as longitudinal stringers), and so on. User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is your friend here. -  Done

Criteria A1

  • Many cases throughout of uncited paragraphs and sentences at the end of paragraphs, for example, the 1st para in section "Manufacturing at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham" and the last sentence in the 3rd para of the same section. -  Done with the examples.

Criteria A4 I've made a few copy-edits myself, which you are of course free to challenge, but I suspect the article will need a better copy-editor than I before you take it to FAC. Some points here...

  • In the lead, ...about 54 remain airworthy, while many more.... "While" is generally deprecated as an additive link. Better to use "and".
  • Section "Origins", 1st sentence, beginning R. J. Mitchell's 1931 design to meet Air Ministry specification F7/30... has a number of problems resulting in awkward and ambiguous prose. We get half-way through before we find out the subject - the Type 224 - and ...large fixed, spatted undercarriage powered by the 600 horsepower (450 kW) evaporatively cooled Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine is not conveying what I suspect you intended due to some missing commas. I would suggest something along the lines of "The Supermarine Type 224 was designed in 1931 by R. J. Mitchell in response to the Air Ministry specification F7/30 for a new and modern fighter capable of 250 mph (400 km/h). It was an open-cockpit monoplane with bulky gull-wings, a large, spatted, fixed undercarriage and a 600 horsepower (450 kW), evaporatively cooled Rolls-Royce Goshawk engine."
  • Same section, 3rd para, ...construction of Mitchell's improved F7/30 design F7/30 was the Air Ministry specification, not Mitchell's design. Don't you mean Type 300 design here?
  • Section "Initial Production", ...did not roll off the Woolston, Southampton assembly line... needs a comma after Southampton, though as Woolston is linked I'm not sure you need to specify Southampton at all.
  • Same section, 2nd para, repeats a lot of information already presented in the 1st para.
  • Same section, 3rd para, Production aircraft cost about £9,500. Think you need "each" at the end.
  • Section "Manufacturing at Castle Bromwich, Birmingham", 1st para, Austin was given the task of building nine new factories, and to supplement the existing British car manufacturing industry... The first comma leads the reader to expect a different sentence construction than actually appears. Maybe better written along the lines of "Austin was tasked with building nine new factories and supplementing the existing..."?
  • Same section, 2nd para, ...the Air Ministry bought a site consisting of farm fields and a sewage works... Do we need to know the site's original usage? In fact, there's all sorts of problems with this para. I'll copy edit it and when done note it immediately below. You can then see what you think, and revert if you don't agree.
    I've rewritten it now. How does it look to you? I took a bit of a punt on the beginning of construction of the CBAF - the original said only that the site was purchased - so maybe you need to check the sources to confirm that construction did actually begin in 1938. FactotEm (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In section "Production Dispersal", the list is introduced with the statement Four towns... but has 5 bullet points. The last two items end with a full-stop, the first three don't. I believe the correct syntax is to end each line with a semi-colon, except for the last which should end with a full-stop.I think it would be clearer if you wrote the list as <airport(s)> at town. Saying, for example, "Southampton and Eastleigh Airport" reads like there are two airports, one at Southampton and another at Eastleigh, and using "with" as an additive link is also a stylistic no-no, apparently.
  • Section "Airframe", 1st para, The French Dewoitine D.520[49] and Germany's Messerschmitt Bf 109... mixes the adjective "French" and the possessive "Germany's", which my nitpicky eye finds slightly inelegant. Equally nitpicky are the lack of comma between "new" and "high-powered" and the use of "and" instead of the more correct comma between "low drag" and "all-metal" - in fact, that clause should really end with "fully enclosed cockpits and low-drag, all-metal wings..."
  • Same section, 2nd para, bomber interceptor and fighter aircraft... is confusing. I think you mean an aircraft that intercepts bombers, and a fighter aircraft, but is there a need to distinguish? Wouldn't "fighter aircraft" be enough?
  • Same section, 3rd para, ...fuselage featured a large number of compound curves built up from a skeleton of 19 formers, also known as frames... but later The U-shaped frame 20 was the last frame of the fuselage proper...???
  • Same section, 5th para. With the exception of the wing forward of the main spar, was standard dome-headed riveting used throughout, or were there three types of riveting used? It's not clear from the way the sentence is written.
  • Section "Elliptical wing design", 5th para, The trailing edge of the wing twisted slightly..., but in the 1st para An elliptical planform is the most efficient aerodynamic shape for an untwisted wing...??? Also, washout is a redirect. The correct page is Washout (aeronautics).
  • Same section, 7th para. More of a heads-up than anything else, but the {{convert}} template isn't used for the wing measurements. The syntax {{convert|36|ft|10|in|m|abbr=on}} will get you 36 ft 10 in (11.23 m)

That's all for now, I'll be back with more later/tomorrow/some time this week FactotEm (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, thanks for working on this very important article. I have the following suggestions (I mainly just looked at the referencing): AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • this needs a citation: the paragraph ending "...potential for reorganisation to produce aircraft and their engines."
  • this needs a citation: "CBAF went on to become the largest and most successful plant of its type during the 1939–45 conflict. As the largest Spitfire factory in the UK, by producing a maximum of 320 aircraft per month, it built over half of the approximately 20,000 aircraft of this type."
  • this needs a citation: "To this end, the British government requisitioned the likes of Vincent's Garage in Station Square Reading, which later specialised in manufacturing Spitfire fuselages, and Anna Valley Motors, Salisbury, which was to become the sole producer of the wing leading-edge fuel tanks for photo-reconnaissance Spitfires, as well as producing other components."
  • this needs a citation: "If one cannon seized, the recoil of the other threw the aircraft off aim. Nevertheless, 30 more cannon-armed Spitfires were ordered for operational trials, and they were soon known as the Mk IB, to distinguish them from the Browning-armed Mk IA, and were delivered to No. 19 Squadron beginning in June 1940."
  • this needs a citation: the paragraph ending "...provide an almost continual flow of valuable intelligence information throughout the war."
  • this needs a citation: "To counter the Zero, Spitfire pilots had to adopt a "slash and run" policy and use their superior speed and diving superiority to fight while avoiding classic dogfights."
  • this needs a citation: the paragaph ending "...fully feathering Rotol propeller was fitted to prevent overspeeding."
  • this needs a citation: "After hostilities ceased in Asia in 1945, a number of Spitfire Mk.XIVs were reportedly buried, after being greased, tarred and prepared for long-term storage, in crates in Burma."
  • there is some inconsistency in whether emdashes or endashes are used for parenthetical statements, e.g. compare "included "Johnnie" Johnson—34 enemy aircraft (e/a) shot down[101]—who flew" with "...tanks of various sizes[64] – a feature patented by Vickers-Supermarine in 1938"
  • a number of the entries in the Memorials section are also uncited
  • same as above for the Notable appearances in media section
  • this needs a citation: "Several small manufacturers have produced replica Spitfires, either as complete aircraft, or as kits for self-building. These range in scale from ¾ full scale to full-size, although most use wooden construction, rather than the original all-metal monocoque design."
  • this needs a citation: "The Isaacs Spitfire is a homebuilt 60% scale replica."
  • in Note 2, suggest turning "See Spitfire: A Complete Fighting History, 1991, p. 165-166" into an inline citation in the same way as Note 1
  • watch out for double full stops in your citations (for instance Citation 24, 41, 70, 87, 152, 153, 155
  • Citation 126 (Ted Powles) should have more bibliographic details such as author, publisher, accessdate etc
  • some of the citations use clickable refs and some don't (e.g. Citation 149 "Green 2007, p. 91" v. Citation 150 "McKinstry 2007, pp. 379–80". Either style is fine, but for A-class the style should be consistent

Comments:

  • The last para in Origins needs to be broken up somehow. I didn't try because it had too many cites and I was sure I would screw it up.
  • Initial production has significant amounts of duplicated text about the Walrus and Wellington. I assume this is editing cruft but again I didn't know how to fix it. The second duplication seems more detailed and seems like the one too keep.
  • "for a price of £1,395,000" - I think that means "for all 310"?
  • "In 1935, the Air Ministry approached" - no cite.
  • "original estimated cost of £2,000,000 " - what orginal estimate? the only estimate mentioned to date is the 1.7
  • "Although Morris Motors," ... "it was funded by government money. " - why "although"?
  • "their Cowley plant could" - this didn't seem to actually happen, but it's not clear
  • "by the Luftwaffe to destroy the main manufacturing plants at Woolston and Itchen" - wasn't Castle Bromwich the main one? It just said so a few lines earlier. It seems there is a bit missing in the earlier section about the setting up of the initial production outside Woolston. Generally, in the spring of 1940, was it just those three plants producing spits?
  • "would avoid possible aileron reversal, stopping pilots throwing the aircraft around and pulling the wings off" - these are two separate statements. Either there is an "and" missing where the comma is, or they are not related. I personally find it difficult to believe they were worried about aileron reversal at this point, given that it didn't show up for some time.
  • "Flight tests showed the fabric covering" - this bothers me too, it seems to be suggesting that they had planned for the ballooning to occur to make the controls stiff, but that is definitely not the case.
  • "The airflow through the main radiator" - move up under other part about the radiator.
  • "developed by National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics" - the Spiteful article states these were developed by "A D Young of the R.A.E". Which is it?
  • There's also a number of overlong paragraphs, but we'll look at them later.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

German destroyer Z32[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

German destroyer Z32 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a good article, and part of a series I'm working on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

German destroyer Z31[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

German destroyer Z31 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a good article, and part of a series I'm working on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

German destroyer Z51[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

German destroyer Z51 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a good article, and part of a series I'm working on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Type 1934-class destroyer[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Type 1934-class destroyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a good article, and part of a series of articles that I am working on. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

List of jet aircraft of World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): The Bushranger (talk)

List of jet aircraft of World War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...having finally gotten in the mood to go and thrash at it after several years of having it prominently displayed as 'I'm gonna do this', I've completely revamped the article. As I've used several FL-ranked lists as a basis for its formatting, style, and referencing level, I believe there's enough here to take a stab at the slings and arrows of outrageous reviews with this one. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:10, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • No images for the last three aircraft?
    • Unfortunatly no. The only free images of I-153s and Yak-7s are of the wrong variants, while there aren't any of the Su-5 at all. The photos that do exist may be PD by this point, but that's a minefield I prefer to let others explore. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Messerschmitt_Me_262_050606-F-1234P-055.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:XFD-1_NAN8-46.jpg
    • Me 262:  Done The USAF Museum has shuffled the deck with their URLs multiple times over the years. That's a widely-known USAF photo, however to simplify things I've changed to another known-PD photograph. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
    • XFD-1:  Done I updated the URL, but I also found a superior photo to use and changed to it. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Bell_YP-59A_in_flight_060913-F-1234P-008.jpg: permission listed doesn't match tag, and possible to provide a more specific source?
    •  Done It looked like somebody grabbed all of the Air Force site photos of P-59s and slapped them with generic PD tags, ugh. I wasn't able to find that exact one, but I did find another I could properly source. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Reichenberg_Pilot_2.jpg: source link is dead, and do we have a source to support the tag used?
    • Unfortunatly my V-1 book has gone adrift, but this is a widely-published photo of a Reichenberg that was captured by the US Army. I'll see if I can dig up the book to cite its photo credit. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Fixed I tracked down the original photo source (U.S. Navy Technical Mission-Europe, as sourced by Osprey's V-1 Flying Bomb 1942-52) and tagged accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Caproni_foto.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
    • Fixed I added what I believe to be the appropriate US PD tag, as it was taken in 1940-1941 and was being used to illustrate the aircraft at least as far back as the 1950s. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Ohain_USAF_He_178_page61.jpg: source link is dead, and why does that tag apply?
  • Fixed I tracked down the original USAF publication in the Internet Archive, as it doesn't appear to be on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base's site anymore (see also earlier comment about the USAF reguarly shuffling their URLs because they can). While the original page of the document on which the image was published isn't archived, the list of illustrations is, and an old version of the image confirms this was the same image. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Horten_H.IX_V1.jpg: is a more specific source available?
    • Not that I'm easily able to track down, beyond recognising this as one of the 'grabbed after the war by the Army and wound up in the archives' pictures. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Junkers_Ju-287_V1_side_view.jpg: what source was used to create this image? Same with File:Messerschmitt_Me_328_V1.jpg, File:MiG-13_I-250_3-view_drawing.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The image the Ju 287 was cropped from was stated to be own work, and the Me 328 was also stated to be own work. The latter, at least, I don't recall ever seeing anywhere else. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Yep - to clarify, this is a verifiability question rather than a licensing one. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Image comment: Somebody pointed out that the Aviation WikiProject's style guide for lists explicitly says 'do not use pictures' and removed them. I'm not so sure about the validity of not having them, but it does clear up any image concerns...! - The Bushranger One ping only 22:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Have to agree with Sturm here, you'll need to add short paras of context for each for it to pass. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • I'm really only familiar with ship lists, but the format there is to have one or two short paragraphs on each class of ships with an emphasis on decription and background rather than operational service. I'd recommend that you look over the current FLC candidates to see if they're following that format, which I find much more informative than a simple list like you've got here.
    • I looked at those, but apparently the majority of aircraft-themed lists use a much simpler format, for better or for worse - List of Indian naval air squadrons was a primary influence there. I may see about adding to the "Notes" field a little for each, though.
      • I knew that there weren't many aviation lists at FLC to use as a model, but I will note that the Indian naval air squadron list has a lot more detail in the lede than does your list. It works for that list, but I'm not sure how well it would work for yours. Again, I strongly recommend that rework the list to add short paras discussing each aircraft.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I'll try to get on that this week, if I can wrench my muse away from Obscure Drones and Missiles. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Follow MOS:APPENDIX by changing all of your various headings to level 2 headers.
    •  Done This one sticks in my craw because to me it looks far worse, but I for one welcome our new mobile device overlords...
      • It's actually an accessibility issue for those vision-impaired readers who need a screen reader; they can't interpret the semi-colon in front of the heading name properly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ensure that all of your bibliography follows the same exact format. Some have states in the same places of publication (Annapolis vs Annapolis, MD) and some lack the year entirely. Be sure that each book does not have a page number; those should be used for the cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    •  Done Bah, I knew I was missing something in cleaning up what was there when I started this. They should all be consistent now, with only the differences in display between {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} in date looking different. Also IIRC some locations- i.e. "New York", "Chicago", "London" and such - are supposed to not have a state/country added? - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, national capitals/world-class cities are presumed not to need state or country identifiers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

