Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Contents

Battle of Edson's Ridge[edit]

I'm just about done with the article and respectfully request a peer review to help identify any problems or issues with the article that need to be corrected. Cla68 01:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Excellent article, as usual; just a few minor formatting issues:

  • All month+day dates need to be linked in order for date preferences to work correctly.
  • Multiple footnotes in the same place should really be combined, if possible.

Once those are fixed, this should be ready for FAC. Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

Obviously another FA by Cla68! But I have the impudence to make some minor suggestions! Here they are:

  • Linking of years is not consistent I'm afraid. Per WP:MoS a date should be linked if it includes day and month. If not "there is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article." According to this I understand that you are entitled to link single years as you do with 1942. But in this case, 1942 has already been linked more than once above. So, why do you have to link it again here: in September 1942 and here: late October, 1942 in "Significance".
  • And something else: why do you use a come here: late October, 1942 and not here: September 1942? I'm not a native English speaker, so you may be correct, but, when I saw that, it looked to me as a syntactical inconsistency.
  • "The landings on the islands were meant to deny their use by the Japanese as bases for threatening the supply routes between the U.S. and Australia, and to use them as starting points for a campaign with the eventual goal of isolating the major Japanese base at Rabaul while also supporting the Allied New Guinea campaign." Uncited as the whole paragraph.
  • Your link to assault leads me to a disambiguation page. Does this link offers anything really useful?

I really liked the narration of the battle!--Yannismarou 17:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I appreciate both of your suggestions, and I've made most of the suggested changes/corrections. However, I see conflicting advice on the date links, either that they should all be linked, or only linked if a full month-day-year is involved. Cla68 23:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    • They should be linked whenever both a month and a day are present, as that's the criterion for the date preferences settings to kick in. Compare 2 October with October 2, for example. Kirill Lokshin 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I basically agree (although MoS is not so clear, Kirill), but I concentrated my comment on just two case where there was a single year (1942) without month and day. In one of this two case the single year is linked ("The Japanese never came closer to victory on the island itself than in September 1942, on a ridge thrusting up from the jungle just south of the critical airfield, best known ever after as Bloody Ridge" - why? Is there a particular reason - you have already linked above 1942 in full dates with month-day), while in the other it is not (October, 1942: not linked ). Anyway, this is a minor detail.--Yannismarou 10:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck[edit]

Thorough article. Only a few minor suggestions to improve clarity:

  • Background section, Paragraph 6, 2nd sentence reads awkwardly: "Attacks and damage to a different ship convoy during the Battle of the Eastern Solomons that was carrying the rest of the troops from Ichiki's regiment as well as some naval troops caused the Japanese to reconsider trying to deliver more troops to Guadalcanal by slow transport."

ERcheck (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence. Thank you for the suggestions and help with the article. Cla68 05:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Roman-Spartan War[edit]

Previous peer review

I just withdrew the article's FA and I want some advice and to see what can be done to improve the article before I re nominated it in the future. Kyriakos 02:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Well, at this point, the most sensible thing would probably be to focus on the objections raised during the FAC. The chief ones seem to be:

  • Sources: adding citations to modern secondary works shouldn't be too difficult; ideally, there ought to be enough to stave off any questions of over-reliance on ancient primary sources.
  • Lead: this could, admittedly, be reworked quite a bit; it seems to have moved away from attempting to summarize the article and goes off on tangents about Nabis's title and such.
I remove the comments about Nabis' title and put them in the notes section.
  • Prose: the writing style is probably the most subjective thing here. The only thing I can really suggest would be to try and find a few fresh editors to give the article some copyediting.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

Per Kirill on the sources. I think the most important thing in this article is now further and more thorough research based on both primary (in case, you have missed any - something I do not believe) and (most importantly) secondary sources. This is I believe the main problem that impeded FA promotion.

The prose looked and looks to me fine. It has been copy-edited by an excellent copy-editor, and it has been well worked by the main editor. Maybe, a second addition external copy-editing wouldn't hurt. In some of my articles, I have asked the assistance of more than one copy-editors.

More photos incoroporated in the article (not just "external photos") would help the article to "show" better. It is not the most important thing, but it definitely matters.

I promise I'll soon read the article once again in detail, but I really think (and I agree on that with Kirill) that what it really needs now is "fresh eyes", which will feed it with "fresh nurture": fresh ideas and fresh conceptions. The article is definitely on the right track, but the FAC reviewers seemed to believe that it lacked the "spark" a FA has to have.--Yannismarou 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Sometimes the prose gets "choppy". See here for instance: "Nabis built new ships and besieged Gythium in 192 BC with a navy and an army. The Achean's sent an envoy to Rome with a request for help.[8] In response the Senate sent the praetor Atilius with a fleet to repel Nabis' attacks as well as an embassy headed by Flaminius.[8] The Achean's themselves under Philopoemon headed with their troops towards Gythium to try and relieve the city. The Achean fleet under Tiso seems to have been in a very bad shape as reportedly the flagship was so unseaworthy that it fell apart at the first assault." I think you should go from one event to the other, from one sentence to the other more "smoothly". And I think it is the "Acheans"; not the "Achean's".
  • Prose problem again: "The Roman's however did not strip Nabis of his power. His allegiance was assured with five hostages, amongst them his son Armenas.[32] However, the exiles were not restored to the city, but their Spartan wives, who had been remarried to former helots, were allowed to leave and rejoin their husbands.[32] The Roman's however did not strip Nabis of his rule." Repetition of the same forms of expression. And again: why "Roman's" and not "Romans"? Am I missing something here? I am not anymore sure, and, therefore, I did not correct here. I then see "his force's". Isn't it "his forces"?
  • Mixing styles that Piotrus points out in the references is a problem that can be easily be resolved: either adopt a common numbering ([1][2] etc.) for all your notes with no exception either divide the notes in "notes" and "citations", as I like to do (and Kirill doesn't!). It is up to you. Maybe a single numbering in a single "notes" section is the best solution for this particular article.--Yannismarou 09:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus[edit]

A map of troop movements would be invaluable. There seem to be some confusion between notes (two systems) and references, please streamline.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would any one be able to make a map about the troop movement? Kyriakos 20:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanatosimii[edit]

I haven't looked at it yet but I plan on giving it a thorough going over tomorrow. Do you want copyedit/prose concerns adressed, or were the objections that lead to your withdrawl more content oriented? Thanatosimii 05:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The big problem is and was the prose. Wandalstouring 01:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Military of Australia[edit]

I have put this up for assessment because i am thinking about nominating it for feature in the near future and am looking for other peoples insight. The portal is now heavily automated eg. (selective article, picture, equipment, daily unit and anniversary). The only major problems with the portal that i can think of are the colour scheme and the opening introduction section (see talk page for old discussion). Any help would be useful. Regards Hossen27 13:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply. I have created archives for all the mentioned sections and have added another DYK (and intend to update more frequently). On the colour scheme i really have no artistic talent to speak of, if any editor would be able to help there it would be useful. On the intro the old longer version is still there in the article its just commented out, Kirill you might want to have a look to see which you think is better. Hossen27 12:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Well, offhand, I'd say the introduction should be longer! (But this does seem to be, admittedly, a matter of personal taste to some extent.) ;-)

Aside from that, a few technical issues:

  • The news and DYK sections need archives.
  • The DYK section needs to see some updates; it hasn't been touched since September.

A more Australian-ish color scheme might be worthwhile, if you can come up with something suitably aesthetic; but color schemes are very much a subjective point, so I doubt you'll please everyone, regardless of what you do.

Other than that, this looks very good; I suggest nominating it at WP:FPCAN once the issues are fixed. Kirill Lokshin 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:United States Navy[edit]

I have put the portal up for peer review for a couple of reasons one, it's my first portal and I would like to get thoughts on it and two I would like in the future to put the portal up for featured once I maintain it for a while. --Wilsbadkarma 19:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Off to a good start. A variety of potential improvements, though:

  • The rotating content should really use some sort of auto-rotation scheme; manual rotation tends to be much more trouble than it's worth.
  • The selected picture should have an explicit image credit.
  • There's no list of major topics.
  • Perhaps work a link to at least WP:USMIL somewhere into the portal?

Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok I have made some major updates. Starting with rotating content for Article, Picture, Quotes, Bio, Equipment, and today. I have added credits to all images in the rotation. I have added an extensive list of topics, as well as a tab to categories. I have not only included a link to WP:USMIL I have give it and other related Military History Task forces their own related project section, I set up the requested articles to use a hide, show box on the main page so all those red links wouldn't automatically display, I also created a Projects and Tasks tab so that the requested projects could be displayed more prominently without cluttering up the main page with red links. The only thing that I'm still working on is to add more articles to the rotation. Currently I have between 5 and 15 articles in the rotations depending on the article type. Let me know what you think of the changes. --Wilsbadkarma 01:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks excellent! The portal should be ready to be a featured portal candidate; while more articles in the rotation would be good, the queues are large enough at this point that it ought to be able to pass even without further additions. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom Cool[edit]

I reviewed the portal and followed several links. I'm not familiar with portal design standards, so my review should be taken with a grain of salt, but I think this portal is excellent. It has a crisp, clean presentation. The content featured on the portal is interesting and pertinent. The links to naval topics, while not comprehensive, are wide-ranging and useful. I'd add some more major topic links, such as List of United States Navy ships. One small suggestion: the colors chosen for the portal don't appear very "Navy", except for the "Navy blue", which people associate with the Navy, although the Navy itself doesn't make use of it. (Since our "Service Dress Blues," in fact, are black.) You might want to play around with the colors and see if you can get an appearance that is as refined, but more "Navy." For example, you could pick colors from Navy insignia such as

these trusty Commander insignia.

Just an idea. Overall, I'd say good job. I mean, bravo zulu! Tomcool

  • Those colors actually are US Navy Colors according the US Navy Fact File on Graphics & Colors The colors are BLUE PMS 275 which translates to RBG=#25185d that is the color of the section headers, GOLD PMS 125 which translates to RGB=#bc8d00 that is the background and, RED PMS 187 which translates to RGB=#bb8900 this is the tab color. So as much I would like to use colors that are assumed to be "Navy Colors" I rather use the Presice Official Navy Colors. but thanks for the review --WilsBadKarma (Talk/Contribs) 20:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I stand corrected! And my appreciation for your work has risen even higher. Tomcool 21:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Gythium[edit]

I have raised this article from a sttub to a B in a week and I want to see want can be done to improve it. Kyriakos 08:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Some suggestions, in no particular order:

  • We ought to get at least a stub on the Roman-Spartan War, so that we can link to it.
  • The second map should be placed on the left margin, to avoid forcing a gap after the infobox.
  • The citations really need page numbers (or chapter numbers, perhaps, when no page numbers are available); as it is, giving an entire book doesn't really help a reader find this stuff in it.

More generally, any additional information would help; but I don't know how much is actually available.

(On a more minor point: is this actually known as the "Battle of Gythium"? From the description of the events, it would seem that Siege of Gythium would be a better title for this.) Kirill Lokshin 18:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Kirill. Kyriakos 20:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It is known as the BAttle of GYthium. Kyriakos 20:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok; if that's the term historical works use, we should follow their lead. :-) Kirill Lokshin 20:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloonman[edit]

Just a few comments, overall a good article:

  • Watch your dates... 195 AD or BC? I know the correct answer, but if the BC isn't there somebody may assume AD.
  • Battle section is choppy and citations in this area can be condensed.
  • "Aftermath" section could use some word smithing to make a little smoother. Particularly the sentence, "Nabis attack Gythium two or three later only to retreat after being unable to capture the city but in 192 he was assassainated by the Aetolians before he had a chance to attempt another attack on the city." I felt like I had whiplash on that sentence becnause the change was so great---but again, watch the date... Balloonman 08:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

U.S. 8th Armored Division[edit]

I've made some fairly substantial edits to this article. I'd love some feedback on what else would help improve this.--Lepeu1999 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both below - exactly the kind of help I was looking for! Starting work on the improvements.--Lepeu1999 15:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I've made some substantial additions to this based on the suggestions received. I know there is some clean-up still needed and am working on it, but I would love for this to be reviewed again as I believe it can 'graduate' from 'Start' class.--Lepeu1999 20:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

TomStar81[edit]

Its a good start, but the article does need work. My sugestions for improvement are:

  • Expand the History section. This can be accomplished by:
    • Discussing the events sorrounding the divisions creation and the events surrounding its dissolution.
    • See if you can find anything about the battles that they were engaged in and briefly sum up the 8ths role in them.
    • Lastly, see if any additional information regarding the liberation of Halberstadt-Zwieberge, as that sounds like a major hilight of the 8ths campaign.
  • Increase the inline citations.
  • Consider adding the smaller number version of the inline citations rather than having external links for them.
  • Find more references. Admittedly, this can be hard, but it will be worth it in the long run.
  • See if any information on the type of armour they were using is avaliable; while I assume they would use Sherman Tanks, other vehicals could be in there that would be worth mentioning.

Those are my suggestions. I otherwise enjoyed reading the article. Keep up the good work. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

TomStar81 got most of the major points, so here are a few more minor ones:

  • The listing of commanders and honors could be better done in the infobox (unless there's a potential for significant material beyond just the lists).
  • The lead section should be lengthened (as the article itself grows).
  • One very obvious piece of missing information (which could be nicely worked into a table together with the contents of the "Composiion" section: what was the strength (men, tanks, etc.) of the division?
  • I would suggest converting all the inline citations to footnotes here, as working with website citations in Harvard-style is rather a pain (in my opinion, anyways).

Kirill Lokshin 02:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

cla68[edit]

  • Just to emphasize a couple of points made by TomStar81, the article needs to connect the division to the "big picture", i.e. why the divsion was formed, how it was planned that they should be involved in WWII in Europe, their role in the overall Alled strategy for prosecuting the war, and their impact on the overall victory in the war. Cla68 10:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you mean more then I've already added to the Stateside section?--Lepeu1999 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Throughout its history, what operations or organizations was the unit specifically assigned to and why? For example: "In January, 1945 the division was assigned to Bradley's Third Army to support the Allied drive on the Rhine Valley" or "Having decided that additional armor was needed to stop the German offensive in the Battle of the Bulge, Eisenhower assigned the 8th to assault the German positions at..." I know that I'm taking license with history, I'm just using these as hypothetical examples to sho how to relate the unit's history to the larger situation that existed at any given point. Cla68 06:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloonman[edit]

Here are some thoughts:

  • The Honors section at the botton is surpurfulous. You mention the awards in the infobox and don't add anything of meaning here, get rid of it.
  • The table of contents is HUGE and frightening.
  • Expand intro... why should I read the rest of the article?
  • I'm not a big fan on all the bullet points... seems like there are too many. This might be a place to shorten the Table of Contents.

I'll be honest with you, this article really didn't do much for me. It's not that the article is bad, but rather I'm not big into lists and even the prose sections seemed like lists. "German losses were 8 tanks, 1 anti-aircraft gun, 1 anti-tank gun and 1 halftrack. Division losses were an additional 6 tanks destroyed and an 4 disabled as well as heavy personnel casualties. The week's action resulted in the loss of 50% of the personnel the 110th and 111th Panzer-Grenadier Divisions had brought into the Saar-Moselle triangle." It might simply be a matter that I might not be your target audience. The TOC was absolutely frightening. Again, take these comments for what its worth... just one man's opinion and he's probably wrong. Balloonman 08:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    • Another thought I had last night, would there be any way to add tables to the article? Rather than have numerous bullet points use a table and grid to have side by side comparisons of the units? I would encourage this primarily in the sections dealing where you are describing the compliment of the companies.Balloonman 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Military of ancient Rome[edit]

This is a relatively new article worked on almost exclusively to date by user wansdalstouring and myself. We've taken it a fair way in a short time but could definitely do with input, comments, suggestions for improvements from more editors. - PocklingtonDan 09:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There may be some dispute on the use of bulleted lists in general. In this article prose has been avoided in order to create a bulleted "organized link list" in the second half of the article. In contrast to the usual non-structured See also section (which in all FAs is neither structured nor prose). While you surely can turn anything into prose, the effect of a fast and easy to understand structure is likely lost and this leads to differing opinions on the topic, so we would apprciate if other editors threw in their two cents whether or not such an approach does help the reader. Wandalstouring 08:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's definitely off to a good start. Some broad things to look at:

  • Much of the article—particularly the second half—is composed of lists that can fairly reasonably be converted into genuine prose (with {{details}} applied as necessary to break out into sub-articles).
  • The is a lot of crowding of diagrams in some sections; this is, perhaps, due to those sections simply needing to be expanded, but gallery-like layouts should probably be avoided in any case.
  • More generally, expansion would be useful throughout the article.