British logistics in the Falklands War[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk)

British logistics in the Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article has been around for a long time, but I expanded it last week. I believe that it now meets our criteria for A class. The Falklands War was unusual in that it was a full-scale conventional war in the late 20th century that was fought between two regional powers thousands of miles apart. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Comments mainly related to criteria A4

General

  • On unit symbols, does MOS:UNITSYMBOLS apply to weaponry? I've only ever seen 105mm, 81mm etc etc in the sources, and 105 mm just looks odd.
    @WP:MILHIST coordinators: There's nothing in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    The expectation I've always come across (in ACRs and FACs over the last 8 or 9 years) is that articles will follow Wiki's MoS, regardless of what specialty sources use. There should generally be a good reason to not follow the MoS, and the argument that sources follow a different style is not a good one. Parsecboy (talk) 21:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    Concur with Parsecboy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
    My misunderstanding. I didn't appreciate the distinction between ammunition, which is what is referred to in this article, and weaponry. FactotEm (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Background

1st para

  • The British government had already taken some action. On 29 March, the submarine HMS Spartan was ordered to sail for the South Atlantic. Reads like there is a link between the Argentine invasion and Spartan's departure on 29 March, but next para says that intel of the invasion was first received on 31 March.
    YesY There had been rising tensions since Argentine scrap metal merchants raised the Argentine flag at South Georgia Island on 19 March. Added a sentence to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Last sentence, The tanker RFA Appleleaf...[joined] Endurance and Appleleaf???
    YesY Should be Fort Austin Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd para

  • The Commander-in-Chief Fleet, Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, was placed in command of Task Force 317, with overall responsibility for the operation, codenamed Operation Corporate, was based at Northwood Headquarters. Too many commas and two "was" statements. Maybe better written as something like: "Admiral Sir John Fieldhouse, Commander-in-Chief Fleet at Northwood Headquarters, commanded Task Force 317 with overall responsibility for the operation, which was codenamed Operation Corporate."
  • Are "Air Component" and "Land Component" proper nouns? If not, they should not be capitalised. "Commander" after "Land Component" should certainly not be capitalised.
    YesY De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Do we need to know that Commodore Michael Clapp was "Commodore (Amphibious Warfare) (COMAW)"? Adding his position makes that clause very confusing, and positions aren't given for Curtiss, Moore, or Woodward.
    YesY Fair enough. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Maybe make ...and Brigadier Julian Thompson's 3rd Commando Brigade formed the landing force (TG 317.1). a separate sentence. All previous clauses detail appointments, while this last clause includes some detail of the force as well (3rd Commando Brigade). Alternatively maybe just state "...and Brigadier Julian commanded the landing component (TG 317.1)."
    YesY Done, but I now have to mention the 3rd Commando Brigade below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Amphibious

1st para

  • RFA Sir Tristram was in Belize, but could meet up with the fleet on its way south; but RFA Sir Bedivere was in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and would not be immediately available. I think ""RFA Sir Tristram was in Belize, and could meet up..." would read better, considering there is another "but" shortly after.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

2nd para

  • ...or to carry passengers who had already booked voyages. Might be better as "...or to meet their existing booking obligations" or similar. When you later say that ships were allowed to be requisitioned along with anything on board I had visions of OAPs on SAGA cruises suddenly being diverted to the South Atlantic.
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ...a practice known to have been used by King Richard I in 1189 for the Third Crusade... Is this necessary? I think the unusual nature of the situation is just as well conveyed simply by saying "a practice last exercised during the Suez Crisis in 1956."
  •  Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

3rd para

  • During the Falklands War they carried 100,000 long tons (100,000 t) tons of freight, 95 aircraft, 9,000 personnel, and 400,000 long tons (410,000 t) of fuel. "transported" instead of "carried" might be more accurate?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

4th para

  • The choice was quickly narrowed to P&O's 44,807-gross-register-ton (126,880 m3) SS Canberra. It's not a choice if there's only one option.
    YesY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Conversions

2nd para

  • The conversion of Atlantic Conveyor at Devonport required the removal of 500 tie down points for containers from her deck; adding a landing pad for helicopters and Hawker Siddeley Harriers; installing UHF radio equipment and satellite communications; adding accommodation for 122 men; installing a liquid oxygen tank; cutting additional hatches; and modifying the stern doors. Any reason for the semi-colons? Wouldn't commas do the job just as well?
    YesY Replaced semicolons with commas
  • Some 17 ships were fitted with helicopter landing pads. On Canberra and Queen Elizabeth 2, the area around the swimming pool was used, as it had been designed to hold the weight of 70 to 100 long tons (71 to 102 t) of water. This could use a semi-colon instead of a period after "landing pads" IF you're saying that the pool on Canberra and QE2 was converted to landing pads. If not, then the 2nd sentence doesn't make clear what the pool areas were used for.
 Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Ascension

2nd para

  • This rapidly declined to 700,000 US gallons (2,600,000 l) on 19 April, and then 12,000 US gallons (45,000 l) on 25 April when a supply tanker with 2.4 million US gallons (9,100,000 l) commenced replenishment. Not clear what exactly rapidly declined here. I think you actually mean that of the 950,000 they let the Brits have, 250,000 was used by 19 April, and a week later only 12,000 gallons of the original 950,000 was left, but the way it's written suggests that the Americans reduced the amount of fuel they were prepared to let the Brits have.
    YesY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

3rd Para

  • This far exceeded the capacity of the island's water supply, and McQueen instituted draconian measures to limit numbers. Did he restrict the numbers of people allowed on Ascension? The logical measure would be to limit water consumption.
    YesY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

4th Para

  • Not intended for long cruises, Canberra's endurance was 27 days at 18.5 knots (34.3 km/h; 21.3 mph). This sentence seems to be just dropped in there, and does not seem to have any relevance to the rest of the para.
    YesY Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Over the beach

3rd para

  • You introduce "Red Beach" without further explanation until 2 paras later. Maybe better to just say "in the beachhead", as that is introduced earlier in the para.
  • {done}} Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

7th para

  • Commander Rick Jolly brought the Headquarters of the Medical Squadron of the Commando Logistics Regiment and No. 2 Surgical Support Team ashore from Canberra, No. 1 Medical Troop from Sir Galahad, and the Parachute Clearing Troop from Norland. Difficult sentence. Maybe split it up? Certainly the first part might be better written "Commander Rick Jolly brought the Medical Squadron Headquarters of the Commando Logistics Regiment..." to eliminate of..of.
    YesY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

8th para

  • The Harriers of No. 1 Squadron RAF had already been transferred to Hermes,[102] One Wessex of 848 Naval Air Squadron had already flown ashore, and a Chinook of No. 18 Squadron RAF was in the air at the time; but three Chinook and six Wessex helicopters were lost. I think you could usefully link this to the preceding narrative by beginning the sentence "Of its cargo, the Harriers..."
    YesY Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The lone surviving Chinook... Makes it sound like the Chinook was saved from the Atlantic Conveyor, but you already stated that nothing could be salvaged. Maybe better to say "The task force's only remaining Chinook..." or similar?
    It already says that one Chinook was in the air. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ...and went on to serve in the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan. Interesting, but is it relevant? Maybe this info is better as a note in the cite?
    YesY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Over the mountains

1st para

  • ... for there were no relief crews for the landing craft or helicopters. The use of "for" to mean "because" stood out to me as a bit ye olde English. I don't think it's a problem in itself, except that there's another "for" soon after, so maybe "due to no relief crews being available for the landing craft..." is better?
  • Nor could the helicopters operate at night. Four Sea Kings had night vision equipment, but these were reserved for night operations. To allow the crews to rest, and necessary aircraft maintenance to be performed, they were not employed during the day. All wrong. The second sentence is nonsensical, and contradicts the first. Maybe better written: "Only four helicopters were equipped with night vision equipment and could operate at night, and for reasons of crew rest and maintenance these were not allowed to operate during the day." or similar.
    YesY Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • ...which left six Sea Kings and five Wessex helicopters available for logistical and tactical missions. What about the Chinook mentioned in the previous para?
    YesY A Chinook is not a Sea King or a Wessex. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

5th para

  • The manoeuvre was repeated, successfully, the following night. Technically, the manoeuvre of the previous night was (I assume) take off - can't get through because of the blizzard - turn back, so that wouldn't have been what transpired the following night. Maybe "A second attempt the following night succeeded."?
     Done Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

6th para

  • "EFHE" is mentioned with no prior explanation of what it is.
    YesY Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

That's all for now. Hope this helps. FactotEm (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. I feared that there would be few reviewers for an article on such an obscure conflict. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional comment on A4

  • Section "Over the mountains", 9th para, 1st sentence Brigadier Tony Wilson's 5th Infantry Brigade reached Cumberland Bay off South Georgia Island on Queen Elizabeth 2 on 27 May. There's a bit of a geographic leap in the narrative here, and it took me a while to figure out that 5th Brigade was being shipped to the Falklands via South Georgia Island. Maybe needs clarifying a little? Similarly, the sentence The first ship to arrive at San Carlos was Atlantic Causeway... appears later in that para, long after the arrival of other ships at the Falklands is described. Maybe worth clarifying along the lines of "The first ship transporting 5th Brigade..." or similar?
    Added a sentence clarifying this, and moved the sentence about arriving at San Carlos. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Questions relating to criteria A2

  • The article ends quite suddenly. Do the logistics of running down the installations on Ascension and the Falklands, and returning troops and equipment back to the UK also have a place in this article?
    YesY Added a section on logistics in the immediate aftermath of the war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    These were held for intelligence gathering, and to encourage Argentina to surrender, but it has been stated already that the Argentines had surrendered. FactotEm (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    YesY The Argentine Forces in the Falkland Islands had surrendered. Hostilities continued. There was still one more combat operation, the reoccupation of the South Sandwich Islands. Tweaked the wording to make this a bit clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Information about the logistical problem is spread throughout the article. Is it possible or worthwhile to add a section summarising the various figures in one place? Maybe a section at the beginning describing the size/components of the task force's fighting element, the supplies necessary to support that force, and the shipping necessary to transport it all, or at the end summarising the actual figures? FactotEm (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