I would suggest asking oldwindybear to comment on this review as well, as he knows a lot more about this particular topic than I do. Kirill Lokshin 21:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill for the first peer review. Wandalstouring I have had a lot of toing and froing on exactly how much prose to insert in the "branches" section you refer to that is composed mainly of lists. This stems from our wish for the article to be a hybrid article/extended disambiguation page - since the topic is so huge there are separate articles covering a lot of the terms and areas covered more closely we didn't want to duplicate too much here. However, your comments are taken on board, and if this is the consensus, then we shall certainly expand that section to full prose. Thanks again for your input - PocklingtonDan 22:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely oppose converting these lists in the second half into prose. In this case it would be just like writing shopping lists in prose. Give some arguments why these short list are better off in prose. Wandalstouring 01:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
These sections shouldn't really be lists at all, but brief (one or two paragraphs, or so) summaries of the linked daughter articles. Someone reading this ought to be able to get a halfway decent overview of the material, not just a list of terms; as it is, this is a pretty decent attempt at a glossary, but it doesn't really indicate how all the items come together.
(Indeed, the short length of the lists makes is easier to change them to prose; you basically already have clusters of two or three decent sentences in each section, just broken up by bullets. There's no real gain in leaving them in list form here, as the lists aren't so long or so full of numbers/statistics/terms that they would flow poorly in prose form.) Kirill Lokshin 02:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Consider, for example, one of the sections in the article:

Ship types used

This could just as easily be presented as

The Roman navy included several types of ships, such as the trireme, the quinquereme, and the liburna.

What benefit of the first version has been lost in the second? Kirill Lokshin 02:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
(The fundamental point here is that prose is generally easier to read than seemingly unrelated lists of terms. There's no flow from section to section and from item to item in such a list-heavy article; it's quite difficult, when reading through, to understand what the underlying logical structure of the piece is.) Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that there needs to be a logical structure, but you have also taken the worst example for your point and this clearly needs workout. For example this section makes good use of the bullet form (and from the basic conception the article should follow such a style, while providing limited information to help the reader):
  • Roman legion - almost entirely heavy infantry drawn exclusively from Roman citizens of any class
  • Cohorts - sub-unit of a Roman legion
The advantage of the bullet form like this is giving fast and easy to access links (and descriptions have not yet been added to all of them). This has clear advantages in this aspects to pure prose as all the disambiguation pages show. Wandalstouring 02:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's one way of doing it, but it's still basically a glossary. You could accomplish the same thing with easier-to-follow context, I think; for example, something like:

The Roman legion was almost entirely heavy infantry drawn exclusively from Roman citizens of any class. It was made up of Cohorts, which were further divided into Centuriae. Each legion had an associated Equites legionis, a body of Roman legionary cavalry.
The Roman auxilia was a formalisation of the earlier arrangement of using allied troops from the Socii and Latini who had received Roman citizenship after the Social War.

You have so much material that it folds into sentences pretty naturally; I don't really see the benefit of keeping it in bulleted form, given that you're not presenting some complicated hierarchy that needs graphical cues to be understood. Kirill Lokshin 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to see what the consensus is on this but I do agree with wandalstouring that some of the ease of understanding of the overarching structure may be lost by turning this all into prose. Prose has te disadvantage that you have to read all of it to understand the structure, whereas a branched structure is much more easy to understand at a swift glance. However, I take on board your points and I'm hapy to go along with the majority consensus either way. - PocklingtonDan 07:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
As Dan pointed out there are some flaws to prose which would corrupt essential parts here. Take for example Military of the United States or British Armed Forces both articles present a similar topic with the use of bulleted lists. Notably the See also sections are not structured within and if they get any longer their practical use is quite in question. As for this see it as an organized link list that would normally be in the See also section. Wandalstouring 08:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's basically up to you how you structure the article. Personally, I (and many other editors) prefer prose to lists, so that's what I'll generally advise; but you're obviously free to do something else if you don't think that my suggestion is sensible here. :-) Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The use of blockquotes or bulleted lists can be discussed. This is not a structural, but rather an aesthetical question. In presentations bulleted lists seem to me by far more widespread than non-bulleted lists (such as the blockquote given as example below, thx to Kirill Lokshin).

Roman legions These units were almost entirely heavy infantry drawn exclusively from Roman citizens of any class. It was made up of Cohorts, which were further divided into Centuriae. Each legion had an associated Equites legionis, a body of Roman legionary cavalry.
Roman auxilias These units were a formalisation of the earlier arrangement of using allied troops from the Socii and Latini who had received Roman citizenship after the Social War.

So we could discuss this issue, although bullets are nice markings in my opinion. Wandalstouring 20:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, if it's a list, yes; but I was suggesting having the terms actually inside normal text, not given before it as if in a list (i.e. the difference between "Roman legions were..." and "Roman legions These units were...", the latter of which isn't actually a gramatticaly correct sentence). Kirill Lokshin 17:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wandalstouring, all 3 separate peer reviews have all mentioned how they find the bullet points disrupt the flow and reduce readability - that's sufficient consensus for me to think that we need to change it to prose and so I have started to do so. I think the problem is that if you already understand the structure of the Roman military, the bullet points are a handy summation, but if you don't know the topic the bullet points are just a bewildering list of concepts - I now favour rpose for all these sections, making clear how each term is related to every other. We had our viewpoint, but I think it has to be shown not to stand up under scrutiny from readers perhaps unfamiliar with the tpoic. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 17:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

PocklingtonDan I think you hit the nail on the head. A reader familiar with the material would surely prefer the bulleted format or lists of any sort; someone unfamiliar with the topic would want a prose explanation. old windy bear 21:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen[edit]

(I am providing some comments because Dan requested that I do so. I actually know virtually nothing about Roman military history, besides what I learned in ninth grade Latin class, so will limit myself entirely to presentation issues, not military content.)

Thanks very much for your time on this Hal, I saw you had done some great in-depth peer reviews on other subjects and I thought your help would be invaluable on this article - I don't think its necessary always for every peerr eview to have in-depth knowledge of the article content. Thanks again - PocklingtonDan 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If this article is intended to become a Featured Article, it needs to comply with the FA guidelines, which say that you should have three or four paragraphs in the introductory section (the text before the table of contents) that summarize the content of the article.
Never mind FA guidelines, we can always vote and change them. So what argument do you have for more paragraphs in the introductory section? Any suggestions to help the reader to understand something better? More information? How do you want to summarize lists (the main aspect of this article)? Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
We weren't shooting for FA status from this review as such, just hoping to tighten up the article and get some more eyeballs onit - PocklingtonDan 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Chicken and egg problem there as far as the lists are concerned. ;-)
More generally, the lead section should be a concise summary of the entire article; in theory, a reader should be able to read only the introduction and still walk away with the major points that would be covered in more detail in the body of the article. The current version doesn't really get into any of the material, but is more like a newspaper-style lead that tries to draw the reader in; that's not really the best approach in an encyclopedia, I think. Kirill Lokshin 02:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a look at trying to summarise article in 3 or 4 paras - PocklingtonDan 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The headings in section 7.1.1 are much longer than typical Wikipedia headings and make the TOC unwieldy.
Will try to reduce the headers for readability. Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You should find a way of taking the microscopic text that is included in the images and turning it into real text to accompany the strictly visual portions.
  • Headings such as "Funding and Expenditures" should follow style guidelines about overuse of capital letters.
No problem, will reduce them. Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In the second table/image, presenting information that consists almost entirely of "unknown" is almost worthless.
There is no such info in wikipedia about things that existed, so there are two possibilities:
a)we do not mention anything as existant as long as there is no wikipedia article (or chapter in a wikipedia article) on it
b)We leave it red and hope for the proper article/chapter in an article to appear one day. I hope it makes little difference to understandability whether something is writen in red or black. I know FA articles should have no red parts, but whoever suggest this rule has not my vote. The usual solution to this problem is delinking red names and soon an article looks perfectly integrated. At least we try to find links that do somehow fill in for the missing articles. Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm with wandalstouring here - I don't see any harm in having links to articles that haven't been written yet - they are valid topics/articles that really should have content and users are going to know by their red text that they aren't active yet. If consensus is to remove them, though, then again I'm happy to go along with that - PocklingtonDan 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The section "Command Structure" should have textual descriptions, rather than relying entirely on the microscopic images for information. Use the images, but make the text the normative information of the article.
Can be improved, but textual description will likely be much longer and to a lesser degree understandable. Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In "Readiness" and elsewhere, use proper punctuation (EM-dashes rather than hyphens).
OK. Will work through it. Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In "Engineering" and elsewhere, eliminate the use of bulleted lists. FAs generally don't allow them.
Nope, I don't mind FA criteria as long as an article is better to read. So are they a pro or a contra to getting information from this article and the way it helps you to find links? Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
They're quite good at finding links (which is why they're used for disambiguation pages), but not so good at actually presenting information. Someone reading this article is not necessarily going to navigate around through all the links just to get an overview of the material; if the links were given within a summary section, they would have rather more context to them, and a reader would be able to get a decent idea of the material without necessarily needing to follow them all. Kirill Lokshin 02:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be a compromise here of annotating the lists to give an idea of the content of the linked articles?? - PocklingtonDan 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You have some duplications in Notes. By using the name= field in the < ref > tag, you can specify multiple notes that have the same contents, without duplication. If you would like to see an example, a recent article I wrote has a few such instances: Battle of Kelly's Ford.
There are different opinions on this formatting issue and not everybody approves of the suggested style. Both are possible in FA articles. Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You should find some illustrations of soldiers, ships, battles, etc. Featured articles almost always have a number of images (beyond your graphs).
I disagree about the use of images for images sake. For once I want to give an informative article without cozy legionaries. As Dan tried to point out this article has its roots in a disambiguation page and the aim was to maintain such a structure, but give a more informed disambiguation/link list page. Wandalstouring 02:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with wandalstouring that a lot of images I see in articles are attractive filler that don't really provide an awful lot of information. Especially if we just threw in a photo of a modern recreation of a legionary soldier from the early empire, it just perpetuates myths of uniformity across time and unit types etc and isn't very helpful. If we did insert images of soldiers or ships, for instance, then to my mind it would only be worth doing so in both cases if it showed the historical changes and variations over time in a series of images, for example.

Good luck, Hal Jespersen 23:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review, you've given us a lot to think (and argue!) about here. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 08:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I had no idea my simple formatting suggestions would prove to be so controversial. I was making the assumption that you would eventually seek featured article status, because that is what most of the peer reviews I have seen are attempting to set up. If you are not seeking such approval, some of my comments are irrelevant. Certainly, if your goal is primarily to provide a series of bulleted pointers to other articles with little other added value, you will not have to worry about featured article status. Removing from my watchlist now... Hal Jespersen 16:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We will work on FA, but the rules are not set in stone. So if we do get a good article by violating some of them it might be worth it. Wandalstouring 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

Although I'm not a specialist in the Roman history, I give this article a review because I was asked to and because it is really an important article, and I see that its editors (an interesting British-German co-operation!) are really determined to improve it. I'm sorry if I repeat things other reviewers said, but I did not read their reviews in detail. These are my remarks:

  • I see somebody expanded the lead. Well done! Because it was too short. You can expand it even more if you wish to (by adding one more paragraph).
  • "(for the military of the East Roman Empire after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, see Byzantine military)". I don't like where this parenthesis is placed. Wouldn't be better to place it befor the lead in italics, like that:
For the military of the East Roman Empire after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, see Byzantine military
  • "In the late Imperial period, while equipment quality decreased, the military's numbers were significantly increased to cover the borders and suppress unrest. The circumstances of the Empire had changed; the Western Roman Empire now relied heavily on foederati units of mostly Germanic tribes living within the borders, who fought in the name of Rome during the Migration Period." I want to understand the syllogism of the editor. Do you mean that "the military's numbers were significantly increased", because the "The circumstances of the Empire had changed" and "the Western Roman Empire now relied heavily on foederati units of mostly Germanic tribes living within the borders, who fought in the name of Rome during the Migration Period". If yes OK. If not, I'd suggest rephrasing of the last period, in order to be clear that this is another independent topic, another idea not necessarily related to the previous period.
  • Don't over-wikilink the article. For instance, Roman army or Roman Republic are linked more than once.
  • "It is not thought that they constituted a significant proportion of troops even amongst the federated troops of the late empire." Citation? "It is not thought" without citation is a bit weasel.
  • "See also: Crisis of the Third Century" I think the seealsos is better to go straight after the heading; not in the middle of a section.
*"Several additional factors bloated the military expenditure of the Roman Empire:
   * Substantial rewards were paid for the demeanor of "barbarian" chieftains in the form of negotiated subsidies and for the provision of allied troops[11]
   * The military boosted its numbers, possibly by one third in a single century[12]
   * The military increasingly relied on a higher ratio of cavalry units in the late Empire, which were many times more expensive to maintain than infantry units.[13]"

One of the many listy parts of this article. Why don't you make a nice paragraph here without bullets?