Will get to soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • " According to Admiral Sandy Woodward, who commanded the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier group during the Falklands War, the British Army, Royal Air Force, the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence, as well as the United States Navy, all "initially suspected the whole operation was doomed."" What is the context of this quote? Is he saying that they all had, in their official projections, Britain failing to retake the islands, or else is he stating that this was the attitude, or unspoken opinion, of these groups?
    What he wrote was:
    "It should be recalled that there were several highly competent organizations which initially suspected the whole operation was doomed. In no particular order they were:
    (a) the United States Navy, which considered the recapture of the Falkland Islands to be a military impossibility;
    (b) the Ministry of Defence in Whitehall, which generally regarded the whole idea as too risky;
    (c) the Army, which considered it to be ill-advised, for lack of a "proper" advantage ratio in land force numbers;
    (d) the Royal Air Force, which seeing little role for themselves on account of the vast distances, and no chance of a navy surviving in the face of an air force, was inclined to agree;
    (e) the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr (now Sir) John Nott, since success would probably overturn the 1981 Defence Review."
    In my re-write of the article, the original article became the lead. (I often do this.) I vacillated over leaving this in, because the connection to logistics is not explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "In some cases the owners preferred requisitioning, as it allowed them to break existing contracts." Is it known if any actually requested requisitioning, or is this just that some merely later stated they are glad that it was such?
    YesY. The source notes that some companies demanded requisitioning. P&O is the specifically mentioned in this context in the source, so I have added this to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Fuel was a critical requirement of the task force, and for political reasons could not be obtained from South America or South Africa." Why? To me, this hints at either England being embarrassed at needing others help in this task, or else other countries supporting Argentina in their invasion, thus refusing to give fuel to England. Is either true?
    YesY The second is true. Added "Countries in South America, even if sympathetic, felt unable to offer overt support in a conflict involving a neighbouring state, while South Africa was an international pariah at the time due to its system of apartheid, and collaboration with its regime risked alienating other countries at a time when Britain needed all the support it could muster for its international diplomatic efforts." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Ships were not combat loaded." May wish to explain what this means, but it isn't critical.
    YesY There is a whole article on the subject. Added "loaded in such a way that the weapons, ammunition, equipment and stores that the embarked troops would require on landing were immediately accessible." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Avro Vulcan bomber over Ascension Island on 18 May 1982 (Image caption)" May wish to add [an] in front of Avro Vulcan.
    YesY Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Stores were difficult to identify, as many were poorly labelled. This made it difficult to distinguish real ammunition from training ammunition." May wish to change to:
    "Stores were difficult to identify, as many were poorly labelled, making it difficult to distinguish real ammunition from training ammunition."
    YesY done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Five of the seven escorts were hit, HMS Ardent fatally." You may wish to make a listing of the seven escorts, even if it is not known which of the five were hit (other than HMS Ardent, obviously). (You may already have this, and I have just missed it, but I haven't been able to find it.)
    YesY Sure I can. I just thought it might have been a bit of a roll call. Changed to: "Of the seven escorts, five, HMS Antrim, Ardent, Argonaut, Brilliant and Broadsword, were hit; only HMS Plymouth and Yarmouth were unscathed. Of those hit, only Broadsword was fully capable of continuing the fight, and Ardent was ablaze and sinking."
  • That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review! Note that I am going away tomorrow, and will not have access to my books to answer questions like I have today. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    Support this nomination. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • Half were requisitioned; the rest were chartered Were the owners compensated for the requisitioning of their vessels? Is there any information on how much this cost? Were the crews requisitioned as well or were they volunteers?
    The crew are not "requisitioned"; they continue to serve on their ship. It is a form of forced charter. The company is paid for the ship, but not compensated for loss of business. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • For transporting vehicles, a roll-on/roll-off vessel was preferred preferred to what—the previous ship mentioned is also RO/RO? Also, the link should go on the first mention.
    YesY Deleted previous message. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, Marchwood had only a single jetty "Unfortunately" is editorialising; suggest finding another word or removing it
    YesY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Concerns about the vulnerability of the base led to three RAF Harriers being assigned for air defence How realistic were these concerns? Did the Argentinians have anything with the necessary range to be a serious threat to Ascension?
    YesY The threat was taken seriously. Added a bit about its source and nature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Fortunately, another 30 days' supply had been ordered on 17 April, and was on its way south See above about "unfortunately"
    YesY deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 45 Commando embarked in LCUs that took them from Ajax Bay to Port San Carlos. It then yomped to Douglas It doesn't matter much whether you use singular or plural but do it consistently.
    YesY Switched to "it". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • which it reached at 13:00 on 28 May, reached the Arroy Pedro River What sort of distances are they?
  • However, this was nowhere near as good as Teal Inlet "However" isn't adding a lot there.
    YesY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Staggering amounts of ammunition Editorialising?
    YesY Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • An Argentine Military Cemetery was subsequently built "subsequently" is one of those words that's widely misused, and used to mean several different things; suggest changing to "later" unless you mean to imply that it was a consequence of the British cemetery being built, or better still replacing it with the date of construction.
    YesY Changed to later. I'll see if I can locate a source for the date. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd have thought the Vulcan bombing runs (Operation Black Buck, and my what a sorry state that article is in!) and the complexities of refuelling the Vulcans en route would have merited a mention here.
    I had thought of it as an operational matter, but I'll look into it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there anything that could be said about the feasibility of the UK undertaking a similar operation today? It's the sort of thing the BBC and the tabloid press like to ruminate over when talking about defence cuts, particularly the current state of the Royal Navy (which is little more than a coastal defence force, at least until the new aircraft carriers have crews and, erm, aircraft).
    The war is quite obscure. It occurred while I was at school. In the wake of the war, a lot of books appeared which I snapped up. Since then there has been little interest, except for a brief resurgence in 2007 for the 25th anniversary. I presented a paper a conference on expeditionary warfare at which an unfortunate British historian had to present a paper on the Falklands War with Julian Thompson sitting in the front row glaring at him like the Duke of Wellington listening to a paper on the Battle of Waterloo. But most people have never heard of the war or, for that matter, the Falkland Islands.
    The downward trajectory of the British armed forces means that the Royal Navy is about half the size it was back then, and could not carry out the same operation today; but Argentina also has a much smaller force. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    While any commentary on the RN tends to reflect on its reduction in size and capabilities since 1982, I tend to agree that the topic isn't relevant to this article. It's also a complex issue: while the RN probably couldn't do what it did in 1982 any more, the small fortune which has been spent on developing and maintaining RAF Mount Pleasant as an air head and establishing various other facilities in the Falklands should mean that it doesn't need to. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A very nice piece of work. I don't know how you flit between such different subjects the way you do, but you do it impeccably! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Much appreciated, Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Happy with the responses so happy to support. I would like to a sentence or two about the Vulcans but I certainly won't withhold support over it. Also, images are all appropriately licenced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Limited comments by Nick-D[edit]

As there are already three substantive reviews above (all of which are either supports or seem to be near that point) I'll only post some limited comments. The closing coord should note that I contributed a very small amount of text to the article.

  • The lead is mainly focused on the challenges the British forces faced, and not how they were overcome: I'd suggest broadening it somewhat.
    Any idea what can be added? (Fell free to add.) I'm not good with leads. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • While the article provides good coverage of the efforts undertaken to sustain the post-war garrison in the Falklands and enable its reinforcement, did the British Government or Armed Forces make any other changes to the logistical capabilities of the military as a result of the lessons learned from the war? Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    YesY Added a paragraph about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Gloucestershire Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Factotem (talk)

Gloucestershire Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article has been significantly expanded. A peer review was requested 3 weeks ago, but has not received much feedback. I'm now requesting an A-Class review to see if I can get more feedback in preparation for submission to FAC. FactotEm (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments: G'day, looks pretty good to me. I have the following suggestions (largely minor points): AustralianRupert (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  • in the Notes section, I think the capitalisation and punctuation could be improved slightly. For instance, "p148 Total casualties" (and similar constructions) should probably use a full stop or colon to separate the citation from the explanatory note. For example, "p148: total casualties" or "p148. Total casualties". I also suggest separating the number from the page with a full stop and space, e.g. "p. 148". This will be easier on the readers' eyes.
    YesY Punctuation added. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • in the References, I believe we generally omit "Ltd" from the publishers
    YesY "Ltd" removed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • in the References, "Mossman, Billy C" probably should have full stop after "C" for consistency
    YesY FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • in the References, some use publisher locations and some don't. For example, compare Mossman with Salmon
    YesY Only two sources had location information, so I removed them for consistency and on the assumption that this info is not mandatory. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "Daniell xii" --> "Daniell p. xii"?
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • watch out for overlink, here are a few examples: Militia (Great Britain), Volunter Force (Great Britain), Battle of the Somme, Battle of St Quentin Canal, Second World War,
    YesY Removed those listed above, will check for more later. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    Just run a dup-link checker, and it has not identified any further cases. FactotEm (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • the link for Battle of Cambrai is a dab link here (and should be adjusted): "In early December, during the Battle of Cambrai, a heavy..."
    YesY Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • same as above for the link for Battle of Albert here: "...at La Boiselle during the Battle of Albert"
    YesY Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think the grammar would be improved slightly with the use of definite articles (as you use them for some and not others. For instance "POW camp, 2nd Battalion..." but "became the 159th Regiment". As such, I would suggest "POW camp, the 2nd Battalion". Same same for other definitive units (e.g. "transferred to the 56th Independent Infantry Brigade")
    Question: The lack of the definite article is a conscious decision on my part, but I flip-flopped on its use for units throughout the writing of this article, and I'm still not sure. We don't use them for company level statements, as in "a 17-man patrol from C Company", and it seems to me it's equally wrong at the next level up. "2nd Battalion" is a proper name, and it seems as wrong to write "the 2nd Battalion went into action" as to write "the Factotem went into action". My writing "became the 159th Regiment" is an oversight on my part, but I do realise that I have not been totally consistent in the non-use of the definite article; I've left it out up to brigade level, but used it at division level. The sources vary in its use; Salmon tends to omit, Littlewood and Daniell not. So I don't know what's the right thing to do here. Is it a major fail in your opinion? FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    G'day, not a major fail, IMO, and I certainly wouldn't oppose over it, but it doesn't sound right to me. My argument is that we don't use the definite article for platoons or companies because they are not definitive. There are many sub units called "A Company" across an army and they hold no distinctive identity by themselves, but there is really only one 2nd Battalion, Gloucester Regiment, which is its proper name and which identifies it as a unique entity. So it would be "The 2nd Battalion assaulted the position" rather than "2nd Battalion assaulted the position". Same same for brigades and divisions etc (e.g. "The 16th Brigade was assigned to the 6th Division...). I wonder if dropping the definitive article is a more recent approach. If it is, maybe I'm getting old because I'm not a fan of that development ... but anyway, with that it's bed time ... Old Man Rupert shakes his fist at world, and retires for the night knowing that he will probably bump his head on the end of the bed and won't be able to get up in the morning... ;-) Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
     :D Thanks. That all makes sense. I do think it's a recent thing; Salmon was published in 2010, while Daniell was originally published in 1951, and Wyrell, who uses the definite article, was published in 1931. It sounds as wrong to me to use the definite article as it does to you to omit it, but I know that Keith-264, when he made some copy-edits, used it. I will leave it as is for now, but will think further on it, and if others feel it worth their time weighing in with opinions I'll go with the consensus. FactotEm (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    Too easy. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    Shed a tear at every edit, but YesY done. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Glosters' commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Carne...": add full name on first mention
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "...addition of 'Chillianwallah', 'Goojerat', 'Punjaub', and 'Delhi 1857' to the list...": the MOS generally prefers double quote marks
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • "guns of 45 Field Regiment..." --> "guns of the 45th Field Regiment"
    See question above. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I appreciate the time and effort you give to help with this article. FactotEm (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "amalgamated" in lede; you may wish to link to Wiki-dictionary, as amalgamated isn't the most common of terms.
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "In 1782, the British Army began linking foot regiments with counties for the purposes of recruitment." Is there a specific reason why, or did the British just make the decision? (i.e. were they pressing concerns of low numbers, or unloyal troops).
    To be honest, I don't know. The source simply says for the purposes of recruitment. I do know the army hated it at the time, and just over 200 years later, when the British ended the county-based association, it was none too pleased to lose it. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems odd to me that you avoid linking city names in the "Origin" section, but link them in later sections. Is their a good reason for this?
    Sorry. Not sure that I understand. I've searched, and I think the only city linked is Bristol, in the infobox, and that's something I just left in place, there before I started on this article. Generally I only link when there is something relevant to the topic, and, with a few exceptions, in this article it's pretty much only battles, individuals and military units. I don't even link to Gloucester. Can you point me to an example? FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "The regiment added 4 new battle honours to its colours: "Defence of Ladysmith"; "Relief of Kimberley"; "Paardeberg"; and "South Africa, 1899–1902"; the last of which was also awarded to the 1st and 2nd volunteer battalions." Are battle honors either a mix of city/location name and which action took place there, and sometimes just city name/location, based upon if multiple things happen there, or else if little of event (i.e. no major battle) occurs?
    As I understand it, the first two are actions, the second specific battle, and the last is a campaign honour. In the same way, the regiment received individual honours for battles fought in Burma in WWII, and also the campaign honour "Burma 1942 '44–45". FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "In mid-April, the under-strength battalion became so dispersed protecting demolition parties at oil installations around Yenangyaung and Chauk that when Bagot returned from hospital he was informed the battalion had ceased to exist." add a "while" between dispersed and protecting, and ", in effect," between had and ceased to exist.
    YesY. Added "while", but the source specifically says that Bagot "...was told that it had ceased to exist". FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • That is all my comments; happy to support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Much appreciated. FactotEm (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • Just an observation: it seems the regiment has a dedicated Boer War memorial in Bristol ([4]), though interestingly not one from WWI
    Odd indeed, especially as one territorial and at least one new army battalion were raised in Bristol.
  • I notice you're not citing EA James' British Regiments 1914–18, which is my go-to source for key dates and engagements for regiments in WWI. I'd be happy to email you the relevant pages if you want. It might not contain anything new but it all helps to satisfy the completeness criteria at A-class and FAC (I hope you'll be taking the article that way when we're done here).
    That's very kind of you. Thanks. Yes, I'm hoping to get this through FAC. I bought both Westlake and McCarthy to find out the day to day movements, but I certainly would appreciate another source. I've enabled e-mail on my account.
  • Since the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment didn't last very long, is it worth mentioning in the lead that it was subsequently amalgamated into the Rifles?
    The Rifles were mentioned in the article when I started, but as a 'grandson' unit I did not consider it in itself relevant, and was concerned about the article length. However, I believe the Rifles in some way maintain the back badge tradition, so maybe the article can stand a sentence on that, but I need to root out a source. Bear with me please.
    On further thought, can I push back on this one? It's only marginally relevant, and logically this info would come after the regiment ceased to exist, but I really like ending on the statement about the regiment following its predecessors into history. Is this a problem? FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • their baptism of fire came in 1899 during the Second Boer War Unless "baptism of fire" is the term used in the source, that phrase strikes me as editorialising
    YesY It's a fine line between engaging prose and editorialising, and I crossed it here. I've amended the wording.
  • I believe it's conventional to use a definite article with battalion numbers (eg, the 1st Battalion); this also avoids the problem of starting a sentence with a numeral, which is frowned upon.
    Fair enough. Looks like I'm in a minority of one here. I'll go through and add the definite article when I have a bit more time. Presumably the same applies to brigades, from which I've also omitted the definite article?
    YesY Swallowed my pride and made the necessary changes to battalion and brigade. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    Ah, sorry. Hadn't realised this was a bone of contention. I wouldn't have opposed over it but I do think it's better with the definite articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    My response was a bit melodramatic. It's not contentious. I wasn't 100% sure myself, but thought stylistically it looks better without. You're 3 of 3 for preferring it with, so I'll go with the flow. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • in echoes of the Battle of Alexandria Does the source make that connection or is that editorialising?
    The source does indeed make the connection; it says: "The Battalion had indeed repeated (though under modern conditions) that splendid incident at Alexandria in 1801 when they fought back-to-back...". Is that OK?
    And, as it turns out, a good catch. I had applied the "echoes of Alexandria" to the wrong battle. Fixed now. Thanks. FactotEm (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • 1st Battalion moved with 1st Division to the south I'd clarify here that the division is a (significantly) superior formation of which the battalion is a part, lest someone unfamiliar with army structures mistake the meaning for a division of the regiment.
    YesY Amended the wording to say 1st Division moved..., and 1st Battalion participated...
  • "a chronicle, serious and humorous, of the Battalion while serving with the British Expeditionary Force" We need a reference right after a quote, and the quote needs to be attributed—is that the paper's description of itself or an historian's description of it? I think both of those requirements are in MOS:QUOTE.
    Can you bear with me on this one? Having source problems. The Gloucestershire Live source is now dead and not in the archive, and I accessed F.W. Harvey's book via Google Books previews, which is no longer offering previews. The IWM source does actually state that text, but I suspect that's not enough to verify at as quote. I may have to recast this section, or even remove it entirely, which would be a shame. That was the journal's own description of itself, BTW.
    A compilation was published just after the war, see [5], which has those words in the title. Would that do? A modern day reprint is also available, but that's a Lulu self-published version, which rules it out, I believe, as a reliable source.
    YesY OK. The gazette was published after the war as a compilation, the title of which includes those words. I've rewritten the section to say that, dispensed with the quote and removed the deadlink. Hope that addresses this issue now. FactotEm (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