Easier to read, than a paragraph in this case. But we have been discussing possibly differnt structures, although your example is best suited for a bulleted list to make a limited number of points. Wandalstouring 17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Raubwirtschaft". I think the German term is redundant in an English article. Link to article Raubwirtschaft with just the English term.
  • The images in "Funding and expenditures" and the next section are bigger than the text margin. I don't think this is nice layout and I believe that it needs fixing.
Smaller images would be of little valuze. Currently this section is mainly focused on the late Empire, so a text expansion is possible. Wandalstouring 17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Command Structure" is uncited.
  • "Culture" is obviously stubby.
  • "On the other hand, this also could mean the payment of immense subsidies to foreign powers[22] and opened the possibility of extortion in case military means were insufficient." Try to have the citations at the end of the sentence. Place it in the middle only if you regard it as absolutely necessary. See the paradox in this sentence: it gives the impression that only half of it has a verifiable citation, while the rest of it is uncited!
  • The first paragraph of "Sustainability" needs referencing.
  • "Forces were routinely supplied via fixed supply chains, although Roman armies in enemy territory would often supplement or replace this with foraging for food and the forging and repair of their own weaponry and tools." Another uncited sentence, which includes historical assessments presented as facts.
  • "Engineering" is stubby and poorly written. Just a reference to Heather and three bullets are not enough to justify the existence of a section.
Sure, it has not yet been expanded, needs input. Greetings to oldwindybear. Wandalstouring 17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I see again many Wikilinks of the same article, e.g. Roman Navy.
  • "What is generally agreed on is that there was a site of habitation at Rome, if not during the Bronze Age Terramare culture then certainly during the Iron Age Villanovan culture that succeeded it." "Certainly" is a strong word and needs at least a citation to support it.
  • "Archeology from the site argues against the traditional apocryphal tale of seven Roman kings during this period." Archeology "argues" via whom? Again verifiable sources should be provided.
  • In many parts the article is poorly written and there are many typos. The over-wikifation is just an example. See also this sentence: "As with most of the villages in the region, the [[Romans] warred". Somebody wanted to wikilink "Romans" (again?!!!), but did a typo. But nobody saw this typo to correct it! This typo is now fixed along with another wrong red link. But be careful with these minor things! They give the wrong impression about the level of your effort!
  • "By the 7th century BC, Etruscan civilization was dominant in the region. As with most of the villages in the region, the Romans warred against the Etruscans and by the close of the 7th century the Etruscans conquered Rome and established a military dictatorship or kingdom." Look again what I mean. In this shord paragraph "Etruscan" are wikilinked 2 times and 1 more in the lead→2+1=3!!! By the way, Etruscan leads to a disambiguation page. This is not a proper link.
  • "Later Roman historians tell us that he reformed the army as a result of his transplanting onto the army the structure derived for civil life from his conducting the first Roman census." Which historians? You don't cite anyone. Weasel words!
  • I don't understand these bullets at the end of "Military establishment of the Roman kingdom". Why isn't there any coherence with the previous part of the sentence or any introductory sentence before the bullets?
There was a very strong and negative echo on all the use of bullets. Someone is half through a rewrite. Wandalstouring 17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The same and bigger problem with "Military establishment of the Roman Republic". It is difficult for me to follow the article in these sections. These bullets harm the article. Why isn't there a proper prose. In these sections the article has a really bad flow. It reads really bad! Obviously, I disagree that these bullets are better for the understanding of these sections. They are not! It is your choice, but, as far as I'm concerned, I've a great problem to understand these parts of the article and, therefore, I'm discouraged to continue reading it. "The ease of understanding of the overarching structure" will not be lost, because (for me as a reader) there is no ease right now!
  • The same with the next sections until "Roman navy". I strongly recommend prose in these sections and bullets only where it is absolutely necessary. And when you use bullets, the flow of the prose must not be interrupted as it is now.
  • The three sub-sections of the "Roman navy" are all listy. I don't know with GAC, but in FAC, if you go with these listy sections, I'm afraid you'll be sent back for another peer-review.
While information is very poor in wikipedia this was the least possible. Naturally it gets expanded. Wandalstouring 17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "For the military of the East Roman Empire after the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, see Byzantine military" So you treat the military of the East Roman Empire before the Fall of the Western Roman Empire? Then why I did not see this topic developed and analysed? How were the Western and the Eastern army organized after the division of the Empire? Similarities? Differences? Reprocussions of the military division for both sides?
  • I think that your primary sources mentioned in Notes deserve also mentioning in "Bibliography" ("References" is a better title for me). Why only Livy is there? Tacitus? Polybius? What about them. And in my article I prefer to divide my references in primary and secondary sources, but it is up to you.
  • And something else: The diagrams and the maps are really nice and congratulations to you for this work, but such a long and important article should have more pictures and not only diagrams and maps. Maybe a statue of a Roman soldier or a painting depicting an ancient Roman battle. Things like that. It is not just "picture for the picture". No! Pictures make an article look better! And encourage the reader to go and read it. A picture catches the eye of the reader and makes the whole layout of the article more pleasant, interesting and nice. This is my philosophy and I think that this is the philosophy of most encyclopedias!
Not mine. We will possibly put a balanced view of pictures to avoid encouraging prejudices. I have been negotiating for months to release several accurate pictures of different periods. But we do it right or not at all. There shouldn't be another Hollywood-Roman look-alike contest or cozy 18th/19th century paintings that happened to be on commons. Wandalstouring 17:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree strongly with this - that we either put in worthwhile pictures that add content or not at all - PocklingtonDan 18:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
As a principle, I also agree. The pictures must serve the article and not vice versa.--Yannismarou 19:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In general, the article is informative and with good maps and diagrams. But it needs better prose and more coherent article flow, more pictures serving the article, some clean-up in some sections, expansion or/and citing in other sections. I have also some reservations about the coherency of the whole structure of the article, but we could see that after the prose is improved and the article reads better. Continue with the good job!--Yannismarou 14:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's one heck of a review - thanks enormously for all your effort on this. It will take some time but I will start to look at each of the issues you raised. Thanks again, very much appreciated - PocklingtonDan 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've run through the article and made several changes based on your recommendations. I shall work going forwads on improving the readability of the article, adding more pictures (although only where I feel they add something) and trying to expand some of the stub sections. - PocklingtonDan 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
While you used the critized bullets here to make your different points of arguments clearer, would it be possible to give short headers to different names in this style (List of ethnic slurs)?
Furthermore there is the suggested blockquote style (above by Kirill and modification by me). Would any of these solution be acceptable by FA standards? This way it is possible to keep the core idea for the use of bulleted lists uncorrupted: quick information access
For the more casual reader there is also a longer and detailed textual explenation offered. I hope to serve this way green as well as grey readers on the topic. Wandalstouring 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Wandalstouring, I'm not sure why you're still pushing this - the consensus clearly seems to be that prose is far easier to follow for a reader unfamiliar with the subject - the bullet structure of that article originated with myself (see edit history) and was only used to present a hierarchy of levels when we were deciding the superstructure of the various sections. A list is only useful if someone is already familiar with one of the terms and looking up what the term means (such as in the article you gave as an example). For the purposes of an encyclopedic article on a topic such as the Roman military, the majority of readers have been shown to prefer prose. I don't understand your resistance to this - I appreciate that it doesn't look as neatly hierarchical to you and me, but an article's clarity should focus on its readers, not its editors. Can we drop this issue as resolved? PocklingtonDan 20:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Layout is not writing style. I argue about the layout, not the use of ellipsis or prose. Wandalstouring 21:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, one minor point that seems to have gotten lost somewhere along the line (probably due to me not being clear enough about what I was suggesting): the blockquote formatting is something I used in the peer review to indicate quotes from the article. If you have the same material in the article, you can take off the blockquote tags; they're meant for quotes, and don't really do anything useful here except for adding an extra level of indentation. Kirill Lokshin 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Restructured to List of ethnic slurs style. Wandalstouring 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Caesar's invasions of Britain[edit]

As part of its A / GA nomination, someone suggested it needed a peer review, so here it is. User|Neddyseagoon 22:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's not a bad article, per se, but it has some major issues:

  • The use of exclusively primary sources for a topic of this magnitude is somewhat worrying, particularly given that Caesar was not exactly the most impartial of narrators. Are there no secondary works on this?
Somewhere, trying to find them! Frere's Britannia, Salway's Roman Britain, that kind of thing. User|Neddyseagoon 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The evaluations of the invasions' success or failure are most certainly something that needs to be sourced to the historians making them; making such judgements based only on primary sources is basically original research.
See previous comment on secondary sources.
  • There are a number of very short sections and paragraphs that could be better integrated into the surrounding prose. The "Discoveries about Britain" section, in particular, is little more than a series of extended quotes strung together with very little additional explanation or commentary.
  • The popular culture section does not seem to contain anything particularly notable, and might be better off being eliminated entirely, or worked into a footnote.
Probably something could be dug out about British reactions to Caesar's invasion, in the say, Renaissance period onwards, how it integrates into Geoffrey of Monmouth etc., to bolster / save this section. User|Neddyseagoon 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Nicknack 009 is doing some good work on this issue. User|Neddyseagoon 13:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The infobox should give (possibly vague) numbers for the strength of the opposing sides, or simply put "Unknown"; a list of types of troops with no indication of number isn't particularly useful.
Looking for - again, the only source for numbers is Caesar - I've multiplied the number of legions by the numbers in a legion, then added 'unknown numbers of cavalry forces'. User|Neddyseagoon 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd actually move the Briton numbers up from the footnote into the box itself. Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

More generally, I would suggest abandoning the "Discoveries about Britain" section unless significant secondary material on this topic per se can be located, and instead working some of the points into a broader "Historiography" section. The question of how Caesar presented these invasions in his accounts, and how other contemporaries and later historians did the same, is probably something that can be discussed at some length. Kirill Lokshin 22:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Stuff could be added from the archaeology of Iron Age Britain, seeing how it reflects on Caesar's observations. And then keep it under the 'Discoveries' title, and add a level 2 section on Historiography, on Caesar's self-presentation etc. (though might repeat stuff in de Bello Gallico), including a level 3 section 'the invasion in other sources' (eg Dio, Tacitus)User|Neddyseagoon 23:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
That would probably work, so long as sources are available to support everything. Kirill Lokshin 13:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Mais oui! User|Neddyseagoon 14:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Way too many primary sources, especially given Caesar's tendency to self promote.old windy bear 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd eliminate the popular culture section,
What, even though it's been boosted up into a bigger section? Neddyseagoon - talk 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
and OldWindyBear is right - not enough balance of ancient sources with modern views.
Yes, that does need some compensation - needs a full rewrite of the main sections in that respect. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Any British sources?

Buckshot06 01:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As in ancient British? Prehistoric Britain was an oral-history society, rather than a written-history/literate one. For secondary ones by British authors, see higher up in the discussion. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Union Army Balloon Corps[edit]

I'm very fond of this article but have not been much involved in development. Page creator Magi Media has put some good thought and a heap of time into this important and intriguing subject. With his support, I've asked for this peer review, so we can get some eyes to help this along to the next phase (A-Class or GA status). For my part, I think the article could use a References section at the end, to collect important reading and better support the inline references recently added. I think the layout could use a tiny bit of tweaking. BusterD 23:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Quite nice, overall. Some suggestions:

Sorry, but that box is useless. Nothing works!--Magi Media 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there some particular problem with using it that you've run into? Kirill Lokshin 09:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Mostly everything! If I edit the "captions=" to tailor the info, it refuses to post. Maybe I don't know how to use it..
  • The article seems to begin in media res; the first section deals with the selection of the "Chief Aeronaut" without an explanation of what this position was and whence it had originated being provided. A section of background would probably be useful here.
  • Headings need to be cleaned up, per the MoS; in particular, the use of a leading "the" should be avoided, as should linked terms (which should instead be given below the heading via {{details}}).
  • Dates should be linked to allow date formatting preferences to work correctly.
  • The rump "See also" section should be eliminated; the link isn't a difficult one to work into the text at some point.
  • I would recommend not using "Ibid." in the notes; if the order is later changed, it can become extremely difficult to catch any resulting incorrect back-references.
  • Footnote numbers should be placed after punctuation.

More generally, a few rounds of copyediting to weed out any remaining formatting and wording issues are probably a good idea. Kirill Lokshin 02:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen[edit]

Here are some procedural comments on an article that is otherwise very good. I will expand upon Kirill's comments.

  • You should avoid links to external URLs that do not have a label; in other words, a link surrounded by [ ] single brackets that winds up being displayed as a number. There are two reasons for this: it is a moderate disservice to the reader to not know a brief description of what he is clicking on; in an article with numeric footnotes, these numeric external links are confusing, even though they appear in a slightly different type treatment.
  • You should take care to get the correct ranks for generals, using titles such as Major General where appropriate. Although it is common practice in verbal references to abbreviate their titles simply as "General", we attempt to use a more formal style of writing in Wikipedia.
  • I recently came upon a new template, {{reflist}}, which produces a superior display of Notes when you have a long list such as you do here. See an example in Battle of Antietam.
  • Naval ships are usually listed with their names in italics. I would recommend you use that same convention for airships throughout.
  • In your third paragraph, you list a number of battle names. You should link those to the Wikipedia articles on those battles and I would recommend that you use the Wikipedia names for the battles (for instance, Antietam instead of Sharpsburg), particularly since this article takes a Union viewpoint. (I sometimes do not quarrel with people who use the traditional Southern names in, say, a biography of a Confederate general.)
  • After the section "The troubled Balloon Corps," it would be nice to have a paragraph about the future of this type of aviation, rather than implying that it ceased to exist. For instance, I believe the U.S. Army Signal Corps had responsibility for observation balloons for a time; I could be wrong. In any event, this will give you an opportunity to point to other articles in Wikipedia regarding military ballooning.

Hal Jespersen 19:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

I think more citation is called for, but the biggest issue for me is something Hal brought up - what happened to Observation Ballons in the military after 1863? If you believe this article, the US Military never again had anything to do with signal (or any other type) ballons. This article strongly requires at least a paragraph telling us what the future held after the end of the Ballon Corps during the Civil War. old windy bear 15:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Coal torpedo[edit]

Something I have a family connection to; I think an interesting piece of Civil War history. I have removed some of what might be considered original research and added inline references. This is probably too obscure to ever be a featured article but I'd like to get it to good article status. Thatcher131 03:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. There are going to be some issues with original research here, so I have to tread carefully in what I can say in the article. For example, the fact that it's size is similar to a 6lb case shot is from a standard ordnance reference work, but the information that it holds 3-4 oz of powder is from my father, who measured the internal cavity in a coal torpedo in a museum in Vermont. Also, I should disclose that one of the external web links is to a site I created, so it should be independently evaluated.
The original photo is one I took; I had second thoughts about releasing it under GFDL. Maybe I'll have third thoughts about it. I have a CW-era photo of the Greyhound (pre-fire, of course) that I can add once I source it properly. I can definitely expand the section on its use (or rather, fear of it) in England post-CW, and I just realized I forgot to discuss the fact that Jeff Davis liked the idea so much he kept one in his office. Let me know any other thoughts you have. Thatcher131 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

In my experience, nothing is too obscure to be a featured article. ;-)

As far as this article goes, it's in very good shape. A few suggestions:

  • Expand the lead out to two full paragraphs.
  • Eliminate any informal—particularly second-person—language (e.g. "or best case, depending on which side you were on").
  • The last section should be titled "Notes and references".
  • Some more images would be nice, if possible; if nothing else, a photo of Courtenay might be good.
  • More citations would be helpful, particularly for the exact numbers in the article, as well as for the point that "if the explosion didn't sink the ship, the resulting fire probably would".
  • The "External links" section should be moved to the very bottom.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

BusterD[edit]

I believe I was the one who foolishly left such a pejorative ("obscure") on the talk page. Shame on me. ;-(

I'm very fond of this article and wish the earlier photograph was still present (copyright vio?), and do think this article has an important topic and considerable research demonstrated. Tend to agree with most of that Kirill has already said.

  • Needs at least three to four images to breakup long blocks of text.
  • Needs some categories, watch the new technology group for possibles. I think under sabotage there should be some categories to add. Haven't looked myself but I will.
  • The article has a novel way citations are written, sort of obviates the need for references section, but I'd like to see such a short section pointing the reader to the bibliography. Look at today's FA Kochi (India). I always consider today's FA the model for current style. In addition to good line citation, there's a modest refs section to point the reader toward personal exploration.
  • The stack of single line paragraphs at the end of the article is awkward and loosely connected to article; I say keep all but expand slightly for context.

Great job on a very interesting subject. Want to know more! BusterD 13:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice improvements already. Glad I can be a small part of keeping this fine article growing. BusterD 19:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen[edit]

I agree that this is an excellent article and endorse the positive comments and constructive criticism listed above. My only substantive comment would be regarding the assertion about Stanley Karnow. Did his book really "hint" this information or did he provide speculation that could not be corroborated?

My remaining comments are all quite trivial. Normally, I would make changes like this myself, but since you are engaged in this review process, I will leave them to you.

  • To match the style of most Wikipedia articles, I would move your initial image to the top of the page.
  • In the formal writing of Wikipedia we avoid contractions, such as "didn't."
  • The style of the overwhelming majority of American Civil War articles is to use American English. "Amongst," used twice, is not typical American.
  • Your first paragraph under Deployment includes three instances of "although" and should be rewritten to reduce these.
  • You should apply some date formatting. I have an explanation in my little style guide: User:Hlj/CWediting#Dates.

Hal Jespersen 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hal. I'm all-American, so I don't know where "amongst" came from; my boss is Scottish, maybe that's it. Karnow says the CIA prepared explosives to hide in the coal supplies for NV trains, but doesn't specifically say it was made to look like coal (although I'm not sure how they could be "hidden" otherwise). I can provide the direct quote, or maybe leave it out if its not a direct enough reference. Thatcher131 16:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It is interesting information and I think your explanation here is worth including in the article, replacing "hint." Hal Jespersen 17:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Wuhan[edit]

This article was a stub with three sentences before I expanded it in July. I currently want to do further research & writing on this topic, and was hoping to get some peer reviews first for the article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  04:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Off to a good start. Lots of things to work on:

  • More citations throughout (ideally from reputable historical works more so than from primary sources).
  • Massive wikification would be appropriate; most of the units in question should (eventually) get their own articles.
  • The list of commanders in the infobox seems somewhat excessive; I'd trim it down to the major ones only.
  • The lead should grow in proportion to the article, reaching an eventual length of three or four paragraphs.

Overall, though, the most important thing is simply to add more material. This is obviously a major battle, and I'm guessing that there are enough sources available to expand the article significantly. Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 02:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

This is improved, but still needs some work. It was one of the most significant battles of the second Sino-Japanese War, and can still use more detail. It also needs heavy citation througout. However, it is vastly improved, and I don't want to discourage an editor who put a great amount of effort into this! You have gotten mostly there - do on and finish it up! old windy bear 15:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships[edit]

After adding significantly to the article I'd like a peer review for two reasons:

  • I don't think the article is start class any more
  • to see if the self reference to Wikipedia is appropriate.

And any other suggested improvements, of course. Thanks.--J Clear 17:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Meh, this could still use quite a bit of improvement. In particular:

  • There's no historical context. If possible, some information on the creation of the DANFS would be very useful; why did the Navy decide to publish it, who wrote it, etc.
  • Any images of the books themselves? Or screenshots of the online versions?
  • There's a lot of uncited commentary and statistics (e.g. "Something on the order of a few hundred entries out of the thousands contain something along these lines, though to varying degrees.", "the quality is generally good, although errors still occur throughout.", etc.).
  • I would condense the lead down to two paragraphs and move the bulk of the material on the contents of the DANFS down into a section in the body of the article.
  • More details on how entries are structured would be nice.

As far as the self-reference is concerned, it's a bit unexpected, but I'm not overly disturbed by it; perhaps others will feel differently. In any case, it needs to be cited with an example of an article using that label. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

War of the Grand Alliance[edit]

I've substantially updated the article. If you feel inclined, please tell me what you think Raymond Palmer 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very good article, overall; aside from the usual quibbles on formatting and layout, there are a few broader issues that I'll comment on.

The use of the pull-quote boxes as a layout tool for tangent discussions is quite interesting. It's not something that I've ever seen on Wikipedia, but I'm familiar with the idea from printed works. Personally, I'm not disturbed by it, but other people may object that the boxes interrupt the flow of the article. In any case, if they're retained, I'd suggest several changes:

  • Change the boxes to use a template (to be created) for the formatting, to ensure that they can be changed easily.
  • Enlarge the font a bit; it's not too bad in Firefox, but unpleasantly small in IE.
  • Perhaps lighten the background?

Another suggestion would be to merge the Treaty of Ryswick article directly into the "Aftermath" section here (or perhaps create a separate "Treaty of Ryswick" section above it). There's not much of interest to be said about the treaty per se; in such cases, my preference is to merge it directly into the war article, both to give it more context and to avoid leaving a side article with no hope of real improvement.

A third issue is the question of whom to list under the "Commanders" field of the infobox. Political leaders is one possibility; but, given that some of them (Charles II!) didn't really play a significant role in military affairs, it may be better to list some of the more prominent field commanders instead. It's mostly an issue of personal preference, though, so it's entirely up to you.

Aside from that, the minor stuff:

  • The infobox should list all the significant combatants; there aren't so many here that omitting parts of the list is worthwhile.
  • The links to the major sub-articles should preferably use {{details}}.
  • Using the CMoS date style ("1688–91") in the section headings may be a bit neater.
  • I'm not sure that the parenthetical dates on the various treaties/edicts/etc. are needed; if someone is curious, they can just follow the link, and the text would parse a bit more easily without them.
  • More generally, parenthetical explanations should be avoided where simple links would suffice, particularly for points that are largely tangential to the topic. For example, "electors (so called because it was they who elected the Emperor)" is clunky when "electors" could just be linked to the appropriate article instead.

Kirill Lokshin 02:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was I who insisted that we should replace field commanders with the leaders of the nations. My opinion is that only two kind of commanders should be listed in the infobox of a war, either the leader of the nation or a commander-in-chief over the entire armed forces of that nation. For example in the War of the Fifth Coalition it lists Napoleon I, as the leader of the French Empire, and Archduke Charles, as Commander in Chief of the Austrian army. But that's just my opinion.
The question of Charles II is a simple one, did he control the spanish state or was there someone else, like Richelieu in France during the reign of Louis XIII. Carl Logan 10:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that's one possible approach. My preference—at least for earlier conflicts where a unified command structure is not readily apparent—is to list the major field commanders (as in, e.g. this article); but that is, again, merely a preference. Kirill Lokshin 12:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
A further point that's occurred to me: the formatting of the footnotes is fairly unusual. The style seems to be Author-Page-Title; all the style guides I've seen recommend Author-Title-Page. Is there some particular guide (which I presumably haven't seen) that's being followed here? Kirill Lokshin 16:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

Very interesting article - I just have one major issue, but I think it is one that requires a decision. Under commanders, are we listing the strategic commander, the head of state, who literally initiated the conflict in which the entity now finds itself, or are we listing the battlfield commander? Respectfully, though I am not minimizing the role of the head of state, let me correlate this argument to the Battle of Waterloo. Would the monarches of the allied powers have been the commanders, or the Iron Duke and Gebhard von Blücher? (of course, with the French, obviously the state of head was the tactical battlefield coammnder as well, but this is not the case among his opponents) I would believe that from any military history perspective, while a "prelude" would list the political events that led to the battle, the battle itself should list as commanders those who led the forces in the field that day. old windy bear 19:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I brought that up too, and I think the article has been switched to list the major field commanders now. For a war, I've seen both forms of listing used. (For battles, this is not the case, as battle articles always list the field commanders of the actual battle, not the broader political leaders; listing political leaders under Waterloo would be simply incorrect.) Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Let me just first congratulate you on a great article. Really terrific job. My main suggestion is that the article needs a light copyedit. I'll be happy to give it one before you take it to FAC; just drop me a word on my talkpage. Other than that...let's see:

-In the Aftermath section, I think it's best if you clarify that it wasn't all just status quo in the New World. France acquired Sainte Domingue, which would prove to be a very wealthy asset over the course of the eighteenth century. The inclusion of this information specifically is only my opinion, but I think a term like "status quo" is a bit sketchy.

-There is some information in the Irish theater section that doesn't belong there (like the mention of Fleurus, for one out of many examples). Wouldn't this be best placed in the Continental section?

I'm sure there's other stuff I missed, but this really is a phenomenal article. It makes me giddy and happy just reading it.UberCryxic 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you all for taking time to review the article.
Uber: I have added St Dominigue to the French acquisitions. The term ‘Status Quo’ strictly applied to New York, New England and New France territorial gains only.
The reason I mentioned Fleurus in the Irish theatre was for both chronological reasons, and to show that the main effort of the war was actually happening on the continent at that time. Initially I too thought it may be in the wrong place.
As to casualty figures, it is not possible to make an accurate estimation for the war – although I think I read somewhere that the total casualty figures for all of King Louis’ wars totalled just over 2 million, but that’s the best I can find.
Kirill. I have done everything you suggested apart from the Text Box template. If it goes to A-Class review it may not be worth it if people complain about them – although I have had positive feedback so far.
Thank you again. I hope this article is almost finished now and I can finally forget about it ;) Raymond Palmer 20:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)[edit]

Respectfully request peer review of this article for problems that I may have missed. Cla68 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Outstanding article (as usual!); some minor stuff:

  • Is it "Operation Mo" or the "Mo operation"? The two seem to be used interchangeably, but I'm not sure if that's actually correct (c.f. "Operation Market Garden" versus the "Marked Garden operation"; the latter is basically never seen in literature).
  • Multiple footnotes in the same place (e.g. #33–35, 36–38) should be combined.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Landings and air attacks" section, deciphering "R.A.A.F." is fairly easy, but what does "A.I.G." stand for?
  • There should probably be a {{dablink}} at the top for the other engagements at Tulagi.

Other than that, looks good. Kirill Lokshin 14:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I italicized all instances of Mo and deleted the phrase "Mo operation," combined the footnotes, replaced "A.I.G." with "commandos," and added the template to the top as you suggested. Thank you for the helpful suggestions. Cla68 06:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think I may not have been clear on what I meant about the footnotes. I wasn't suggesting that multiple footnotes to the same source be combined (although you can do that, of course, if you like that style), but rather that multiple footnotes located at the same point in the text should be merged into a single footnote, eliminating the dangling chain of note numbers. Kirill Lokshin 06:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Got it. Isn't it, like, 2 o'clock in the morning on the U.S. east coast right now? You've been editing for 16-hours straight:) Cla68 06:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Only 1 o'clock, actually (not that that's much better, admittedly!) ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloonman[edit]

Sorry this won't help much, the article is already pretty solid, but there were some REALLY long sentences in the article. Unlike many, they were pretty readable, but I am not a big fan of sentences that take 6 lines! Too many people have short attention spans and can't comprehend that much information in one block. Balloonman 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they're as long as some of the sentences that Faulkner is known for writing. But, I hear what you're saying and will relook to see what I can do about it. One of the A-class reviewers said that there are some grammar problems with the article which may be related to your concern. Thank you for the review and suggestion. Cla68 12:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Military brat (U.S. subculture)[edit]

Prior review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Military brat (U.S. subculture)/Archive 1

I'm getting ready to re-nominate this article for FA and would like some serious nitpicks on this article... particularly around the issue of prose. Balloonman 06:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Looks very good now; a few minor points to fix, though:

  • There are still some {{citation needed}} tags that need to be dealt with.
  • If possible, get rid of the "See also" section; if it's not worth mentioning in the text, it's generally not worth mentioning at all.
  • The image captions need to be copyedited. In particular, the triple-hyphen is simply wrong; the typewriter version of the em-dash is a double hyphen (but it's better to just insert a proper em-dash there, in any case).

The prose seems a little choppy (too many short and simple sentences, and so forth); but I tend to go for rather convoluted prose, so take my opinion on this with a grain of salt. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 06:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill... could you point out a few of the places where you thought it was choppy? I tend to go for short and simple, not liking convoluted prose, but if it is choppy and needs to be longer... ;-) Balloonman 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, one example that stood out would be the first paragraph of the "Classism" section:

Military life is strictly segregated by class, centered around one's rank.[45] The facilities provided for officers and enlisted personnel differ dramatically. For example, on base housing for officers will be significantly nicer than those for enlisted personnel. The officers' housing will generally be more accessible to base activities, larger in size, and better landscaped. Occasionally, on larger bases, the officers' housing will be broken down into different categories. Senior officers housing may be slightly larger and more opulent than their lower ranking counterparts. On the largest bases, there might be a row of opulent houses referred to as "Colonels' Row" or "Generals' Row." In these houses the highest ranking personnel on the base reside. On the other end of the spectrum, are the enlisted quarters. Oftentimes enlisted personnel might be assigned apartments and only then if space is available.[45]

I'd probably chop the number of separate sentences here in half by using more semicolons and nested clauses; but this may be a matter of personal preference, so I wouldn't worry too much about trying to impose a more complicated structure if that's not a writing style that you're in favor of. Kirill Lokshin 19:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Made those changes... BTW is there a guideline on the "See Also" section. When this went up for FAC before, it was criticized because it didn't have a see also section (I had removed it based on your oriignal peer review comments.) Balloonman 10:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy[edit]

Congratulations on your persistent hard work.

I still don't like the idea of the parenthetical U.S. subculture in the title, and hope someone will come up with something to address that.

I also dislike the non-standard placement of the Table of Contents; in fact, there must be something somewhere in WP:MOS about that, and if there's not, there should be. Please use a standard layout for lead and table of contents.

I just corrected a section heading for WP:MSH - please try to watch items pertaining to WP:MOS and WP:LAYOUT :-) I also deleted several articles from See also which are already linked in the text: See also should be minimal, and confined to articles not already linked in the text.

I correct some refs that pointed to the same source - pls remember to used named refs for those cases.

Many of the images have non-standard placement: I don't know where to find the guiding policy on this, but I've seen them corrected often when on the main page - you have images placed so that they extend into section headings, distorting the section headings.

I switched some Lambert (author) to Lamberg, and used named refs for those.

Be sure to include last access date on all web sources, for example, Lamberg (2004) p 1541. See also The National Childhood Traumatic Stress Network Pls doublecheck that all web sources have last access date.

Now, looking at prose:

  • (Do all brats live overseas, or does article apply equally to brats whose parents may have only been stationed in the US?) Having had the opportunity to live around the world, military brats often have a breadth of experiences unmatched by most teenagers (I'd also prefer "other teenagers" to "most teenagers", feels less absolute - my children have lived around the world, and so have most of their friends, and they aren't brats.)
  • Consistency - you use U.S. and U.S.A. - better to pick one and stick with it.
  • (This needs to be reworded to reflect methodological limitations on all broad-based - epidemiological - vs. biased samples - they aren't impossible, they are just very difficult and *very* expensive.) While research is conducted utilizing scientific methodology, there is risk of biased samples because truly random samples on adult brats is impossible. (I suggest) Even research that is conducted using scientific sampling methods may contain bias because of the difficulty in conducting epidemiological studies across broad-based population samples. (Or something like that - you can ask Apers0n (talk · contribs) or TedE (talk · contribs) for help on that wording.
  • Since the Department of Defense does not track or monitor former brats, any study on adult brats is based upon self identification.[12] (add on something to the effect of) hence, may be biased towards subjects who self-identified because of psychological problems, resulting in underrepresentation of brats who don't have psychological issues. (or something like that)
  • (Incorrect use of e.g.; better to just say for example) (E.g. nigger, queer, redneck and geek)
  • (repetitive prose - those groups, those groups) that recently were viewed as hurtful to those groups. Those groups have various degrees of success to their efforts,
  • (Connect these thoughts with a semi-colon) Mormon, Methodist, Sooner, Tar Heel, Quaker, cowboy, Christian, Tory, and Whig were originally insults; by embracing the insulting term, the target group takes control over one's self image and denies others of the ability to define them.
  • (Because is the wrong connection here, and may not always be true - change) Non-military personnel may find the term “brat” insulting if they do not understand the term in this context.
  • (I'm not a grammaria, but not sure "their" is correct here: culture - their?) Military culture has reclaimed the term to make it their own.
  • (awkward) For example, while civilians may grow up in the same house their entire youths,
  • (Difference between the two is not defined) Eighty percent of brats describe their father as "authoritarian" (not to be mistaken with "authoritative")
  • (Avoid overgeneralizing - *can be* much greater ???) The consequences of misbehavior for a military brat are much greater than for civilian children.
  • (This is the kind of "study result" that needs to be very well defined - what kind of study was this, how large was the sample, and what kinds of behaviors were examined ??? - A statement like this can't be taken at face value - the strength of the study needs to be examined. Was this study controlled, replicated, what was the sample size, was it retrospective or prospective, did it use standardized and validated measurement instruments and face to face interviews, etc - give me some of the verbiage from the actual studies, and I'll help you phrase this better, to help avoid overgeneralizing or everextending conclusions depending on methodological limitations of studies.) Research into military brats has consistently shown them to be better behaved than their civilian counterparts. [3] (also, remove spaces between punctuation and refs - I'll do that with Gimmetrow's ref fixer, now that I've seen this one.)
    • This is a very common theme in the research. The citation I provided actually lists a number of the studies on the subject and the consistency of the result. Balloonman 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Again, to avoid overgeneralizing, we need to understand this Dr.'s study sample - maybe s/he only dealt with the worst of the worst - again, we need to know more about the study methodology and sample before making broad sweeping statements about all military children. Rather than relying on Wertsch for this, it would be good to locate the specifics of the exact study, in order to get a sense of how strong this conclusion is.) A military psychologist publishing in the American Journal of Psychology concluded that 93% of his brat patients came from military families where the parents were overly authoritarian.
    • He was basing it upon a review of his patients, not a formalized study. Actually, looking at what I have, it wasn't just his patients, but those at his clinic.Balloonman 10:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (Don't know what this means - what is the overarching community in their adulthood?) When brats grow up, however, these boundaries normally disappear and are replaced by an overarching brat community.
  • (The first two sentences can be combined, and the third has prose problems) In 1948, President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 integrating the military and mandating equality of treatment and opportunity. Shortly thereafter, military children began growing up in closely confined integrated schools and neighborhoods. Military law to makes it illegal to make a racist remark or not intervene when someone else does.
  • (Want to know how large this study was, whether it was retrospective or prospective, and from where he drew his sample - where these kids who presented with issues, or were they randomly chosen? Give me some of the wording from the actual study, and I'll help you address it.) Sociologist Morton Ender conducted the largest scientific study to date
  • (First sentence contradicts some other statements made in the article, second sentence is a fragment.) Sociologist Henry Watanabe showed that the psychological profile of military brats matches that of their civilian peer. But that growing up in a mobile community offers brats opportunites and experiences generally unavailable in the civilian world. (Again, depends on the sample population - what kind of sample was Watanabe looking at ?)
  • (This statement needs attribution - again, depends on the strength of the study sample. My TCKs are very outgoing and independent, probably for similar reasons :-) Avoid overgeneralizing, specify who says this, based on what sample.) Because military brats are constantly making new friends to replace the ones that they have lost,[53] military brats are more outgoing and independent.[54] (Eighty percent according to whom and what kind of study? This quote is from TCKs, so I wouldn't be surprised if it really applied to all TCKs.) Eighty percent of brats claim that they can relate to anyone, regardless of differences such as race, ethnicity, religion, or nationality.[55]