That's as far as as the Second World War section for now. This is really excellent—interesting and very well written. I'll be back with more comments in a day or so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the time and effort you've spent so far, especially given the length of this article. I'm dead chuffed that you found it well written. Thank you! FactotEm (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • As the threat of invasion loomed the link there to Operation Sea Lion is a bit of an Easter egg.
    YesY Fixed. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • bitter recriminations between the brigadier of the 26th Brigade and the 10th Battalion's commanding officer Is there anything more to say about this incident? Do we at least have the names of the officers involved so that readers could look them up?
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • It's by no means compulsory but I usually to prefer to include books' subtitles in the bibliography to give the unfamiliar reader an idea of what the book covers.
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it from me. Outstanding work. I've sent you an email about James. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. FactotEm (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

One more thing, references:

  • Be consistent in whether you use locations in book citations (you'll get less hassle at FAC with them, but they're not essential)
    AustralianRupert mentioned this as well, and because I couldn't find the location info for all publishers, I removed that info from all. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Use either "The Naval & Military Press" or "Naval & Military" but be consistent
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Likewise with "Pen and Sword" versus "Pen & Sword"
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in hyphenating ISBNs (you currently have a mix of after the prefix and throughout)
    Is there a rule that says they must be hyphenated? The only info I have is what is printed in the book or on Google Books/Amazon. Some of them are only hyphenated after the 978 prefix, so can I just remove the other hyphens and make them all consistent with the format 978-0750941723, for example? FactotEm (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    No, there's no rule. As far as I know the number works no matter where you put the hyphens, or if you omit them altogether as I usually do. The only thing that's important for our purposes is that you're consistent (hyphenate after the prefix only, throughout, or not at all, but do the same withal your ISBNs). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
    YesY Done. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in using ISBN-13s or ISBN-10s (even most older books will have an ISBN-13, Google Books can help with that; if they don't then you can get away with using the 10)
    I can't find the ISBN-13 for ED Harvey's The Imjin Roll, which I have to leave as 0952959763, but all the rest have ISBN-13s now. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in citing the Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum (see, or example, footnotes 28 and 31)
    Other than the access date, I don't see any inconsistency. Should they all have the same access date? FactotEm (talk) 11:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
    No, no, don't worry about the access dates. It's entirely possible I'm going insane. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • For FAC, you might need to have an answer ready if somebody asks you why gloshistory.org.uk, angloboerwar.com, drillhalls.org, The Long Long Trail, remembering.org.uk, and regiments.org are reliable sources. I'm not sure about those sites in particular but I know some of those sorts of sites are run by hobbyists and wouldn't be considered reliable sources for our purposes.
    Where possible I've resourced the info to books, or edited to remove the need for them. I've kept two chunks of info sourced to The Long Long Trail and regiments.org because I think they do add value and can't find the info anywhere else. I'll see how they fare at FAC. FactotEm (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review:

  • File:Soldier of 28th regiment 1742.jpg: if the work originates from the 18th century it's clearly PD but you need some sort of proof of that (also I wasn't able to find it at the source given)
  • File:Gloucestershire Regimental Colours.jpg: Fair use is probably justified but the rationale needs fleshing out a little; I wonder if this is replaceable with a photo of the colours laid up somewhere?
  • File:Lieutenant FW Harvey DCM.jpg: I verified the OTRS ticket myself (and despaired at the hoops we make people jump through to upload something that should obviously be out of copyright)

Otherwise, images are all in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get to work on that first image. The colours image I have concerns about myself. I messaged the uploader a day or so ago asking about it, but from my understanding of fair use, which is a pixel above non-existent, the laid up colours image is a PD alternative that torpedoes any fair use rationale. Still waiting on a response. In the meantime I'll research fair use rationales a little more and see if I can come up with some text. FactotEm (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. I was skimming the list with a view to proposing a few reviews for closure but ended up doing image reviews! This is probably good to go once the images are sorted (though obviously it'll be another coordinator who makes the decision). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I found the source for File:Soldier of 28th regiment 1742.jpg and confirmation that it is PD, and updated the commons description to that effect. FactotEm (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Sam Manekshaw[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

Sam Manekshaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. Field Marshal Manekshaw, a recipient of Military Cross, was the Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and was subsequently the first Indian Army officer to be promoted to the rank of field marshal. For his services, he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan and the Padma Bhushan, the second and third highest civilian awards of India. The article is a GA, and also went through a failed A-class review that can be referred here. All the outstanding comments from the previous review have been addressed. Looking forward for comments to improve the article to meet A-class criteria, and eventually be a FA. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Krishna, sorry this has sat here for so long without a review. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

  • inconsistent presentation: compare "4th battalion of the 12th Frontier Force Regiment" with "3rd Battalion of the 5th Gorkha Rifles" --> IMO it should be "4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment" and "3rd Battalion, 5th Gorkha Rifles"
  • not sure if you dealt with this one from the previous review: "Razmak Brigade, stationed in Burma" --> are you sure that the Razmak Brigade was in Burma? My understanding is that it was a rotational brigade that served on the North West Frontier...
  • the bare url link here should be turned into an inline citation: A flyover bridge in Ahmedabad's Shivranjeeni area was named after him in 2008 by Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time.[1]"
  • the Awards and decorations section appears uncited
  • "1934 – 2008": this should be an unspaced endash
  • "Lieutenant General J. F. R. Jacob, chief of the staff": remove the link for Jacob here as he has already been linked
@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the review Rupert. No issues, things take time. You're right about "Razmak Brigade". Actually I got confused with some other source, and also removed the awards section, because sources for each and every service medal is not possible. I've fixed everything, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FactotEm (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  • In the lede, 3rd para, ... the 8th Chief of Army Staff.... We write "Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw", but "Sam Manekshaw was a field marshal", i.e. lower case. I think the same applies to capitalisation here with "chief of army staff". The same capitalisation problem is repeated within the Chief of the Army Staff section further down.
  • Section "Early life and education", 2nd para, After completing his schooling in Punjab and at the Sherwood College, Nainital, he achieved a distinction in the School Certificate of the Cambridge Board, an English language curriculum developed by the University of Cambridge International Examinations, at the age of 15. This sentence bothers me, though I'm not quite sure why. There is a timeframe at the beginning ("After completing his schooling..."), and at the end ("...at the age of 15"), and two "...ings" close together. Did he achieve his distinction as a result of his education in Punjab and at Sherwood College? If so, I would be tempted to phrase this sentence something along the lines of "Manekshaw was educated in Punjab and then at the Sherwood College, Nainital, and left school at age 15 with a distinction in the School Certificate of the Cambridge Board, an English language curriculum developed by the University of Cambridge International Examinations."
  • Section "World War II", 1st para, The outbreak of war resulted in a shortage of qualified officers, due to which.... I think "due to" would generally introduce a reason for the preceding statement. Would "There was a shortage of qualified officers on the outbreak of war, and as a result..." be better?
  • Same section, 3rd para, ...Manekshaw attended the 8th Staff Course at Command and Staff College, at Quetta.... Better written as "He attended the 8th staff course at Command and Staff College in Quetta..."?
  • Section "Post-independence". Is there a reason why 5 and 8 Gorkha Rifles are not 5th and 8th?
  • Same section, 3rd para, But he was soon posted.... This is the second time you start a sentence with "But". I copy-edited the first out, and I don't think it's a complete no-no, but I do think it should be used for effect, rather than routinely, and I'm not sure what in the previous sentence is being contradicted. You could just as easily cut the "But" and start the sentence with "He".
  • In the same para, you start a sentence with a number, 8 Gorkha Rifles..., which is generally frowned upon. In the next sentence you use the definite article, "the 5 Gorkha Rifles", so is there any reason why you can't say "The 8 Gorkha Rifles..." here?
  • Same section, 4th para, This heated conversation with Menon later proved to be a thorn in his career.. We can have a thorn in our side, but I'm not sure we can have a thorn in our career. Also, it's not clear how this conversation proved to be a problem later in Manekshaw's career - you don't seem to discuss it any further, or if you do you don't connect the problem it back to this episode.
  • Section "Post-independence", 6th para, ... presided over by the then-GOC-in-C Western Command.... You use the abbreviation GOC-in-C here before it is written in full in the last para of this section. Also, do you need to say "then-"? There's some hyphen clutter there. Also, there's another ". But..." beginning a sentence there as well, and I'm not sure you can't just join it with the preceding sentence to produce a ", but...".
  • Same para, Nehru apologized, promoted Manekshaw to lieutenant general, and he moved to Tezpur to take over as the GOC IV Corps.. Who moved to Tezpur? It reads like Nehru did, but I think you mean Manekshaw moved, or have I misunderstood?
  • Section "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971", 4th para, ...the II Corps, commanded by Lieutenant General Tapishwar Narain Raina (later General and COAS), was to enter from the west; the IV Corps, commanded Lieutenant General Sagat Singh, was to enter from the west; the XXXIII Corps, commanded by Lieutenant General Mohan L. Thapan was enter to from the west.... Did the first three really all enter from the west, or are there typos there?
  • Same section, 6th para, The last two messages were delivered as replies to the messages from Major General Rao Farman Ali and Lieutenant General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi. Given that the last two messages were to have such a "devastating effect", I think you should say a little about what was contained in these messages. I think you explain this in the next para, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to leave us hanging until then. Also, I think it's worth identifying these two as Pakistani officers in this sentence, rather than the next sentence.
  • Section "Controversies", 1st para, ...was presented with a cheque for Rs 1.3 crores (13 million).... 13 million what?
  • Section "Death and legacy", However, neither the President nor the PM, or other leaders from the political class, attended his funeral,[60][61] nor was a national day of mourning declared.[62]. Were they expected to attend? Was a national day of mourning expected? Did comparable figures receive such honours on their deaths?