OK, that's as far as I got, but that gives you an idea of the kind of wording I'd like to see tightened up with respect to strength and validity of study results, attribution of generalizing statements, and examination of study populations. Take care that X study showing Y conclusion doesn't equate to a fact, since studies have limitations - wording has to account for that. (For example, you handled this well in the abuse and alcoholism section, by presenting conflicting studies.) Amazing progress so far - I think you're just about there !!! Sandy (Talk) 21:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, you are awesome... I changed many of the pictures, but couldn't get all to work. The Lamberg article was not one that I accessed via the internet, it is one that I have originals from the library. The name, I too would like something better than the US Subculture, but I don't know what that might be. I prefer "most children" over "other teenagers." Too me, other children sounds more absolute because it is saying "all others" while most implies that it isn't just brats. Your children may not be brats, but they have experienced more than most other teenagers. The "studies" on behavior of brats are numerous and repeated. It is a consistent theme in much of the brat research. As for the Ender research, it was a study of over 500 brats who filled out a questionaire and then conducted interviews with Ender. The problem with the study is that he obtained his sample via Brat Organizations and the Internet, thus may have selection bias in identifying more educated brats.Balloonman 10:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Made most of the changes indicated above, except for where I explained why I didn't here.

Yannismarou[edit]

Very very interesting article of unique quality! This is my review:

  • The lead: IMO, this stubby second paragraph is not nice. I would suggest you expand it a bit or you merge it with the next paragraph, so that you have two nice paragraphs. Prose stuff: In the last two short paragraphs of the lead, I counted 7 times the word "brat".
  • "these analysis have been criticized because they over-emphasized negative attributes of growing up in a military family". You mean these analyses have been criticized?
  • "Even research that is conducted using scientific sampling methods may contain bias because of the difficulty in conducting epidemiological studies across broad-based population samples. Since the Department of Defense does not track or monitor former brats, any study on adult brats is based upon self identification. Some researchers, such as Wertsch and Ender, discribed how they used referrals, internet, and newspaper articles to identify military brats." Uncited paragraph.
  • "Military culture has its own norms and expectations that often appears foreign to cilivians." That oftern appear maybe?
  • Paragraphs like this one "The children of officers socialize with other officers' children. The children of enlisted personnel socialize with those of other enlisted personnel's children. Even if an officer brat and an enlisted brat became friends at school, this friendship rarely carries over to the home life. The physical separation and differences between available activities make it very difficult." looks also to me as a bit choppy. The prose might need a slight overall polishing.
  • "While generally true, like all truisms the generalization has or has had limits." Huh?! This is redundant verbalism for me. I don't think we need this sentence in an encyclopedic article.
  • "While generally true, like all truisms ... and base exchange." Another uncited paragraph.
  • Section "Racism" that in all the last decades there were no racist incidents deserving mentioning in the article. The Presidents imposed the right legislation and the problem was fixed! No crises! No tensions! Isn't that a bit idealistic?--Yannismarou 10:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yuck... I didn't see that paragraph with the "truisms" snuck in there. The person who added it, did some other good edits when adding it that I didn't notice it. Thanks for catching it. I'll look over it in closer detail and either find citations for it or get rid of it. I don't want to discard another persons contributions to the article, but it does need to be cited---and I do not like the way it it written. As for your other comments, thanks I'll definately incorporate them.Balloonman 20:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
BTW, is unique quality a good thing or a bad thing ;-) Balloonman 20:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Good! Why bad?--Yannismarou 14:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
It was half in jest... "That is a unique choice in color" could be an insult.... but I figured based on your comment that it was good ;-)66.7.182.35 16:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah! You know I am not a native English speaker, and even if I wanted to insult, I could not have been that good!--Yannismarou 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No, I didn't know that you aren't a native English Speaker... your English is much better than my German. I wouldn't even try to edit something in German---I'd have to use a dictionary just to understand it all. But yeah, saying something is "unique" can sometimes be a veiled insult in English. EG you say it's unique because nobody else in the world would like it. I knew that's not what you were saying ;-) Balloonman 20:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Raymond[edit]

I have finished fleshing out all of my citations, so please perform a peer review of this article at your earliest convenience. Thanks! Tony Gunter

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice, but there's a variety of incidental things that need to be cleaned up before this would be ready for a A-Class or FA nomination:

  • {{Infobox Military Conflict}} should be added.
  • Disambiguation keys should generally be hidden when linking in text. For example, John Gregg (CSA) should be linked as John Gregg.
  • One or more maps would be appropriate here; it's somewhat difficult to keep track of the geography otherwise.
  • Massive wikification of geographic features, people, and units is needed. Pretty much everything at the regimental level and above has (or should have, eventually) its own article, for example.
  • External links to content (e.g. Randal McGavock) should be avoided. If something is worth discussing, create an article on Wikipedia for it.
  • Footnotes must, above all, avoid being cryptic. Things like "OR Series 1 - Volume 24 (Part III) Chapter XXXVI page 638" are absolutely meaningless to anyone who doesn't know what OR refers to.
  • Multiple footnotes in the same place (e.g. after the first paragraph of the lead section) should be combined into a single note.
  • The references should be more specific; the articles, in particular, need to have dates indicated. The website used as a reference also needs to be fully cited (with date of access and so forth); but, as it's just a copy of a published book, I'd try to cite the book directly instead.
  • There are some examples of speculative or judgemental language present throughout the article that need to be eliminated (or else cited to the historians making such judgements). Some of the more obvious examples:
    • "what must have seemed like a stroke of luck at the time"
    • "his men must have been strickened with horror at their mistake"
    • "Luckily the creek made a turn here"
    • "wild with their easy victory"
    • "General Logan must have been near panic"
    • "A timely bullet"
  • More generally, overly lively language (e.g. "The presence of artillery could only mean one thing: the force occupying the field before him was no mere raiding party, but at least a full Federal brigade.") should be avoided in favor of a somewhat drier formal tone.
  • Some citations for the "Battlefield preservation" section would be nice.

Overall, the material itself is quite good, though; once the incidental issues are resolved, I think the article should have no trouble with an A-Class or FA nom. Kirill Lokshin 03:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen[edit]

A related note on footnotes: I think that Kirill's concern about the cryptic nature of the OR footnotes should be satisfied by including the following Reference prior to the Notes (which I see you have done):

However, please note that the Official Records are actually primary sources, not the secondary sources that Wikipedia prefers for citations. The ORs are the written reports or correspondence from the participants, in some cases edited for personal or political advantage by those participants long after the fact. They are essentially raw data that are equivalent to letters from soldiers or personal memoirs. Therefore, an article that is documented primarily with the ORs is not relying on the scholarly analysis of professional historians who interpret them along with other primary sources to draw conclusions. Just as an example, I have found that many casualty figures cited in the ORs have been superseded by more careful analyses by historians. WP:RS implies that the ORs should be used only for purely descriptive claims. I have not evaluated the specifics of the citations here. Perhaps they are all legitimate, but the overwhelming bulk of OR cites in relation to the secondary sources seems troublesome. Hal Jespersen 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of more comments:

  • You should take care to use correct ranks for generals, identifying them as Maj. Gen., Brig. Gen., etc., rather than simply General.
  • I find it useful to include geographic coordinate links in battle articles so that readers can see them in online maps. See Battle of Vicksburg for an example of how to include them in External links. Hal Jespersen 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly understand the concern you guys have with using the OR as the primary reference for a wiki article. However, because this battle has been largely ignored in the historical literature, there is only one secondary source of analysis on the battle. This analysis can be found in Ed Bearss' three-volume set on the Vicksburg Campaign, and it is riddled with counter-factuals (not simply problems of interpretation, but assertions that can be directly refuted from the primary source materials). With almost no revision, Bearss' flawed analysis of the Battle of Raymond has been propagated into many subsequent works, the most recent being Timothy Smith's book on the Battle of Champion Hill. The problems with Bearss' take on the Battle of Raymond being what drove me to write this wiki in the first place, then I am loathe to make this wiki a regurgitation of a highly flawed secondary source.
Thanks for your input! Tony Gunter
I think the most sensible thing would be to note the historiographical issues explicitly within the article. In other words, rather than giving a straight narrative, make statements in the form "According to Bears, .... However, other sources state that ...". This would provide the full detail of the different accounts, while at the same time avoiding a judgement as to which of the sources is necessarily the most accurate version of events in case of disagreements. Kirill Lokshin 00:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill on this. When there are disagreements among historians, you need to highlight such differences. Otherwise, by selecting your own view of the narrative, you are violating WP:NPOV and performing original research. I find it rather shocking to hear that the most revered living ACW historian, Ed Bearss, is accused of bollixing up a battle history, but will be interested to see how you portray this. By the way, other secondary sources you can cite are:

  • Ballard, Michael B., Vicksburg, The Campaign that Opened the Mississippi, University of North Carolina Press, 2004, ISBN 0-8078-2893-9.
  • Eicher, David J., The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War, Simon & Schuster, 2001, ISBN 0-684-84944-5.
  • Grabau, Warren E., Ninety-Eighty Days: A Geographer's View of the Vicksburg Campaign, University of Tennessee Press, 2000, ISBN 1-57233-068-6.
  • Isemann, James L., "Battle of Raymond", Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History, Heidler, David S., and Heidler, Jeanne T., eds., W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, ISBN 0-393-04758-X.
  • Kennedy, Frances H., ed., The Civil War Battlefield Guide, 2nd ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998, ISBN 0-395-74012-6.
  • Korn, Jerry, and the Editors of Time-Life Books, War on the Mississippi: Grant's Vicksburg Campaign, Time-Life Books, 1985, ISBN 0-8094-4744-4.

Hal Jespersen 01:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look into some of these other sources, but thus far I have only found sources that are tertiary sources more or less derivative of the information in Bearss (including Ballard and Grabau, and, not listed by you, Smith, Winschel, Shea, and just about every subsequent historian who has touched the Vicksburg campaign). I'm not sure why you would be so shocked to find errors in Bearss' section on Raymond, given that it represents a handful of pages in a three volume set (and thus represents a fraction of the effort he put into research on the campaign). The simple fact of the matter is those few pages contains at least 17 assertions that are either unsupported or directly refuted in the primary source material. As far as NPOV concerns, I can certainly understand the concerns you would have with matters of interpretation, such as value judgements, a point raised by Kirill and well taken. But the bulk of this article is taken straight from the primary sources with little interpretation. Tony Gunter

You may have difficulty coming up with a good Wikipedia article if almost all historians agree on a version of events and you disagree. You are not allowed to say, "Historian Smith states that [assertion] is true, but the following primary sources refute him." And you should not say directly that [assertion] is true, footnoting a primary source, and neglecting to point out that most secondary sources disagree with that assertion. You need to say something like, "Historian Smith's contention that [assertion] is true is refuted by historian Jones, who cites the official report of General Mumble and diaries from the 50th Tennessee." Otherwise, you are performing original research. One way around this dilemma, which I admit is not simple, is for you or an ally to write an article or book on the subject, have it published, and then cite that as a secondary source. But unfortunately, Wikipedia is not the place to right perceived historical wrongs. If all of this seems too cumbersome and roundabout, it would probably be acceptable to cast the majority of the article in what you believe is an appropriate interpretation of the primary source and have a section toward the end called "controversial historiography" or something in which you highlight the differences that the secondary sources have in a more general way. (It is difficult for me to make specific advance judgments in this case because I do not yet know what types of assertions you claim are in dispute.)

A few more comments about the article that may prove helpful.

  • For a battle article of this length, I find it appropriate to establish more of a background of who the opposing forces are and how they come to the fighting. Although you technically have a lot of the background information included, and indirectly pointed to by the Vicksburg Campaign article, it is a bit scattered around the first half of the article and I believe that a number of readers would find themselves confused as to the context unless this material becomes more concentrated. I find it is useful to paint a rough picture of the order of battle of the opposing forces, not to the extent of a full list down to the regimental level as some people do, but at least the generals at the corps and division levels.
  • Using the map from the Vicksburg Campaign article would be useful to set early context on this battle. The Grabau book I list above has an extensive series of battle maps about the tactics at Raymond as well.
  • The use of section headers should make it easy to navigate through the article, but the oddly named "Chaos and irony" section does not help much for someone wishing to find the beginning of the battle description. We normally use drier descriptions, such as "Morning battle" or "Union assault."