Some more comments:

  • Section "Controversies", 3rd para, ...he said that his favourite city was London.... I think you may need to expand on why this was controversial. Was there a negative reaction?
  • Same section, last para, However, according to journalist and former military officer Ajai Shukla, it is claimed that Jacob had a habit of bracing up his reputation by tarnishing others with false claims.. When you say, "its is claimed" here, it sounds like Ajai Shukla is reporting a view held by others, but on reading the source, it becomes apparent that it is he who is making that claim, and there is no indication in that source that it was a widely held belief.
  • In terms of Criteria A1, you appear to be mixing citation styles. You use <ref>{{cite web... (ref 10) and <ref>[http://... (ref 15), and you mix shortened footnotes, e.g. {{sfn... (ref 13) with long citations, e.g. <ref name="Mackenzie">Compton Mackenzie (1951)... (ref 14)
  • In terms of Criteria A2, I read through a couple of British newspaper obituaries, and did not get the sense that this article misses any significant events, and it's focussed without going into unnecessary detail. I think you need to be careful about saying "His distinguished military career...". The use of "distinguished" might portray a favouritism for your subject that some people might seize upon as betraying POV. Later on you write how he "...successfully served as an independent director...". I'm not sure that "successfully" is necessary. This also ties into the point I made above about his funeral. I think my problem with that sentence is that you begin it with the word "However...", and I can't help feeling suspicious about that. You might instead simply state that the press remarked on the lack of VIP representation at the funeral - it would have a more neutral tone.
  • On Criteria A3, The lead is a bit short, and appears to miss out on important moments. By the end of the 2nd para you only get as far the post-indepenence section, then we have the shortest para as the last in which the more significant events of his life are summarised. Also no mention at all of the controversies. Otherwise structure is good.
  • On Criteria A5, I'm no expert on the rules about images. I will just note here that the main image is copyrighted and used under fair use rationale.

That's all from me. Good luck. FactotEm (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Factotem: Thanks for the comments. I've fixed some of the issues raised, but I am sorry that I am not able to fix all of them, will not be able to until 20 December 2017, as I will be out of station with limited internet connectivity. I'll get to back to these as soon as I come back. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Equestrian statue of Edward Horner[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell (talk)

Equestrian statue of Edward Horner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is a little different to my memorial articles so far and I'm looking for some detailed feedback. Does it make sense, is the structure logical, is anything missing, does it leave you with any questions? What could be added or taken away? I'd really appreciate a few experienced eyes on this before I decide whether it's worth taking to FAC. I wrote this after working on Mells War Memorial and wasn't expecting to have more to write about this than the village's main war memorial. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7
  • Wouldn't it have been more conventional to have one hoof raised, indicating that he dow?
    • I thought that was a myth? Our article says (unsourced) it's an urban legend. In any case, the serenity of the picture would have been quite deliberate knowing Lutyens.
      @HJ Mitchell: I would wager its more that it is a varying practice in some countries, i.e. some countries always follow the rule, some occasionally, some never. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • "Horners were able to secure Edward a transfer first to the Royal Horse Guards and then, in October 1914, to a cavalry regiment—the 18th (Queen Mary's Own) Hussars" The Royal Horse Guards (The Blues) was a cavalry regiment. (It's now part of the Household Cavalry. At ceremonies they were a blue jacket and a helmet with a scarlet plume.) The point is though that someone who was second lieutenant in the Royal Horse Guards could be a lieutenant in a regular cavalry regiment. Which basically tells me that the family was well-connected but not really well-connected.
    • They had the connections (a close family friend had Churchill's ear, Asquith was once a regular visitor and his son married their daughter), but they weren't incredibly wealthy by the standards of the landed gentry (something Edward had a reputation for forgetting!) so they were sort of second-class aristocrats.
  • "The 18th Hussars were at that time part of the 11th Reserve Cavalry, stationed at Tidworth Camp in Wiltshire for training, after which they were deployed to the Western Front in early 1915" The 18th Hussars went to the Western Front in August 1914. The 11th Reserve Cavalry was its affiliated training regiment back in England. He would have joined his regiment in 1915.
    • That's a useful detail, thanks.
  • It's really unusual for a British gravestone to have an individual inscription. In fact, I've never seen one. Suggest getting someone from WM-UK to drive round and get a photograph of it.
    • I didn't realise it was that unusual. I thought the CWGC did it on request (possibly requiring a fee, which might explain why it's not ubiquitous). I'm hoping to get to France next spring (and Mells sooner) for photos of this and various other things.
      Thruppence ha'penny per character, including spaces and punctuation, up to ₤1. The Australian government paid for up to 66 characters, which is why there are far more Australian graves with personal inscriptions. ("Love from Mum, Dad and Dave", "And also for your brother Jack, who drowned in the Darling", etc) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Hawkeye! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:37, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Comments from Carcharoth
  • In this sentence: "Sir Edwin Lutyens was among one of the most distinguished architects for war memorials in Britain." either the word 'among' or the phrase 'one of' is superfluous (is this sentence used in the other Lutyens memorial articles you have been working on?).
    • Must be a copy-editing error. I do use this sentence, or a variation of it, in most of the articles in the series but thankfully I haven't made this mistake in any of the others.
  • "He became a national figure" - I believe Lutyens was already a national figure (he was initially knighted in 1918). He may have become more famous, but he certainly attained his fame and renown through his non-memorial work as well, so saying that his memorial work made him a national figure may be slightly misleading and/or overstating the case.
    • What I meant to say was that he became a national figure in relation to war memorials, rather than that the memorials made him a national figure; I've tweaked it.
  • You say the statue was installed in 1920. Horner died in 1917. Is there no hint at all for a date when the family first approached Lutyens and gave him the commission? It would be a pity to have this part of the story missing if it has been recorded anywhere.
    • It is a pity, but there doesn't seem to be a record of it anywhere. The closest I've found is Jane Brown in Lutyens and the Edwardians, who says "Lady Horner summoned him" but doesn't give a date. We know he installed the wooden board in August 1919 because he wrote about it in a letter to his wife and it seems to be implied that the statue was underway by then but there's noting conclusive. I've found this repeatedly with Lutyens' memorials—details like this were either not recorded at all or they're a "by the way" in a letter to Emily. With the civic memorials, the local authority usually has a record of that sort of thing, but with a private memorial like this the only people who would know when it was commissioned would be the architect and the client and it leaves us frustrated if they didn't think to record it.
  • In the Colin Amery sentence, you say he "described Lutyens' works as "some of his finest memorials"". I am struggling to understand this - how can Lutyens' works be some of his finest memorials (finest examples of his memorials, or finest memorials to the memory of Lutyens)? That sentence seems to need tweaking in some way. Maybe what is meant is that his memorials are some of his finest works? (i.e. switch 'memorials' and 'works')
    • I've been back to the source and re-written the sentece slightly.
  • The fact that there was a family chapel there seems to imply this, but was this the church at which the family (and Horner himself) worshipped? That might be worth bringing out more. Frances (his mother) lived until 1940 and the father until 1927 that brings to mind them worshipping there in the presence of the memorial to their son. Having a local individual memorial erected by a family that could afford it was not uncommon, but what is uncommon is for the memorial to be a statue (most such memorials, usually erected by wealthier or aristocratic families, were plaques or tablets on the local church wall, but statues are rare - other examples I am aware of are Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, Tom Kettle, and Willie Redmond, who were famous in other ways as well).
    • There's not a lot in the sources about their religious activities but their ancestors significantly rebuilt the church I think and multiple generations of Horners are buried there. Katharine converted to Catholicism and had a chapel built at the manor at some point. How much of that do you think is worth including?
      • The Horner connections to the church are worth highlighting, I think. I did find this which said that the Horners were all laid to rest in Mells. Katherine, Mark, Frances and John are all there in the church graveyard. Cicely (the elder daughter) is in Newmarket. Edward in France. This is getting a bit far afield, though! Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Is it possible to know whether the cost of the memorial was more or less than would have been expected? i.e. Did Lutyens (and maybe Munnings) work for a reduced (or zero) fee given the family connections? i.e. Is the cost of "over £1000" (which seems a bit vague) about what would have been expected for a memorial of that type at that time?
    • As I recall, only one or two of the books actually give the cost at all and none specify the breakdown. It's possible that Lutyens waived or reduced his fee, and possible that Munnings did similar given that he hadn't yet established himself as a sculptor and the personal nature of the memorial, but nothing is recorded.
  • Is there a way to bring out the fact that having an expensive individual memorial erected like this to a fallen soldier was not a common occurrence? (e.g. compared to the others commemorated on the village war memorial, Asquith excepted).
    • Even Asquith doesn't have such an elaborate memorial. Lutyens did a few memorials to individuals but as you say this is exceptional. Can you think of a way to make this clear(er) in the article?
      • Not right now, but if I think of something I'll pop a note on the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic, on the general topic of CWGC grave inscriptions, it is not that unusual for there to be grave inscriptions. You will find examples in most cemeteries. I am not sure if there are any statistics available on that, though the CWGC are making the inscriptions more prominent now in their revamped website. And for those really interested in the topic, I would recommend the Epitaphs of the Great War website. It may be worth noting that the same epitaph was used on Raymond Asquith's grave. If this inscription was only used on those two graves, it may have been because of the close connection between the families. Other than that, the article looks in excellent shape. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that they both have the same inscription. My guess is that it was suggested by the same person (Lady Horner was fond of poetry and literature and exchanged letters with literary friends, which is how the inscription on Mells War Memorial came about) but I haven't seen anything else that makes the connection. Thank you very much for your attention to detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Iazyges[edit]

To come soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "The Equestrian statue of Edward Horner stands inside St Andrew's Church in the village of Mells in Somerset, south-western England. It was designed by the architect Sir Edwin Lutyens and the sculpture executed by Alfred Munnings. It is a memorial to Edward Horner, who died of wounds in the First World War." May wish to reorder this to:
    "The Equestrian statue of Edward Horner is a memorial to Edward Horner, who died of wounds in the First World War. It was designed by the architect Sir Edwin Lutyens and the sculpture executed by Alfred Munnings, it stands inside St Andrew's Church in the village of Mells in Somerset, south-western England."
  • "He served as a civilian war artist with Canadian cavalry during the war, having been judged unfit to fight due to lack of sight in one eye." Does this mean that he was assigned this duty by the government, due to his inability to serve with the uniformed troops, or he took it upon himself to do this?
  • That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iazyges, thank you very much for taking a look. I kind of wanted to avoid mentioning Edward Horner twice in the opening sentence, and to explain what and where it is. I don't want to bore the reader by telling them that the Equestrian statue of Edward Horner is a statue of Edward Horner, but if you think it needs reordering I'm happy to look at other options. I've added a little detail on Munnings; see what you think. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy to Support this now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

SMS Zähringen[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk)

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

Toolbox

Another in the line of German battleships I've been working on - this one served in 3 German navies over the span of 40+ years, before ending up sunk as a blockship late in World War II. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article! Parsecboy (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

  • The transition between the second and third paragraphs in the lede is confusing (both substance and grammar). I'd recommend something similar to the following: "By late 1915, crew shortages and the threat from British submarines forced the Kaiserliche Marine to withdraw older battleships from service, including the Wittelsbach class. [para break] Zähringen was relegated to the role of training ship before being converted into a target ship for torpedo training in 1917."
    • Works for me
  • "Zähringen's keel was laid on 21 November 1899, at Friedrich Krupp's Germaniawerft dockyard in Kiel. She was ordered under the contract name "E", as a new unit for the fleet." I think it makes more chronological sense for these two statements to be switched in order.
    • Good idea
  • "After the Russian battleship Slava attacked the Germans in the strait, forcing them to withdraw." This grammatically doesn't make sense.
    • Removed "after"
  • "The modification of the ship's propulsion system also proved to be a mistake, as the ship's speed was too low, and it hindered her maneuverability." Too low for what, exactly? For adequate maneuverability? Target practice purposes?
    • Hildebrand et. al. don't say, but I'd assume she was too slow to be an effective target (i.e., that she wasn't fast enough to be a challenging target)
  • "These experiences affected the conversion of Hessen, and neither were repeated" Would be helpful to specify "neither mistake was repeated" or similar.
    • Done
  • It would be helpful if the caption of the photo of Blitz specified that the ship served as the control vessel for Zähringen.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

    • Good idea. Thanks Indy beetle. Parsecboy (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

  • "Zähringen initially used as a training ship, and was converted into a target ship for" - I think you mean the period after it was removed from the line? If so, it should be "After its withdrawal, Zähringen was used as a training ship,..."
    • Fixed per Indy's comment above
  • "class battleships, but" - this is not a "but", you are moving onto an entirely new topic. That comma should be a period and the start of a new para.
    • The point was to juxtapose Hollmann's inability to secure stable funding with Tirpitz's success.
  • "six naval and six cylindrical" - I'm surprised that I have no idea what the difference would be. Is there an article you can link to that describes the difference between naval and cylindrical?
    • Linked the cylindrical boilers, but I'm not exactly sure on the naval boilers - they were manufactured by one of the government shipyards, but I've never seen a description of the boilers themselves. I'd assume they were also cylindrical boilers, but I don't know for sure (I think Gröner's point in differentiating the boilers was to identify the manufacturer, but again, I don't know for sure).
  • "Construction to 1904" - is there a particular reason you split these sections at 1904/05? There doesn't seem to be anything obvious in the text and they are a bit lopsided.
    • Mostly to balance the sections in terms of amount of content - splitting it chronologically in the middle would leave all of it save the last paragraph in the second subsection.
  • "returned to Bornholm that day.[23] Starting on 3 September" - para break
    • Done
  • "available for the operation" - what operation?
    • To provide the support the Army had requested
  • "that the Army was waging" - you don't have to say that
    • Removed
  • "with the operation. The Germans launched" - para break
    • Done
  • "Wilhelmshaven until 1926.[9] That year, the" - param break
    • See below
  • "subsidiary duties.[27] Zähringen" - para break
    • Done
  • "the United States Navy. Accordingly" - para break
    • This conflicts with the suggested break above at "Wilhelmshaven until 1926.[9] That year, the" - param break - I broke it where I thought it made most sense, let me know if that works for you.
  • "the conversion that year, " - remove this, we already know when it started
    • Reworded
  • "renamed Blitz.[36] Zähringen continued" - para break
    • Done
  • "The torpedo boat" - this should be higher in the text, perhaps as part of the description of the modifications
    • Done
  • "August 1942.[34] On 18 December 1944" - definitely para break here!
    • Disagree on this one - I don't see the value in 2- or 3- sentence paragraphs. To me, that breaks up the narrative.
    • Generally good; my only real concern is the mega-paragraphs made out of often unrelated sentences. Breaking these up into smaller and more focused statements will improve readability. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will come soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "The Wittelsbachs were broadly similar to the Kaiser Friedrichs, carrying the same armament but with a more comprehensive armor layout" What is the usage of "comprehensive" here? Does it mean heavier (as in more complete in location) armor, or else does it mean more of the ship itself was armored?
    • The latter
  • "Zähringen was protected with Krupp armor. Her armored belt was 225 millimeters (8.9 in)" perhaps change this to:
    "Zähringen had an armoed belt that was made of Krupp armor, and 225 millimeters (8.9 in)..."
    All of the armor was Krupp, not just the belt.
  • "On 21 September 1910, Zähringen was decommissioned and her crew was transferred to the new dreadnought Rheinland," was the entirety of her crew moved to the Rheinland, as in no one else was moved anywhere else? More of a personal question than any needed change.
    • Yeah, this was common for the German Navy in this period - they were chronically short of crews, especially during the rapid expansion under Tirpitz - if you want the full story, Rheinland was commissioned for trials earlier that year, which lasted until 30 August. She then went to Wilhelmshaven, where most of her crew was transferred to SMS Von der Tann on 1 September. After the annual autumn maneuvers, Zähringen was decommissioned and her crew went to replace the men on Rheinland.
  • "advanced as far as the island of Utö on 9 May." perhaps "as far as the coast of the island of Utö", or something else of this effect, unless they docked at Utö.
    • I don't think the current wording implies they stopped at Utö.
  • Support. That is all my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Iazyges. Parsecboy (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert[edit]

Support: G'day Parsec, just a couple of minor suggestions from me, otherwise it looks GTG to me: AustralianRupert (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  • this is slightly inconsistent: "powerplant was rated at 14,000 metric horsepower (13,808 ihp; 10,297 kW)" (body of article) v. "14,000 PS (13,810 ihp; 10,300 kW)" (infobox)
    • Good catch
  • SMS Elsass is overlinked
    • Fixed
  • suggest adding a translation for the title of the Ciupa work (as you have already done this for Grießmer)
    • Done
  • is the 1993 Hildebrand work in German? If so, for consistency I suggest adding the "| language = German" parameter for consistency
    • Done. Thanks AR. Parsecboy (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review from Harry[edit]

  • File:S.M. Linienschiff Zähringen.jpg How do we know he author did >70 years ago if we don't know who the author is? You need a source for the publication date; if that checks out then it's PD in the US but we still need to know about the country of origin (presumably Germany).
    • Added the author.
  • File:Radio control ship Blitz.tiff Date given is "circa 1928" but the copyright tag only applies to pre-1923 works.
    • That's not technically correct, as the template says "in most cases", but I've switched it to the {{pd-because}} for clarity.

Remaining images are all fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Harry! Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. I can't promise somebody won't query your PD-because at FAC but I don't think it should be a dealbreaker. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
The NHHC photos have gone through FAC several times now - Nikki doesn't have a problem with them, which is good enough for me. Parsecboy (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If it's good enough for Nikki it's good enough for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

Param Vir Chakra[edit]

Nominator(s): Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk)

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

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. Param Vir Chakra (PVC) is India's highest military decoration awarded for the displaying distinguished acts of valour during wartime. PVC is equivalent to the Medal of Honor in the United States and the Victoria Cross in the United Kingdom. The article passed a GA review back in February. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Param-vir-chakra-medal.png: is the given tag meant to apply to the medal or the photo?
  • File:Param-Vir-Chakra-ribbon.svg: source link is dead and image is not original enough to qualify for copyright protection. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Greetings Maria, thanks for the review. The tag applies to the medal. Removed the ribbon. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments (leaning oppose, sorry) – an interesting subject worthy of attention, but there are a few areas that need work for A-Class. For example:

  • The lead is insufficiently detailed, and some of what does appear in the lead is absent from the body of the article.
  • The history section describes when the award was created, but does not really go into any specifics on how, why and/or whether there have been any changes over the decades.
  • Eligibility and award criteria are covered in the infobox, but somewhat glazed over in the body.
  • The cancelation section notes that the award can be annulled, but gives no details on what would lead to cancelation nor whether this has occurred.
  • The article contains quite a few grammatical errors or awkward phrasing. Just a suggestion, but it may be worth looking into the Guild of Copy Editors.

I understand that some of the above may reflect a lack of available sources. But as it currently stands, the article at least does not appear to satisfy A2 for comprehensiveness or A4 for writing quality. Just a suggestion, but it may be worth having a look at how the articles on the Victoria Cross for Australia, Victoria Cross for New Zealand and Victoria Cross (Canada) (all Featured Articles) are structured and detailed. That might give you some guide or ideas on how to move forward with this one. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Abraham, B.S.: Greetings Abraham, thanks for the comment. I've requested a c/e by GOCE. It'll be done withing a couple of weeks. Between, I'll also try to address your comments regarding lead and comprehensiveness. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 01:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@Abraham, B.S.: The article has been significantly improve in terms of content, and also has been cop-edited by GOCE. --Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:. Hi Krishna, thanks for letting me know. I will have limited internet access for the next fortnight while I am overseas, so unfortunately it may be some time before I can review the changes, sorry. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Abraham, B.S.: A ping to remind. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments: G'day, Krishna, I took a quick look and have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Citation 17: "The Hindu" should be in italics
  • Citation 41: "India Today" should be in italics
  • the Further reading entry is redundant as it is currently be cited specifically
  • in the References, is there a place of publication for the Higgins work?
  • Note d doesn't seem necessary
  • "Though Ashoka Chakras is placed below..." --> "Though the Ashoka Chakra is placed below
  • there are some US English spelling variations and some British English (either is probably fine, but it should be consistent), e.g. "center" but also "millimetres"
  • I will come back later and take another look once these are dealt with

« Return to A-Class review list

Rhine Campaign of 1796[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth55

Rhine Campaign of 1796 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because ... working this year of the French Revolutionary Wars toward a featured topic status....this is the overview article for the group. Several of the sub articles are already at Featured article. auntieruth (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments: epic article, Ruth, well done. I will have to defer reading it all for the weekend, but at the moment I have a few suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • in the Notes and citations section, there is a third level header for Notes, but nothing appears to be included in this subsection. I suggest splitting the Notes out from the Citations to fill out this subsection;
  • in the References section, is there an OCLC number for the Chandler work?
  • the duplicate link checker identifies quite a few potentially overlinked terms: Levee en masse, Rhine Campaign of 1795, Dagobert Sigmund von Wurmser, Renchen, Main (river), Wilhelm von Wartensleben, Imperial circles, Jean Baptiste Jourdan, Army of Sambre-et-Meuse, Army of Rhin-et-Moselle, Schaffhausen, Black Forest... et al (if you install the script I have linked, you will see what I mean);
  • I've tried installing this, I already had one. I can use the dupe detector once, and then it disables, and disappears from my choices!!! very frustrating!
  • G'day, Ruth, have you tried the new script, though? You might have better success with Evad's tool rather than the older one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes I entered it, it worked once and then disappeared! auntieruth (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've removed the duplicate links. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "main force of 27,0000 infantry": should this be "27,000" or "270,000"; fixed
  • "Philippart, p. 127. and Alison, pp. 88–89. Smith, p. 132" --> "Philippart, p. 127; Alison, pp. 88–89; Smith, p. 132"?
  • I'lll fix those things...In the notes section, I moved "notes" to footnotes/citations because of the most recent snarl up on Battle of Rossbach at FA. BrianBoulton doesn't like my citation style, and objected to my having a slightly different citation format for Notes than for citations. I can readily put it back, which is why I left the "Notes" section intact. What do you think? auntieruth (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day, I definitely think the notes and citations should be separate, but don't want to set you up for failure at FA. Reading Brian's comment I think his comments might have potentially been misunderstood slightly. I think he was after adding citations to notes, so the that reference information inside the note was displayed with a blue ref, alongside the content of the note. For instance "Habsburg infantry wore white coats.[1]". Anyway, looking at how it currently is in this article, I'm not too concerned, but I'd argue potentially that "Note 4" as currently presented was a citation, not a note. That is possibly just splitting hairs, though, so . Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • there is a slight inconsistency in how you present ISBNs. Some have hyphens and some don't ok, now they all have the same hyphen.
  • there is slight grammatical error here: "only 37,000 men and 60 guns oppose more than 50,000 Allied troops in the theater" ' looking for it...should be opposed
  • there is a slight inconsistency in presentation here: "150,000 prisoners, 170 standards, 500 pieces of heavy artillery, 600 field pieces, five pontoon trains, 9 ships of the line, 12 frigates..." (specifically "9" but also "five") fixed
  • I've done a little copy editing tonight, but am still working through reading the rest of the article, which I will try to do tomorrow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • in the Resources for further reading section: typo here: "17879–1815" AustralianRupert (talk) 12:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • inconsistent date presentation: "Retrieved 2011-01-07" v "Retrieved 30 April 2014" This is fixed.
  • refs 17 & 18 aren't consistently presented (compare also with ref 36) they are exactly the same. at least they look that we to me.
  • "Accessed" v "Retrieved": suggest making these terms consistent in the citations. This is fixed.
  • will fix thenotes section later to matcdh Battle of Rossbach.  :) auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • fixed the notes section. removed the templates that were causing the problem with consistency of date. and fixed the other issues . Thanks @AustralianRupert: auntieruth (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: This one looks like it is almost ready to be closed. If you have some time, would you mind doing an image review? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Keith[edit]