Hal Jespersen 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Almost all historians agree" is a misleading statement. Bearss wrote a particularly bad interpretation of the Battle of Raymond as part of his three volume set on the Vicksburg Campaign, and the battle has been too small a fish for any other historian to fry. Most indicative of how bad Bearss' take on the battle: he places the federal artillery 1/2 mile away from the Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge, when several primary sources indicate the artillery were unlimbered a very short distance from the bridge. At first glance, Grabau appears to offer an independent examination of the battle in "Confusion Compounded" (which is essentially just an expanded version of his chapter in "98 Days"), and in fact he adjusts the position of the federal cannons, but much of his interpretation of the battle is inherited from Bearss, a close personal friend. No other historian has taken a serious look at Raymond. I think I'm having trouble understanding why using published primary sources would be considered "original research," especially if the secondary sources have identifiable errors. Worst case, though, I write an article dissing Bearss ... any suggestions on the venue? :) Tony Gunter
It's not so much that using published primary sources is original research—as long as the claims are purely descriptive, that sort of thing is permitted—but rather that deciding that Bearss is wrong and should be ignored is original research unless we can reference a reputable historian that's come to that conclusion.
That doesn't mean, of course, that we need to blindly follow Bearss' reconstruction; but we cannot omit it entirely, since NPOV requires that articles include all major viewpoints on the topic. My recommendation, then, is to give both versions in the text and let the reader decide which is the more accurate, should they wish to (e.g. "According to Bearss, the federal artillery was situated 1/2 mile away from the Fourteen Mile Creek Bridge. A number of primary sources, however, place it much closer to the bridge." and so forth). Kirill Lokshin 15:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
(Kirill and I typed our replies almost simultaneously.) I based my phrase "Almost all historians agree" on your assertion that there are no secondary sources for you to cite that are unaffected by the Bearss influence. If I misunderstood your remarks and there are in fact secondary sources that agree with your interpretation of the ORs, then you have no problem because you can simply cite those secondary sources. If you are footnoting an assertion with a primary source because all known secondary sources disagree with you, you have a duty to the reader to point out this discrepancy. This is relatively easy to do; see the footnotes for Battle of Gettysburg for examples (such as #14) on reconciling differences between sources. If you wrote an article on this topic for a magazine, you would not need to "diss" Ed Bearss, you would simply offer a new interpretation based on your research. There are a number of magazines to consider. I believe the one that is most credible to historians is North and South. Hal Jespersen 15:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

This is a classic example of problems where there is a dearth of secondary sources. Hal covered the issue well on secondary sources and wording. I have run into this problem myself - the best way around it is to use the method employed by the footnotes for Battle of Gettysburg for examples (such as #14) on reconciling differences between sources. You can also quote primary sources, as long as you clearly identify them as such, and let the reader decide whether the historian or the primary source was correct. old windy bear 15:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Gw099[edit]

Good article I've added a Infobox to the page, please help finishing filling out the box--Gw099 01:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Caspian expeditions of the Rus[edit]

Advice is needed on how the article could be developed further, and whether there are POV or other issues that need addressing. In addition, I don't feel comfortable with the word "expeditions" in the title; maybe a better alternative can be proposed. Beit Or 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring[edit]

The article could be part of an overview about the military activities of the Rus. I remember the siege of Constantinople. While the number of ships is mentioned, we should give roughly the number of men ~100 per ship in the raid on Constantinople for example.

Expeditions sounds quite OK, the objective were not only spoils, as the article tells. I see no POV issues. Perhaps a map of the region and the political entities you are talking about and some images of how the Rus warriors looked and how their ships looked. Wandalstouring 21:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

I agree with Wandalstouring, this could be part of an overview article on the military activities of the Rus. We ought to relate their activities to the "Viking" era, and a better description of their tactics and weapons could be very useful. old windy bear 19:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

We should be very careful with that. my idea was writting about the Rus's expeditions to the Caspian Sea and to Constantinople while it might also be helpful to create an overview of the Rus' military expeditions or somehow a guide so you can easily find all other expeditions if you found one. Comparing them to the Viking only brings you close to the "Normanist-theory", I assume it would be better to mention the Viking, Baltic (Baltics, Finns and Slavs) pirates and the Rus' because the used a similar technique with their rapid boats and longships for surprise and great troop numbers. In combat they massively used of longbows and axes. This is also confirmed by the Hanseatic League that still faced trouble with similar equipped Baltic pirates, when the Vikings no longer posed a threat. Wandalstouring 20:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring Yes, that was precisely what I had in mind. They were still using similiar weapons and tactics long after the Vikings had faded into history. You have touched on what I wanted = and what I want to avoid as well. old windy bear 03:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Let's see....

  • Any chance of getting some images in there? They don't have to be about these events specifically, but maybe some pictures of the Rus or their areas of activity wouldn't hurt.
  • Citations. The article is extensively cited for its size, but one quote is missing a citation.
  • Any social implications due to these mass invasions and movement of peoples?
  • Nicely written.UberCryxic 02:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mirko Norac[edit]

This article needs a peer review by some people familiar with the military conflict Mirko Norac was involved in and what military role he played. Furthermore a better understanding of customs in this war and martial law in general could be helpful.

The big problem is POV pushing, read the good article reviews and the other peer review. I think the authors deserve some help. Wandalstouring 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Well, it's still a fairly weak article in general:

  • The lead needs major expansion.
  • {{Infobox Military Person}} needs to be added.
  • More citations throughout would be good; some of the current ones seem to be malformatted as well.

As far as the POV issues and so forth, some of the material in "War crimes" seems counterintuitively laid out. For example, the "Gospić killings" section begins with summarizing the events and then discussing the trial; I would suggest reversing the two, and having the summary linked explicitly with the criminal issue (e.g. "The court found that Norac had..."). Overall, though, I'm not sure what can be—or needs to be—done here; much of Norac's notability comes from the war crimes issues, so it's unavoidable that a large portion of the article will be devoted to discussing them. Kirill Lokshin 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure about that, but on the other hand he seems to be quite popular in Croatia (demonstrations for him) and his military achievements were recognized. From our point of view, we did hear about him, when he was accused of war crimes. But the logic that therefore nothing but the war crimes has to receive attention is not really objective.
The "Gospić killings" section has also been one of the issues I did not like, but as soon as you start an edit, you seem to provoke someone, so I wanted to discuss things here in a calm manner and have some people with experience on articles about controversial military commanders. Wandalstouring 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

SU-100Y Self-Propelled Gun[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ilhador- (talkcontribs)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Well, this is off to a good start, but there are some major issues that need work:

  • There are no references and no citations.
  • Is this article about the SU-100Y or the T-100? (For that matter, what is the T-100?) Is there a worthwhile distinction between the two? It may be possible to cover both in a single article, but a more defined structure is necessary.
  • There's a dearth of technical data. The dimensions of the vehicle, in particular, should be reasonable to obtain.

More generally, the article is very short. If there's no more material to be added, it may be appropriate to consider merging it into something broader (e.g. Experimental armored fighting vehicles of the Soviet Union in World War II or the like); but the better option, of course, would be to expand it, if at all possible. Kirill Lokshin 01:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm very concerned that the article appears to largely be based on a machine translation of the French site listed in the external links. As far as I know, translations are derivative works of the original, and constitute a copyright violation unless authorized by the original author; can anybody confirm that point? (In the meantime, I've reverted the article back to the version before the material was added, which seems to unfortunately be in rather sorry shape.) Kirill Lokshin 02:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost certainly a copyvio as a deriv work. The images looks like they are about to get deleted as well (PD-Soviet no longer being valid). I'll try and bring it up to at least a stub. Megapixie 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oberiko[edit]

Perhaps things have changed a bit, but this article doesn't look like it's even close to being ready for something like a peer review. Oberiko 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Greece[edit]

Prior peer-review here.

Hmmmm ... I got rusty here ... I even forgot how to submit a peer-review! Anyway ... This is not the first peer-review of the article. User:Periklis* was the first to improve the article, and bring it to A-Class status. The article owes a lot to him! Next goal? FA of course! And it is my first military battle article! I know it is not "there" yet. Further improvements needed. For instance I haven't yet managed to verify note 117 etc. But I thought it is time for further feedback, especially after an extensive rewriting, two external copy-edits (by Awadewit and Ceoil), and the addition of maps made by French Wikipedia user Aeleftherios, and translated by Raymond Palmer (I am grateful to all these users). So, ready to listen to your suggestions ...--Yannismarou 21:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hawkeye7[edit]

Pretty good article all round. Some comments:

  • "Defense and attack forces": The caption on the picture of Blamey, Wilson and Freyberg says "Lieutenant General Sir Thomas Blamey, commander of the 6th Australian Division". He wasn't at this time; Blamey had handed over command of the 6th Division to Iven Mackay in March 1940. In Greece, Blamey commanded I Corps.
  • Corrected.--Yannismarou 08:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Olympus and Servia passes": "Tubby" Allen (Australians would prefer his name that way rather than in full but it's your call) was only a brigadier; he was not promoted to Major General until August 1941.
  • Corrected as well.--Yannismarou 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Blamey's name is mis-spelled "Blamney"
  • Corrected.--Yannismarou 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I cannot accept the characterisation of the Olympus-Aliakmon line as "strongly fortified mountain positions". There were mountains alright but no pillboxes, belts of barbed wire, cleared killing zones, or minefields. It was just a position, resolutely held.
  • Rephrased, although the caracterization comes from an "official history" of the war (Long [1953]).--Yannismarou 10:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why isn't Iven Mackay's name wiki-linked?
  • It is in a previous section.--Yannismarou 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "inadequacy of the British expeditionary force"? This needs to be clarified.
  • According to the sources that the Imperial force was small and inadequate to fight the German forces. Unfortunately not any argument can be analyzed in detail. I found more sources on this issue, and I will try to further enrich it with arguments. It is also explained above, when I mention that "The British did not have the necessary military resources in the Middle East to permit them to carry out simultaneous Iarge-scale operations in North Africa and the Balkans."--Yannismarou 08:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Apart from what happened in Britain, the campaign caused a furor in Australia, when it became known that Prime Minister Menzies was told that Blamey had approved and Blamey that Menzies had approved. Blamey noted that Field Marshal Dill, the CIGS, was wholely in favour of the operation, which Blamey felt carried grave risks. The size of the German force (not all of which was actually sent to Greece) was known in advance by the British through ULTRA.
  • Very interesting point! I made some edits in "Assessments". Please check them, comment on my edits, and make yourself or propose any changes you regard as worthy.--Yannismarou 10:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 09:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oberiko[edit]

  • Was the Battle of Crete considered separate from the Greek campaign (Battle of Greece)? My understanding was that the Battle of Crete was the last battle in the larger Greek campaign (which itself was a sub-campaign of the Balkans Campaign), rather then a subsequent military operation.
  • Two images for the Battle of Crete is one to many, especially when their piled up beside each other like that. I'd recommend removing the map since that is better left on the main article for the Battle of Crete.
  • I'd like a few sources for the statement "Some historians regard the German campaign in Greece as decisive in determining the course of World War II, maintaining that it fatally delayed the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union". I've read that myself as well, but "some historians" comes across somewhat weaselish. In my opinion, I think it'd be better to state "According to historian/notable person X 'The Battle of Greece delayed the Soviet invasion.'"
  • The Greco-Italian war should be a "main article" under the Greco-Italian War heading Oberiko 14:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fort Bliss[edit]

I have been working on this article for some monthes, and have already gotten some good advise for improving it from project members — notably oldwindybear — but I still need sugestions and ideas. I have had no hits on the Wikipedia peer review page since September, so I am filing a request here in the hopes that those who are intersested in military related material will leave some comments for me. Any suggestions here will be combined with those recieved during the assessment of Fort Bliss from last month.

  • IMPORTANT I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond here have patients; its likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Whew, thats a relief. I was afraid there for a moment that Kirill would be the only person offering any advice ;) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

This is quite good now; a few issues still need work, though:

  • Heading should be sentence case.
  • The last few sub-sections of the "Fort Bliss Today" section need to be turned into prose, rather than bulleted lists. I also question both the sourcing and the value of some of the contents; Wikipedia isn't really supposed to be a travel guide.
  • Separating the BRAC sections out like that seems a bit counterintuitive; I would weave them into the main narrative chronologically.
  • The units in the infobox should be wikified; I assume all of them are worthy of articles.
  • Why "Southwestern United States" and not "Texas" in the infobox?
  • "References" should be placed before "External links"

Kirill Lokshin 00:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  • At present I have answers for three of your points: 1) The BRAC section is/was created in accordance with the instructions on the talk page for the BRAC template. Those instruction may need to be looked at in a "past BRAC" sense, so that this information can migrate into an articles history section. 2) Believe it or not, I actually uploaded my Rough Draft version for the post with wikified units in the infobox, but of the entire group only two had prexisting articles. That may be an oversight on my part, so I will recheck the info. 3) Fort Bliss is listed as "Southwestern United States" and not "Texas" because the overwhelming majority of the land designated as property of Fort Bliss lies in southern New Mexico, primarily in the Doña Ana and Otero county area; therefore to say "Texas" would be technically correct but at the same time cut out most of the military ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talkcontribs)
  • Ah, ok. Personally, I'd disegard the BRAC template and just go with whatever is more natural for the article; I doubt that the template in question was the result of extensive thought about the best structure, rather than just an easy way of making the massive updates necessary for the actual running BRAC round. Kirill Lokshin 12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • On Friday, scheduals permitting, I intend to spend the day in the archives room at the UTEP library. I will be looking over press reports for the '05 BRAC round to firm up the numbers, units, personel, and general scheme of the tranformation at the base. I will also look into the '95 and '88 BRAC rounds and see if I can turn up additional information for the realignment of Fort Bliss. When I do I will add that information here and then see about integrating the BRAC section with the mainstream history section. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some new material for the '05 BRAC round has been added, I will add more as time becomes available. Right now, school work has me tied down. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Crawford expedition[edit]

Howdy folks. This is an article I wrote for Danny's third contest. The contest's emphasis was on source citation, so this article has more notes than a Bach concerto. I'm almost finished with it, so some input would be most welcome. —Kevin 05:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's a very, very good article (but I think I've said this before!); the few quibbles I have are basically minor points of formatting:

  • I'm not sure that splitting the references into separate article and book sections is a good idea, particularly as it separates some authors' works among the two sections.
  • The dates in the headings might look neater parenthesized at the end, rather than preceding a colon at the beginning.
  • The image sizes seem to bounce all over the place. Different widths for vertical and horizontal images are to be expected, but I'd try to reduce the widths used to two or three different values.

Other than that, looks great! Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Balloonman[edit]

Since I'm askign for peer reive, I figure it's only fair that I review some of the articles here. So here are a few thoughts and questions, take them for what they are worth:

  • Made some minor wordsmithing changes.
  • "gathered a force at Sandusky." Because I went to college in Delaware OH, I know that Sandusky is a street, a city, and a river. Which one of these locations did they gather at? You've mentioned Sandusky River, but I think you are really refering to the city?
  • Rout to me is synonymous with slaughter, so reading, "The retreat turned into a rout, but most of the Americans managed to find their way back to Pennsylvania" feels awkward.
  • "lands previously lost to the Americans" Is Americans the proper term? Or should it be Colonials? Be wary of the PC police ;-)
  • "However, White Eyes, the Delaware leader who had negotiated the treaty, was murdered in 1778 by American militiamen." I find myself asking why? Was the treaty unpopular with the Americans?
  • "With most Delawares now pro-British, in April 1781 American Colonel Daniel Brodhead led an expedition into the Ohio Country and destroyed the Delaware town of Coshocton." This sentence is a little awkward. I'd break it up.
  • Paragraphy dealing with Delaware Christians is a little awkward as well.
  • "and William Crawford, a Continental Army colonel who was not then on active duty." Does the "then" refer to the time of the masacre or the time of the electing of officers?
  • "acrimonious" might be a little too advanced for the average reader of wikipedia.
  • First paragraph in "British and Indian preparations" could be rewritten. I'd rather hear about the captured american first before hearing that they knew the plans. EG: "Thanks to information obtained from a captured American soldier, on April 8, British agent Simon Girty relayed to his superiors at Detroit an accurate report of Crawford's mission. The British and Indians thus knew about the expedition even before Crawford's army had left Mingo Bottom."
  • "After the Americans had driven Captain Pipe's Delawares out of the woods and onto to prairie, the Delawares were reinforced by Dunquat's Wyandots." Timing issue, were the Delawares reinforced before or after they were forced onto the prairie? I believe it was after, but it's not clear.
  • "outflanked the American position on the right" I'd be interested in knowing the direction. If the Americans were heading West andthe battle was facing west, then the right would be northern flank??