  • Did a cheeky little ce, put the text through the Word splendidiser and found a few typos, homogenised the citations, hyphenated the isbns, added a few missing ones and rm deprecated author= in favour of last= first=. Rv as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
There are quite a few long citations with biblio details in them, when there is a full entry in the Biblio section. Wouldn't it be better to limit cites to <ref>Brown, 1997, p. 21</ref>? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ce looks good, I'll go through in more detail. I don't like the single refs. I'd rather list a bibliography for people who want more information, keep the citations to full citation first, then shortened citation thereafter. When a reader points to citation, the whole citation shows up, but if it just says "Brown, p. 62" then they don't know who/what/which Brown etc. auntieruth (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
It might be worth your while to try sfns to save repetition. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I've tried those, find it incredibly cumbersome, and annoying. auntieruth (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Really? I find them the opposite but it's your decision so tally ho! ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264:, so is this support? auntieruth (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
@Keith-264:, is this support? Or are there more revisions you'd like? Please change the header, if there are no further issues. auntieruth (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind either way; apols I don't know which header you mean. regardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Maury[edit]

To start, I note that this article has taken a tremendous amount of effort to write, and in general the topic is important and interesting. But as it stands, I think it needs some attention in terms of organization.
My largest concern, and this is true of the majority of articles I review, is that there are numerous instances of paragraphs of material that are constructed almost at random. Consider the "Political terrain" section, which consists of a single enormous paragraph that covers three entirely different topics (physical, political, administrative) and jumps around between them. Then there is the first paragraph of "background", which includes all sorts of what appear to be separate topics. I believe cleaning this up will improve the article greatly.
So much of what follows are suggestions on how to break up this material and re-arrange it into self-consistent topics. Here goes...
Minor stuff:
  • You have a lot of italic text that is in English. Generally, you only italicize the first instance of a term, and then only if it's not being used in the typical fashion so you're trying to draw attention to it. Things like "Army of the Sambre-et-Meuse" should not generally be italicized (I think).
  • The text has "the archduke", "archduke charles" and "charles". Pick one! I strongly suggest using "Charles".
  • "threatened ambiguous but quite serious" = comma before "but"
  • "war on Austria. In this" - para break
  • "had been executed. The" - para break
  • "into worse chaos. From 1793 to" - para break
  • "but the thin white line" - appears to be editorializing, or is this a term people use like "thin red line"? If so it needs explaination, if not, removal.
  • "the old mountains created dark shadows on the horizon" - aren't all mountains old? And don't they all create dark shadows on the horizon? This should just be removed, this isn't a gothic horror novel.
  • "of Bavaria and Prussia. The governance" - para break.
  • "such as Württemberg. When viewed on a map" - para break. and likely better placed above, just before "The governance"
  • "by Strasbourg, and Hüningen, by Basel" - trailing comma - missing text or just typo?
  • "theater of war. Jean" - para break
  • "Germany. By the spring of 1796" - para break
  • "Knowing that the French planned" - would this not be better placed directly after "In a decree"? this has to do with generalities, not the specifics that follow.
  • "southern France. The First French" - and it seems this very interesting statement should be the last statement in Background (see below)
  • "Switzerland. The original" - para break
  • "districts of the Empire. In Spring 1796" - para break
  • "Archduke Charles withdrew the Austrian forces from the Rhine's west bank" - soooo, this was the whole French plan right? If so, it appears they have at this point a major success, and I think that deserves being called out.
  • "Afterward the duke became a harsh critic" - which duke, Württemberg? Say that.
  • "reapportioned" - jargon, repositioned? redistributed?
  • "ammunition wagons.[26] Moreau reinforced" - para break
  • "three field pieces.[31] By this time Archduke " - para break
  • "exit from the war and mid-July, Moreau's army" - "and by mid-July"
  • "Jourdan lost no time in recrossing the Rhine at Neuwied" - I am not clear if this was part of the plan or not? In any event, it seems to have had the right outcome by drawing Charles north?
  • "Similarly, though, Moreau and Jourdan faced similar" - too many "similar"
  • "3,000 men.[36] In the north" - para break
  • "to observe Charles.[48] South of the " - para break
  • "Sambre-et-Meuse. In the Battle of Amberg" - para break
  • "the 20th Moreau" - missing comma
  • "On that day Moreau sent Jourdan a misleading message vowing to closely follow Charles" - why? this is an interesting statement yet there's no explanation of what happened here.
  • "case of retreat. Anticipating Jourdan's move" - para break
  • "Over the next few days, Jourdan's" - should be above the summary table.
  • "Instead of burning the bridge, Petrasch's men had plundered the French camp" - how are these two statements connected by "instead"? The bridge is not mentioned anywhere else, were they supposed to burn it and failed to? Or is it more like "Petrasch's men did not burn the bridge, but did plunder..." Using "instead" suggests there is a default actiion here, or an either/or situation.
  • "Moreau's trains took" - baggage trains, and link to it - the average reader will not be familiar with this concept
  • "troops in the theater. Nevertheless, Napoleon" - para break
  • "eastward towards Austria. After a brief campaign" - para break
Less minor:
  • I find the entire first paragraph of the Background section quite confusing. It covers many topics that should be in separate paragraphs, and makes many statements that call for a deeper understanding that is not explained in the text. For instance...
    • The text assumes we understand why France declared war on Austria, but this is not at all clear to me. Why not the HRE? Or both? The statement immediately prior is about French émigrés, but I don't think that is directly responsible for war on Austria, unless there is some connection that's not mentioned. It appears that they declared largely as the result of Pilnitz, but given that was signed in Germany, why did they declare against Austria instead? I think this needs some explanation, and I would suggest taking the paragraph apart and rebuilding it.
    • "The Reign of Terror plunged French" - this statement just sort of floats there - was this due to the unrest, or part of it?
    • "material support. After April 1796" - how was it paid before then? I assume paper, but the following text could be read to suggest they weren't being paid at all. And for the modern reader, who may never see paper money let alone metal, it is not clear why paper money would be an issue - assuming that is the issue.
    • "The French commanders understood" - again, this statement is just kind of floating. It doesn't seem to have anything directly to do with the preceding statements, it's not clear how the two parts connect through the "furthermore", and the last part seems to precede the events described above it. At a minimum, this should be two separate sentences, but I suspect they should be part of their own paragraph explaining why the French wanted to enter Germany? See below also..
  • Likewise, the geography section needs work.
    • I cannot understand the purpose of the first paragraph of the Geography section. Much of it is just trivia which has nothing to do with the topic of this article and simply confuses the reader. As some (most?) of these sections of the Rhine do not come into the article at all, they should either be brief or removed.
    • The second paragraph does seem to be more useful in terms of explaining that a crossing could be difficult, but again includes details that don't seem germane to the topic, especially as some take place decades or even centuries later. If the goal is to describe the Rhine at the time and place of the topic being discussed, then it should describe the Rhine at the time and place of the topic being discussed.
    • This section fails to mention that the French were already across the Rhine, and a description of the area around the bridgehead would seem useful.
    • And as only the opening parts of the battle take place on or near the river, and that the rest range over the greater part of southern Germany, some description of the interior seems like a good idea.
  • "The Battle of Neresheim on 11 August" - this is the turning point, so it should be above the summary table! Generally, tables should be at the end of their sections.
  • "Moreau offered Charles an armistice" - this should be an entirely different section, perhaps "armistice"
  • Commentary should be after Aftermath in order to keep the article flowing chronologically

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I have a *few* more, but we've hit the main ones. I was hoping to do this this week but a nasty dose of norovirus put a crimp in my plans. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • OH NO, norovirus is definitely bad.  :( Feel better! and ping me when you get to it! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
OK I'm back @Auntieruth55:. Here we go...
Geography - this still needs work. There's a lot of detail in here that has nothing to do with this article. From what I can see, the armies involved were all camped well north of Basel, so the entire description above "At Basel" should be removed IMHO. The rest appears to describe only the portion faced by Moreau, and unless I'm reading it wrong, there's no description of the area around Jourdan. And finally, all of this focusses solely on the river, which is important only for a section of the article. There's no description of the overall area. I'd be happy to take a whack at this myself. done
French organization - I've broken this up further and made some minor re-arrangements. However, I'm curious about the "led Moreau's far right wing" part. This addds a level of detail that I'm not sure the article needs, given that the body is about their movements. Further, there's no corresponding section for Jourdan's disposition. I'd suggest just removing this. done
"Over the next few days" - should this be above the table? It seems to talk about events that are about half way into the table, not after all of it. done
That's about it! Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The entire right wing of Moreau's army was camped on the French side at Basel/Huningen. Crossed at Huningen and proceeded east. The point of including this info about the Rhine is that it provide the German states with a clear defensive (or offensive) barrier. I'll move the"over the next few days...", but I think the remainder should stay. auntieruth (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: I've re read what you tweaked, and I'm fine with it. I moved the bit on the far right wing to a note. auntieruth (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz:, Maury, if there are no further revisions, does this mean support? If so, would you change "comments" to "support"....auntieruth (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I still have problems with the Geography section, but at this point I'm in the midst of a major new article so I don't have time to fix this. So support. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I tweaked it some more. Hope it's clearer. auntieruth (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "ideally capturing the city and forcing the Holy Roman Emperor into a surrender and acceptance of French Revolutionary ideals." May wish to change this to:
    "ideally capturing the city and forcing the Holy Roman Emperor into a surrender, and Austria into acceptance of French Revolutionary ideals.", unless this is meant to imply that the Holy Roman Emperor was to be kept on as ruler in event of French Victory, which seems unlikely due to Napoleon's (somewhat ironic) love of nepotism.
  • "any declaration of war on the Habsburgs, who were Holy Roman Emperors, brought all of the Holy Roman Empire into war." was this one sided mutual defence inherent in being Emperor of HRE, or did the Habsburgs force the issue/call in favors?
  • "whose principal qualifications may have been their loyalty to the Revolution instead their military acumen." change to:
    "whose principal qualifications may have been their loyalty to the Revolution rather than their military acumen."
  • Not a suggestion, but I'd like to congratulate you on your "Political terrain" section; its very well developed and organized (something many or even most articles about HRE organization lack.)
  • "numbered 63,000, including reserves and garrisons." does the "including" apply to both armies, or merely Napolean's? If it is both, I'd recommend adding "both numbers" in front of "including".
  • That is all my comments; happy to support as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Most of the maps could stand to be scaled up
  • File:Map_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire,_1789_en.png: if this is a derivative work of a CC BY-SA image, it should use a CC BY-SA or similar license, not PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

North-West Mounted Police[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk)