Over all this is a very good article, just some minor quibbles that I think can be easily ironed out.Balloonman 07:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian Ground Forces[edit]

I've been improving this article quite a bit over the past week and I'd very much like suggestions for what else needs to improve for it eventually to be considered for an A-class review. Buckshot06 07:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Hmm, some general suggestions:

  • The lead should be a summary of the remainder of the article, not a separate section in its own right.
  • The organization structure (not "order of battle", as there's no conflict being discussed) should be presented as prose, if possible, or, failing that, as a table. Wikification of just about everything would also be in order; almost all of these units are deserving of articles.
  • The equipment section should be trimmed to a few paragraphs of prose. The current list is unacceptably long; this isn't list of equipment of the Russian Ground Forces, after all. As a general rule, a list-heavy article will never pass FAC (and is hence likely to fail an A-Class review as well).
  • I would clean up the footnotes to avoid the Latin; even the CMoS deprecates "op. cit." now. (As a side note, "Name, ibid." would only make sense if multiple authors had been cited in the previous note, and only one was applicable; in the case where the previous note references only a single source, the form is a plain "Ibid.").
  • Some major topics that should get discussed:
    • Budgets and expenditures.
    • Command structure, names of major commanders, etc.
    • Ranks, decorations, etc.
    • Controversies, corruption, etc. (tantalizingly referred to—"These numbers should be treated with caution, however, due to the difficulty for even the General Staff to make accurate assessments."—but never fully discussed).
  • Direct citations for as many points as possible would be a good idea.
  • Finally, once the article has taken shape, extensive copyediting will probably be appropriate.

(One minor point: is "Russian Ground Forces" the official translation? I would have thought that "Russian Land Forces" would be closer to the original.) Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

HMCS Prince David[edit]

Please comment as I feel that the page is near it's completion and I fear that it may be getting too lengthy. My intention is to use this page as a template for HMCS Prince Robert (sister ship) and I'd like any problems worked out in advance. Thanks. Alberg22 15:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Some general suggestions:

  • Dates in headings look much neater enclosed in parentheses than merely trailing a comma.
  • More citations would be good, if possible; as it is, there are a number of uncited paragraphs in the article.
  • In general, an extended quotation should be given more context than "A press clipping from a British newspaper:"; I can't really see the point of starting a new paragraph there.
  • The existence of a "Trivia" section is a fairly major flaw. Articles should not generally include trivia per se, and certainly not in a dedicated section of its own. The material is interesting, but needs to be worked into the body of the text, rather than left hanging off the end.
  • The "Commanding Officers" section might be better off as a floating table farther up the article, to reduce the negative impact of a raw list.
  • The "Published Sources & Credits" section should be named "References".
  • The lead talks a great deal about the RCN, and fairly little about this specific ship; it should be a summary of the article, not a general background section.

The length is, I think, not a concern; there are many excellent articles quite a bit longer than this one. Kirill Lokshin 01:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear[edit]

Comments:

  • Length is not a concern, many articles are longer than this one;
  • References are now far better, and the trivia section is gone, which is good.
  • The article is now fairly good, certainly you have vastly improved it over it's original state when it was submitted for review.
  • The Ships Time Line section did not download for me, (I could have downloaded some software and then downloaded it, but did not) and you might wish to consider most readers will likely not be able to download it, and whether you should keep it in that form.old windy bear 22:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

British nuclear tests at Maralinga[edit]

Hi folks,

I've recently been working on this article, thoroughly sourcing claims (and rewriting where needed), adding a map, eyewitness quote, and table, and so on, and I'd be grateful for any comments or assistance with any work needed to improve it further.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask - if so, would someone please copy this request to the appropriate place?

Thanks, Jakew 14:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Kirill Lokshin 16:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

The main thing is the lead. It needs to be a good two or three paragraphs and summarize the rest of the article. Other than that, I wish I could say this article needs to be expanded generally, but unfortunately I don't know much about how an article on this topic would look like, so length doesn't seem like an issue (though it could be). It also needs a light copyedit.UberCryxic 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've now expanded the lead section. Jakew 11:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nick Dowling[edit]

This is a pretty good article on an interesting topic. I think that the article would greatly benefit from the addition of a section putting the tests in context - eg, what explaining why the tests were carried out in Australia and what the British were hoping to prove during the tests. At present the tests' role in the British nuclear program is somewhat unclear.

USS Simpson (FFG-56)[edit]

This article has undergone various tarnsformations and it seems unclear (outside of vanity entries) what should or should not be included to obtain A class. At one time there was a long entry about the Dayton Peace Accord along with an incomplete list of CO's. This information was removed rather than edited and called unecessary. I have read the project page and need clarification. I also believe this article is above Stub level. Bigfred105 18:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Mmm, this is a difficult case. Given that there aren't any space concerns, I think it would be acceptable to go into a greater level of detail than is currently present. Some things that might be included:

  • History from 1984 to 1988: shakedown cruises, that sort of thing.
  • A description of deployments since 1988. I assume the ship hasn't been sitting in a Florida dock for nearly two decades; as it is, the article gives no information at all on what the ship has done.

More generally:

  • Copious citations should be added. This shouldn't be too difficult for a topic like this, I think.
  • The see-also section should be trimmed, if possible.

I'm not sure whether including something like a list of COs would be a good idea or not; I can see where having it available may be useful, but it would probably set a bad precedent for longer articles to try and follow. Kirill Lokshin 00:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear[edit]

Specifically:

  • 1. WAY too short; there is plenty of technical data on that class of warship out there, and we should be able to use most of it - the article now is little more than an introduction;
  • 2. Virtually no citing;
  • 3 As Kirill so eloquently said, "what has the vessal been doing since 1988?"
  • 4 BAD idea on list of Commanding Officers; it would set a bad precedent. I can see where we might mention that a famous admiral commanded such and such a warship in his career, but we don't want to get into routinely listing CO's unless a particular CO is of vital importance in his or her own right. old windy bear 22:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

English longbow[edit]

I freely admit that I haven't had much to do with this article; however, I think it's really good and, with some tinkering, could reach A-Class or Featured Article status. I'd like to improve it, and I have some ideas for how to do that, but I'd also like to hear some opinions from experienced editors. Stilgar135 17:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

I'm not an expert on this topic by any means, so my suggestions are more of a general nature:

  • The lead section should be longer—about three paragraphs, usually—and should summarize the entire article.
  • Using {{Infobox Weapon}} may be appropriate here; there are a number of fields that would make sense for bows.
  • More inline citation throughout would be a good thing.
  • Are there any photographs of the actual bows available? Or arrowheads?
  • The use of bulleted lists should be avoided where possible. The one in the "Tactics" section, in particular, could easily be replaced by prose text and a diagram.
  • I would actually suggest that an "In popular culture" section might be appropriate here. The longbow is a staple of artistic depictions of the medieval period, so a decently scholarly treatment of it there ought to be possible, I think.
  • The "See also" section should be trimmed.

I would also suggest asking oldwindybear and Wandalstouring to take a look at this review, as I recall they had some interest in bows. Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear[edit]

This article has great potential, but needs some work:

  • citing, we have nowhere near enough citing and sourcing. In an article such as this, virtually every fact should have a source and cite with it;
  • the introductory paragraph should be expanded, to the normal three paragraphs;
  • An "in popular culture" would be quite appropriate here;
  • the only fact clearly wrong is that Crecy, rather than Agincourt, typified the longbow's triumph over armoured knights, and signaled the onset of a new age in warfare. Henry used the same tactics that had been used at Crecy, except for the stakes driven into the ground in front of the archers on the flanks to make cavalry veer off from the points, and the incredible mud, which did more to defeat the French than the archers did.

Other than these relatively minor points, the article is a good one. I personally would also like to see a comparison in this article between the English longbow, and the Mongol long and compound bows. old windy bear 23:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Wandalstouring[edit]

The section about the Neolithic bows has nothing to do with this weapon. It was adopted from the Vikings (Scandinavia) and derived from the Germanic longbow which had been improved after fatal contact with Eastern horn bows such as the Huns carried. The Vikings already used longbows to a great extend.

Missing is the impact of the longbow on Scottish military. The French king had a Scottish mercenary force (one third of them was equipped with English longbows). Some English longbow archers are also mentioned among the mercenaries of the Teutonic Order, so it would be a good idea to make more research on the impact of this weapon in Europe as a whole.

If possible you could make a comparison section with other longbows of this time and area, like the Nubian longbow (a wooden double-layer bow), the English encountered during the crusades. oldwindybear can perhaps help you. Wandalstouring 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring is right, I also would like to see a section comparing longbows, like the Nubian longbow, the Mongol bows, et al. He is also right that the Neolithic weapon had nothing to do with this bow, and the article should discuss it's impact on Europe as a whole, not just on England. old windy bear 10:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a short note on the use of longbows by the Scandinavians Leidang equipment of ship crews. So about half of them had a longbow with 24 arrows.

I found this picture of Nubian archers (they served as mercenaries from the days of the pharaos on. Some of them in the Roman and later Byzanthine Army. [1]

The nubian/kushite god Apedemak is often depicted with archery utensils.Wandalstouring 11:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing in an exhibit bows of the Abyssinian warriors, circa 650, when they were intervening in the Middle East. Those bows were much like the ones you have linked to. old windy bear 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Women in combat[edit]

I have (I feel) re-written this article to a reasonable extent after it was flagged for "attention needed". I have made the changes I believe to be useful, and now would appreciate further input in order to improve this article more. --SGGH 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Next goal is to re-write the arguements section, see discussion page for details --SGGH 10:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
this section has been re-written

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's rather better than it was before, certainly. I think there are some broad issues that need resolving, though:

  • Too heavy a focus on specific modern militaries may not be the best way to organize. I would start the article out with the philosophical concerns, followed by a (substantially lengthened) section on history (which I would run up to WWII), and finally wrap up with a set of sections discussing the modern militaries.
  • There should be (many!) more citations, and, if possible, some more scholarly reference works used as sources.
  • There may be other countries not mentioned which allow women into combat roles (e.g. Basij).

I would also suggest asking Asarelah and Durova to take part in this review, as they are among the project members who've expressed an interest in this topic. Kirill Lokshin 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

The article as an idea is superb, but right now the major flaw (read: major) is what Kirill already talked about: dividing this into contemporary country-specific sections does a complete disservce to the topic at large. In fact, the very basic structure of the article is naive and seems to presume women have become prominent in combat only in modern times. This is clearly not the case. They have rarely been active in field combat, but they have often taken leading roles during sieges (see the Maid of Saragossa in the Peninsular War for a famous example). What's with the Ancient History section covering Joan of Arc and the Dahomey Amazons? From a chronological perspective, historians traditionally conclude ancient history in 476 after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Moreover, who's to say where you should stop with modern militaries? Why not do them all? Anything else would be a breach of the global perspective that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written in. But obviously you can't do that because this article would just be silly (it already is). Sorry for my harsh language but the message clear: this article needs a complete makeover that will involve massive deletions. I like Kirill's guidelines for how the article should look; follow those if you need inspiration. Also try and find scholarly material about this subject specifically (or something like the history of women in combat) so it can give a broader perspective.UberCryxic 21:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Massive deletions??? I hope not, because the present timelines are an excellent reference to major examples of the important role that women have played in the past (most are linked to specific articles). I do agree that the discussion about attitudes towarsd women in the military, should be separated from the purely historic aspect.

Syrenab 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Myers[edit]

One suggestion for making this article better would be, rather than to expand the scope as recommended above, is to narrow it. Right now there are two related subjects in the article which could be two different articles. One is the History of women in combat. That's a massive subject which needs lots of old-fashioned book research to adequately cover. The other topic, which is perhaps what this article really wants to be, is the contemporary debate about the role of women in combat. Such an article would be called, perhaps, the Women in combat debate. That article would require somewhat different sources than the former topic, using more periodicals than books. Both topics are worthy of individual articles. Covering them in a single article is a tall order. —Kevin 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

First, the article needs to be sourced - it lacks sourcing and citing to an alarming degree. There is way too much information without proper citation. Secondly, I agree with Kevin that it needs to be split into two articles, or at the least, see the history portion - up to WWII - more heavily developed, and the debate over the contemporary role of women in combat should be far more heavily sourced, and I think we need to face what the real issue is: a philosophical debate over women's roles rather than a purely military issue. old windy bear 14:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I have the wiki skills to devealop to that kind of extent successfully, not yet anyway, I'm sure someone would like to devealop further, I think I gave it a kick in the right direction though.--SGGH 13:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Scratch that, I'd like to give it a try if one of you users doesn't mind giving me a little bit more advice, specifically...
  • Split into two articles? 'The debate of women in combat' and 'women in combat roles today' or something along those lines, with the modern army parts in the latter, and a much expanded history in the former?
  • More sources, how exactly does this work (i mean sourcing the info in the article, not just researching, i can do that.
  • philosophical side? could you give me some advice about what further info in this area should be included outside of what is mentioned in the arguements section?

I have asked Asarelah for advice also, hope you appreciate that I'm still learning :D --SGGH 13:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

SGGH Good morning! First, you are doing quite well, and will get better. I don't mind at all giving whatever advice I am able - first of all, all of us started somewhere, and if it was not for people like Essjay, or Kirill, I would not have developed into a half decent wiki-editor. Now to specfics on your article:
  • I would divide it into two articles, or two parts of one very large article; "history of women in combat," and "the contemporary debate on women's roles in the military."
  • In the history of women in combat article or section, I would try to expand it to include the Mongols, Japanese, and perhaps American Indians. (We want to present a diverse selection of cultures!) This is just a straight history section, involving research - which you are doing very well. The only caveat I make is that you need to source your research, meaning literally whatever book you took it from, you need to cite that book. For instance, a very good book - and part of it is online - on women's roles in the American Civil War is "They Fought Like Demons: Women Soldiers in the American Civil War" by Lauren M. Cook and DeAnne Blanton. Another good book "Women and the Military: Over 100 Notable Contributors, Historic to Contemporary" by John and Maria Dever. You just have to go to your local library, and you will find a surprising amount of material on women and the military, historically.
  • As for the philosophical debate on the current role of women in the military, I would concentrate on the literal philosophical debate, such as "Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster" by Brian Mitchell. That is one of a number of good books out on the philosophical debate which is ongoing on the role of women in the military.
You are doing very well - the secret of this is simply research, writing, and sourcing your writing so that it is not your opinion, or original research. There are plenty of books, articles, etc., out there on this subject, you won't have any trouble on getting plenty of source material. old windy bear 14:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I have split the articles into "contemporary debate on women's roles in the military" and "history of women in combat" At the moment it is only a cut and paste job, while i think on how to organise the latter.--SGGH 15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I think we should merge Female roles in the military and my new History of Women in Combat to serve as the history of women in combat (up to 1900) with Contemporary Debate on Women's Roles in the Military serving as the article on the debate, with a run down on the recent history of the role of women in combat in several of the major military countries. If we choose this plan, on of the two 'history' articles needs to be deleted and the information copied across into the surviving article.

I don't have the experience to decide which one to delete, though personally i think its easier to write new passages than convert a HUGE list into passages, and would thus choose to remove the older article. Though I'd rather the decision was made by a more experienced user.