North-West Mounted Police (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I'm hoping to take it to A Class review in due course. I've put a fair bit of research time into this, and consulted with the WikiProject Canada on some of the terminology, and I feel confident it now reflects the wide range of literature on the North-West Mounted Police. Further help with clarity, flow, any miscreant language, etc. would definitely help in taking it to the next step. Very many thanks in advance! Hchc2009 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Police_Fort_Walsh_1878.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:North-West_Mounted_Police,_Fort_Calgary,_1878.jpg, File:LastSpike_Craigellachie_BC_Canada.jpg, File:Corporal_Shaw,_North_West_Mounted_Police.jpg, File:NWMP_in_Yukon_in_tent.jpg, File:Troop_front_Canadian_Mounted_Rifles_with_2nd_Contingent,_South_Africa_No_15118a_(HS85-10-11351)_(trimmed).jpg, File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1885.jpg, File:Royal_North-West_Mounted_Police_Barracks,_ca._1904_-_1925.jpg
  • File:North-West_Mounted_Police,_Fort_Calgary,_1878.jpg. There's some interesting history I've dug up on this, which claims to the "first photograph taken in Calgary". Library and Archives Canada lists the author as "unknown"; the copyright claim written on lower right of the photograph is Ernest Brown, which may be the early photographer Ernest Brown, photographer (1877 to 1951), who collected early photographs and negatives. Brown purchased the stock and negatives of C. W. Mathers at the start of his career; Mathers had come to Edmonton in 1891 to open a branch for the Calgary firm of Boorne and May, and later bought their entire collection, which may well be where this negative came from. The 1878 date, however, would predate the arrival of Ernest May and his cousin William Hanson Boorne, who emigrated to Canada in 1882; either the date may be inaccurate, or May and Boorne may have acquired it from another photographer. A photograph of this date would have been circulated for sale through the photographer's shop (the practice was to display them internally, to encourage purchases or new commissions), so would have been published by our definition. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:LastSpike_Craigellachie_BC_Canada.jpg - added. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Corporal_Shaw,_North_West_Mounted_Police.jpg. We can establish for certain it was published after 2002, which would make it in the PD in the US (as the life+70 rule then applies, under the slightly complicated US arrangements). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • We can confirm that was first publication?
  • I can't find any earlier evidence, and there's no particular reason to suspect that a sketch would have been published. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:NWMP_in_Yukon_in_tent.jpg
  • As a probable Goetzman image, would have been published for sale around 1898. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Troop_front_Canadian_Mounted_Rifles_with_2nd_Contingent,_South_Africa_No_15118a_(HS85-10-11351)_(trimmed).jpg
  • Unclear. The original photograph and copyright was acquired by the Patent and Copyright Office in Canada, and then given to the British Library, who declare the copyright to have expired and the image to now be in the public domain. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1885.jpg
  • Probably published for sale in 1885, although if not, would then be an anonymous work with no evidence of publication, US gives this 120 years of protection from creation (1885). Hchc2009 (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Royal_North-West_Mounted_Police_Barracks,_ca._1904_-_1925.jpg.
  • Produced by a commercial company that sold photographs, souvenirs and collections of photographs; publication date would have been c.1918. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • What is the source of the data presented in File:Canada_provinces_1871-1873_simplified.png?
  • I don't know what the original editor used; it matches up with sources I've seen elsewhere. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:North_West_Mounted_Police_1900.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
  • Original circulated by Associated Screen News Ltd., so would meet our definition of publication; 70-yr tag replaced by Canada tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:Leth_old.jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Same with File:Christmas_dinner_at_Royal_North_West_Mounted_Police_station,_Fort_Macleod_(15902402559).jpg
  • I've had a look, and beyond the Canada tags, which I've added, no. From what I can see, these are images that would have been acquired with copyright by the collecting institutions, so have probably been effectively released by them when put onto Flickr, but I can't be certain about the process the museum and archive have used. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:The_R.N.W.M.P._Detachment_in_training_at_Shorncliffe,_August_1918.jpg: why would this be UKGov? Same with File:RNWMP_operations_in_Winnipeg_General_Strike,_1919.jpg
  • File:The_R.N.W.M.P._Detachment_in_training_at_Shorncliffe,_August_1918.jpg is credited to "government", and is of military personnel carrying out military training on a British base; a Canadian (or British) government photograph of this sort would be covered by Crown Copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:RNWMP operations in Winnipeg General Strike, 1919.jpg is credited to "government" and specifically to the mounted police; again, showing government personnel carrying out operational work; a Canadian government or police photograph would be covered by Crown Copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The PD-Canada template covers Canadian Crown copyright though - I'm wondering why we're using UK here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It covers it, but doesn't state that it is Crown copyright - it's the same royal perogative, though. In addition, the Shorcliffe photograph was taken in the UK, not Canada. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • File:StateLibQld_2_126279_Sir_George_Arthur_French,_1883.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Tag added; as an anonymous work with no evidence of publication, US gives this 120 years of protection from creation (1883). Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • "was instead surged": ?
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Looking forward to seeing this at FAC; it's excellent. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the copyediting Dank! "instead surged" should now be fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I reviewed this article at GA, and I believe that it meets the standards of an A-class article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry[edit]

  • The most conventional usage in the literature for volumes covering both period is just the plain North-West Mounted Police. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The plans for closure were abandoned What plans? Did I miss it or are these not mentioned earlier in the lead?
  • was once again put in doubt Do we need the "put"?
  • No... fixed! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Towards the end of the war, however For reasons I don't fully understand, "however" is frowned upon at FAC. The word is overused and sometimes it's easy to reword the sentence, sometimes it's not. Just something to think about.
  • I think I'll risk this one - it is stressing the contrast with the previous sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's just the lead for now. I'll be back with more in the coming days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Resuming:

  • sent west by rail through the United States Do we know how the US government felt about this? Was there any damage to diplomatic relations given that they'd declined the US Army's help?
  • Not that I can find in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Lieutenant Governor Morris disagreed with this approach, however, "disagreed with this approach" suggests it had been decided but the preceding sentence sounds like it was just one option; also that "however" looks like it could be removed without any great loss.
  • gathering to attack across the border in the United States Gathering in the US or in Canada? It looks like the US but it's not entirely clear. Switching the clauses to "gathering in the United States to attack across the border" would clear it up.
  • The force took two 9-pounder (4 kg) guns and two mortars for protection... I assume they also carried small arms? Worth spelling it out.

More to follow. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

  • If I say small arms, I'd also have to include swords etc. - I've added the word "additional", implying that they had other weapons as well... see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • sympathy for the British imperial cause Do we really need the link there?
  • I'm fairly relaxed; I think its helpful to some non-British readers, but wouldn't lose sleep if it were removed. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there anything more to say about the NWMP's influence on or legacy within the RCMP?
  • Not that I could find in the literature. For many years the RCMP discouraged sociological work that might have provided those insights. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Have you considered splitting some of the history into a daughter article like History of the North-West Mounted Police? This article is on the long side (12,759 words), which would make it 400 words longer than Barack Obama, currently the longest featured article on the English Wikipedia and it's dominated by the history.
  • The last paragraph sort of leaves the reader hanging. What are the new lines of research? The mention of court cases suggests controversy but the various arguments aren't discussed. What's the narrative of the more recent histories? What do we know about the NWMP as a result of modern scholarship that we didn't know before?
  • If there's space and you can find something appropriate, another map or two of the areas being discussed might be helpful to readers not familiar with Canadian geography.

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd thought something similar, although I struggled to fit one in. Do you think a collapsed map might help? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • If you know how to do something like that then certainly. It's not something I'd withhold support over, but it did occur to me as I was reading that another map would have been helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

comments by auntieruth[edit]

  • Whew! massive article, and really interesting. I've done a minor copy edit on the first half, added some links, etc. If it's not ok, please feel free to revert. I'll come back in a day or two and finish up. I'll be looking forward to supporting this! Nice job. auntieruth (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

  • "The North-West Mounted Police was created as a consequence of the expansion" may wish to simply have "due to" rather than "as a consequence", given that no other such consequences are given (and should not be, in order to remain on subject).
  • "The new Dominion government was keen to expand westwards, in part due to fears that the United States might annex the region." is there anything to suggest said fears were founded?
  • "Macdonald's Conservative government then fell from power over the Pacific Scandal" should probably change "over" to "due to", or even "as a result of".
  • "The government ordered an investigation, followed by a judicial inquiry, both of which cleared Herchmer of any serious charges." was he then convicted of non-serious charges? If so, should probably get a short mention. i.e was he jailed, did he get fined 10 pence?
  • That is all my comments, happy to support as is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

« Return to A-Class review list

390th Rifle Division[edit]

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk)

390th Rifle Division (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I believe it meets the standards and would like to further improve another Soviet military history article since this is an area that lacks A-class articles. The 390th had a fairly ordinary career for a World War II rifle division, being destroyed in Crimea and later being reformed to fight in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. The article was recently promoted to GA. Kges1901 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by EyeTruth

  • Major M.M. Malkhasyan's 789th Regiment..." and "L.G. Akopov's 792nd Regiment..." and "S. Sargsyan... These initials are useless as pointers, and last names on their own are not enough when you're dealing with an army that fielded a huge number of officers. I would suggest dropping out all the people lacking full names from the article. But you should wait for other opinions on that matter.EyeTruth (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I reviewed this article for GA, and I promoted it. I didn't do any source check. So I support on content only. EyeTruth (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map
  • Done.
  • File:German_Conquest_of_the_Crimea.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Says 'own work', but it seems to correlate with what I know about the campaign. Kges1901 (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments/suggestions: G'day, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

  • "during the Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation, which occurred in late-December 1942" --> "December 1941"?
  • Done
  • inconsistent terminology: "Second World War" and "World War II" --> either is fine, but please be consistent
  • Done
  • "Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation": should have an endash instead of the hyphen
  • Done
  • inconsistent caps: "Kerch-Feodosiya Landing Operation" v. "Kerch-Feodosiya landing operation"
  • Done
  • "8,979 had never handled weapons": were they subsequently provided any training, or just thrust into the line untrained?
  • Bezugolny was using these stats to make a point that the conscripts were untrained when they were mobilized, but Russian wiki says "after the formation". Kges1901 (talk) 08:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • is there an ISSN or OCLC number for the Bezugolny work?
  • Done
  • Done
  • "Second Formation" --> "Second formation"
  • Done
  • "with the 390th and 398th Rifle Divisions": remove the dab link for 398th and replace with a red link if necessary
  • Done
  • "On the overnight of 17–18 March..." --> "On the night of 17–18 March..."
  • Done
  • "789th Regiment" --> "789th Rifle Regiment"?
  • Done
  • "commanded by the following commanders.[2]" --> probably should be a colon instead of a full stop
  • Done
  • "included the following units.[16]" --> same as above
  • Done
  • suggest adding mention of Teplyakov to the Second Formation section
  • Done
  • are there any casualty figures that could be added?
  • I haven't found any.
  • I suggest adding an image to the infobox, if a suitable one exists

Support A couple of minor suggestions:

  • Link Armenian SSR
  • Suggest moving the postage stamp into the infobox like the Russian version.

I've linked to the Russian article. Revert if you disagree. Odd that the division would be reformed, but with entirely different components. Was this normal? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Reforming a division by reusing the designation was a standard practice in the Red Army. Often the only commonality between the two formations was the designation.Kges1901 (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

comments from auntieruth[edit]

nice job. I've made some minor copy edits here please feel free to revert if I've done something weird. I suggest, though, that you try to strengthen your verbs and simplify your sentences. :)
  • in "formation" there should be a link on Armenia, whichever form is appropriate. Also for Russian and Georgian
  • Per MOS:OVERLINK I do not link modern countries and ethnicities since I think most readers would be familiar. Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • link on political officers
  • link Battle of Kerch Peninsula
  • Good catch, done. Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • both armies? Garrison? 51st and 44th? soviet and soviet, ????
  • Clarified that it was the 51st and 44th who attacked. Not sure what you mean by the other questions though.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • conversion template on the distance?
  • Good catch, done. Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • link Korpech?
  • despite news of the German build up, they were still surprised by a German attack?
  • That's what the source appears to say.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • penetration that the 390th and 398th Rifle Divisions had made....is this the 1.5-2km mentioned in the previous paragraph? could you clarify in the previous paragraph?
  • The previous paragraph with kilometers is January fighting in different positions. This penetration is a two-trench line gain in a mid-March attack.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • what are service troops? (staff troops?)
  • Clarified, rear units.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 17 not seventeen
  • Done, I guess I'll use AP Style rules for this.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • first mention of air support by Luftwaffe. Did Soviets have air support?
  • Technically, but the Luftwaffe gained air superiority.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Eltingen? that cannot be right
  • A small town in Crimea, now a neighborhood of Kerch. Have changed redirect target.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • commanded by commissar? that's the political officer? This is unusual, right?
  • Unusual, I would guess that the CO became a casualty. Have linked commissar at first mention (Mekhlis) as in this sense it refers specifically to a political officer who assists the regimental commander. (Political officer generally means any functionary in a military unit)Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • other units that suffered heavy casualties?
  • Yes, several other divisions had a similar fate.Kges1901 (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • survivors were used to provide the experienced core of new formations
  • I'd link to Manchuku, not pipe it to Manchuria, and qualify this as the Japanese puppet "republican monarchy" in China.
  • point out that this was the collapse of Japanese military presence in China; occurred after bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that USSR only declared war on Japan on 8/9 August.
  • why 5th Separate Rifle Corps?
Good read, thanks for writing. auntieruth (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Auntieruth55: G'day, Ruth, when you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at Kges' changes and letting them know if you are happy to support this for promotion? The review has been open almost four months now, so probably needs to be closed shortly. Thank you for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)