Then end result that I'm hoping for, is an article on the debate (and most recent changes in the topic, in the form of Contemporary Debate on Women's Roles in the Military and a history of women in combat built from History of Women in Combat and Female roles in the military. I would greatly appreciate the assistance of helpful users in this mission! --SGGH 17:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion, for what it is worth, is an article on the debate in the formatt of Contemporary Debate on Women's Roles in the Military for the United States, with comparision to the rest of the world built into the article so it is geopolitical, and a history of women in combat built from History of Women in Combat and Female roles in the military I would advise you to email Kirill on exactly how to proceed, since this is a major change, and he is project coordinator. old windy bear 17:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd simply merge them both to History of women in the military, but maybe there's some obvious problem with that thitle that I'm just not seeing. Kirill Lokshin 17:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, one article, History of women in the military , with two main sections, the first a literal history, a perspective, which needs three things:
  • to be vastly more detailed, with much more information;
  • to accentuate more cultures, and not be so eurocentric;
  • to cite everything!
The second section would then:
  • go directly from the past, and say well, this is what is and was - now what should be? This can be a sumnation of the fierce debate on women in combat roles - are there any real physical reasons women cannot fight alongside men? Women are smaller, generally, and only mass 70% of the muscle mass men do, pound for pound - but does that mean anything in an age of automatic rifles and lasers?
  • cite all of that, and I named just a few of the many books, (and articles), which debate this topic endlessly!
The first section, the history, just gives us historical perspective to flow into the second section, the debate of today, what has yesterday taught us about today, as we make decisions about tomorow! old windy bear 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
so the first step is to move Contemporary Debate on Women's Roles in the Military to History of women in the military and delete both History of Women in Combat and Female roles in the military? I'll rename the first one to the name of the new History of women in the military but someone will have to delete the other two, as i don't think I can. --SGGH 18:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
They don't need to be deleted; once you've merged the material, just redirect them to the new article. Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how to do that, I'm afraid. Sorry to ask, but would you mind merging them into History of Women in the Military?--SGGH 19:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I did a (very crude!) merge; you'll probably want to combine all the duplicated sections, and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 19:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks kirill, I've meshed them together now and sorted out the headings. I think the next job is to change the MASSIVE list into regular passages? sub-group under nationalities or some other common factor as well as the period groups they are already in?
You know, the list isn't as bad as I thought it could be, what do people think? A combination maybe, or group the lists up by some sort of common factor. --SGGH 20:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Meh. In the long run, the lists should be turned into normal prose; but that's a pretty significant project, given the scale here. Kirill Lokshin 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll take a shot at it, over time we'll get it done. Thanks for your help guys or girls.... users!--SGGH 20:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


Change the lists into prose??? I think not. The lists are REFERENCE material, and most entries are linked to longer articles about the specic era or person. I think that serves the needs of a reference book such as an Encyclopedia. Syrenab 14:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule, well-written encyclopedia artices should not contain extensive lists. A List of women in combat or something of the sort would be different; but I don't see how it would be any more useful than the applicable categories. Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
..............?? I would personally rather it in prose, because this prose can still link to longer articles just as well as a list, and it sculpts the story more than a list. --SGGH 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The prose would be an excellent idea for the sections on the World Wars, but not for the other sections, which are merely a timeline of different and unrelated events pertaining to women in combat. Putting them in prose format would result in a paragraph jumping from century to century without an cohesive context. It isn't really so much of an extensive list as it is a timeline. Asarelah 20:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Wandalstouring[edit]

We could make even a three article split:

  • History of women in combat (until contemporary times, perhaps split in major cultural areas and we give a brief overview of the development in each; Sub-Saharan Africa for example is notorious for women in combat)
  • List of noteable women in combat (a long list with many names, heroines and commanders + a short report on their respective roles)
  • Debate on Women's Roles in the Military (Their role in combat has not only been debated today, so we could orient this article on History of women in combat and provide for each section there a section about the philosophical background) Wandalstouring 15:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople[edit]

This was a major event in world history and this needs to become a featured article. But it needs help getting there. So can you contribute whatever you can to get it there. Mercenary2k 03:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 22:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Yeah, this definitely needs help. Off the top of my head, some of the more major issues:

  • The level of citation is utterly inadequate.
  • The content needs to be expanded throughout. I don't have the sources for this underhand at the moment, but (working from memory) the article omits such diverse points as:
    • The preliminary diplomatic maneuvering, the various interactions between the Pope, Genoa, Venice, etc.
    • The finer details of the siege itself, the various preliminary assaults, the Byzantine expedition to find a relief fleet, the naval battles, Guistiniani's role, the events in the city preceding the final assault, etc.
    • The effect of the siege and its aftermath on the rest of Europe.
  • Aside from that, the usual formatting and layout issues apply:
    • The lead needs to be longer.
    • The "See also" section should be eliminated.
    • The template at the bottom takes up a lot more space than it should; working on shrinking it down would be helpful.

Kirill Lokshin 15:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Per Kirill, this article just generally needs to be bigger and more heavily cited. Some more minor points:

-The title of the article is "Fall of Constantinople" but the name at the top of the infobox reads "Siege of Constantiople." These two need to be the same. I personally suggest the latter, but you should probably call it whatever the English historical literature most often refers to it as.

-Make sure citations are uniform and standardized. I'm looking at the infobox under 'Strength' and for the Ottomans you've given a website next to the number. This needs to be a citation, however, with the relevant information contained in the Notes section.

-Prose prose prose! You'll never get a featured article without "compelling" prose as they call it. That's a fancy term that basically means don't get bogged down with punctuation and syntax. The following sentences are highly awkward and need to be rephrased:

In the approximately 1,000 years of the existence of the Byzantine Empire, Constantinople had been besieged many times; it had been captured only twice, during the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and when the Byzantines retook it decades later: the crusaders had not originally set out to conquer the Empire, and the Byzantines re-established themselves in the city in 1261. Very disjointed and swamped in grammatical structures. Simplify a little.

An especially relevant aspect of this fortress was its ability to prevent help from Genoese colonies on the Black Sea coast from reaching the city. Too drawn out. Just say "The fortress was important because it could prevent the Genoese colonies on the Black Sea coast from reaching the city."

After the initial assault, the Ottoman army fanned out along the main throughfare of the city, the Mese, past the great forums, and past the mammoth church of the Holy Apostles, which Mehmet wanted spared to provide a seat for his newly appointed patriach which would help him better control his Christian subjects. Two 'whiches'??? Ta frick. That makes for very awkward sentences. This is a good linguistic guideline: rarely use the word "which" more than once in a sentence, not because it's grammatically incorrect, but because it's freaking annoying to read.

Problems like the ones above can be found throughout. If you want, drop a word on my talk page before you nominate this for FA so I can give it a thorough copyedit.UberCryxic 05:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

Nice start! But needs work:

  • You have little information about the background of the siege. Kirill got most of the problems. I want to add that emphasis on the way Constantine XI became imperor just before these crucial moments is necessary.
  • Needs more inline citations.
  • "Some historians suggest that the Kerkoporta gate in the Blachernae section had been left unlocked, and the Ottomans soon discovered this mistake". Weasel words! Which historians?
  • "In the following years, a massive propaganda initiative was undertaken by anti-unionist forces in Constantinople and the population was in fact bitterly divided." Be careful with religious references! The article is also read by Orthodox Christians like me. The "massive propaganda initiative" was undertaken by both sides, both the pro- and the anti-unionist. As it is now, I regard this reference as POV.
  • You only mention secondary sources. Have you searched any primary sources of this period? I am not an expert in this field, but there must be something.
  • About the legends: There is also the legend of the "Marble King", according to which Constantine XI is not dead but "marble" and will return to life, when Christian(-Greek) rule returns to Constantinople. I think you could also refer that; it is a legend going back so many centuries.--Yannismarou 08:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

First, I agree with Kirill that this article lacks virtually any citations - and you could cite the entire article from Norwich alone! Secondly, the prose is almost matter of fact. Norwich called the fall of the Mother of Cities an "almost unspeakable tragedy." The final days of the city were exactly that, the end of the last of the Greek/Roman civilization, fraught with terror, tears and tragedy. As the article reads, it talks about the fall as though it were the opening of a new Safeway. A few specific issues:
  • 1) the effect of the fall on the remainder of Europe - for a millinium the Mother of Cities had blocked efforts to attack Europe from the East, and now it was gone - we need to explore the result, the Ottoman Wars, et al;
  • 2) The utter failure of the West to come to the aid of Constandinople, and why, the various desperate diplomatic efforts, and why they failed;
  • 3) The heavily documented aura of terror in the city during the siege;
  • 4) The role that religious conflict had in the abandonment of the City by the West, without reopening old wounds between Orthodox and Roman Catholics;
  • 5) The true role of Guistiniani during the siege and fall;
  • 6) The role of Mehmed the Conquerer in the recalling of Greek citizens to the City after the sack;
This was one of the major events of world history, and the article as is is utterly insufficient. It needs a major expansion and rewrite, with major emphasis on the events that led to the siege, the terror and tragedy during the siege, the almost unbearably tragic fall, and the aftermath, as Europe realized in horror what was going to be the result. old windy bear 15:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo[edit]

Respectfully request a review to see if any problems with this article that I may have missed. Cla68 10:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

You're just churning these out, aren't you? Pretty soon your userpage will look like Lord Emsworth's! ;-)

Overall, the article looks to be up to your usual standards. Just a few minor points of formatting that need to be looked at:

  • The article uses "marine" uncapitalized throughout. I was under the impression that, when referring to the USMC, this should be "Marine"; is that not the case?
  • If abbreviated ranks (e.g. "Lt Col") are used, they should probably have periods; but I would just write them out, as there's little benefit to introducing potentially confusing abbreviations.
  • Footnotes in the middle of sentences (e.g. "General Vandegrift and 11,000[40] U.S. Marines") should generally be avoided.

Kirill Lokshin 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Within the US, capitalizing the use of the word "marine" when referring to US Marines is the norm. However, if I understand right, the word can also be generically used to describe naval assault troops of any country or military organization. I was afraid that if I capitalized it throughout the article, it would show a US bias. I guess, since it's referring specifically to US Marines, it could probably be capitalized without major objection by others. I'll write-out the rank names. I often have citations within sentences because I like using long sentences that often contain details from more than one source. I'll work on trying not to do that as much in the future. Thank you for the review and helpful comments. Cla68 01:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It's worth noting that there's nothing wrong with moving the footnote to the end of the sentence; that's the style recommended by the CMoS, in any case. If it's necessary to indicate specifically what's being cited, this can be done within the footnote itself. Kirill Lokshin 01:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I see. I'll do that from now on. Cla68 01:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Tenaru[edit]

Request assistance in reviewing this article for any problems that I might have missed in my own reviews and copyedits of the article. Cla68 10:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Excellent article (as usual!); just a few minor quibbles:

  • All month-day dates need to be wikified.
  • Could we possibly get a stub for Harukichi Hyakutake?

This should be ready for FAC in fairly short order, I think. Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I'm working on resolving the two items that you pointed out. One question...one of the A-class assessment reviewers mentioned that the picture showing the faces of the dead Japanese soldiers might be strongly objectionable by some. I admit that it's a disturbing picture. Should I consider replacing it with a different picture? I have another picture in a book (I would have to scan it) that shows basically the same thing, but without clearly showing the faces of the dead soldiers. Cla68 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, your choice. We had another discussion on the topic here, with the general conclusion that we should try to follow whatever the standards of the time were in terms of what would be depicted; I suppose it's a question of which image provides a better illustration for the topic. Kirill Lokshin 23:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Amchitka[edit]

This article describes an island that played a role in World War II's Aleutian Islands Campaign, as well as being an important (and controversial) underground nuclear test site.

I've taken the stub and worked to create a decent article. I would appreciate any feedback, so that it can be improved further. Jakew 17:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice! A few general suggestions:

  • The lead should be a two- or three-paragraph summary of the entire article; also, the bulleted list there should be given in prose form.
  • {{details}} might be used in the "World War II" section to link to the campaign in question.
  • Single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided. Even among the longer paragraphs, many are very short, so some coalescing of the prose into larger blocks might be advisable.

In general, any further expansion would be good, but I suspect that there simply isn't enough material to bulk this up to any noticeable degree. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, though, as even quite short articles have made it through WP:FAC when they were well-written. Kirill Lokshin 04:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the above comments. I have:
  • Rewritten the lead section
  • Included the 'details' link (There is actually more detail in the Amchitka article - I wonder if {{main}} might be more suitable?)
  • Combined some short paragraphs, except for a small number of cases where these help the narrative flow.
  • Added information on remediation to the infobox
  • Added a table giving detailed stats on the blasts
  • Added some additional information (and a handful of additional refs) to the article.
I think you're basically right about the article length: there simply isn't enough source material to be able to add much more detail. Actually, that isn't strictly true - there is quite a bit of source material, but much of it is incredibly obscure and frankly boring detail that is unlikely to be of interest to the reader.
I would appreciate further feedback based upon the above changes. Jakew 12:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I read the article and believe it reads very well, giving comprehensive encyclopedic information, appropriately wikified for further study. It is a credit to Wikipedia. Thanks for your excellent contribution! N2e 16:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work on the improvements. Only one minor issue: the dates in the table need to be wikified so that people's date preference settings work correctly. Also, are the times local or GMT?
As far as obscure details go, I don't think including them (within reason) would be an issue for an article of this length, but it's something of a personal preference, so whether you do this is entirely up to you. (One possible approach would be to add annotations of interesting but obscure points in the footnotes to avoid breaking up the flow too much.) Kirill Lokshin 02:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Ceresole[edit]

My new article-in-progress. Obviously, massive copyediting is still needed, as are maps; I intend to provide both shortly. I'm quite interested in whether the overall narrative is understandable; one of my sources calls the battle "marvelously confused," which is something I hope the article has avoided. Any other comments or suggestions would also be extremely appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 22:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Well normally I wouldn't give a review if I have a nomination up, but since this is just peer review and not FAC, we'll forget that. I suspect that's the same reason why you haven't reviewed mine. Anyway, this means that I expect a review from you too, or else I'm going to complain really obnoxiously!

Great article as usual, but let's see....

-Way too many red links. Creating articles for all of those would be too much work, so I suggest just leaving some subjects without links at all.

-The narrative is comprehensible yes. Your choice of structure and categorization makes it idiot-proof (that is, dividing the narrative between the different sectors of the battlefield).

Ummm....other than that and what you mentioned (maps and heavy copyediting, which I'll be happy to give before you nominate for FA) it's really a terrific article.UberCryxic 01:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I've added four maps (they're not particularly pretty, but I'm no artist) that should make things a bit easier to follow. I'll work on copyediting tomorrow. As far as the redlinks, I think it'll be better in the long run if I just stub them out, rather than de-linking them; maybe somebody will actually fill in the stubs with some useful information that I don't have. Kirill Lokshin 07:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, most of the historical redlinks have been stubbed out. The bulk of what remains are random places in northern Italy; they're certainly notable enough for articles, but I don't have any information about them at hand. (A RamBot for Europe would be extremely useful in cases like this!) Kirill Lokshin 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent[edit]

First of all, I must say I'm very impressed with the level of research and scholarship that must have gone into this article. Given the number of hats you wear just running around Wikipedia, I'm not sure when you find the time.

I can see how the battle might have been "marvelously confused", but your breaking the battle up into sections, and detailing a "blow-by-blow" account seems to have cut through a lot of the fog.

I also realize this is a "work in progress", however there are a couple of suggestions I would make just for clarity and readability for those readers who aren't avid military historians.

  • The lead: In the lead you cover the significance of the battle to military historians but you do not detail what significance the battle had to the war. You cover this nicely in the Aftermath section, but it isn't part of the lead.
  • The "situational map": Except for the infobox map (where one has to squint to see the red arrow), there really isn't one. You go through loving detail of the tactical/strategic layout of the front line in the Prelude section, so the information is there, but a map of the towns, lines, and the initial actions before the battle (Boutières seizing San Germano and Del Vasto attacking Carignano) would be invaluable.
  • Order of Battle: The order of battle is quite complex and detailed. Detail is good, however, you might consider adding a summary/comparison table at the end of the Prelude section. Something like a column for each side, rows for each unit type, commander(s) for each type, and appropriate strengths. This would give the reader the ability to take in the relative strengths and make up of the two forces "at a glance".
  • The initial battle maps are clear, but seem to be "table top" maps: there is no geographical detail in them whatsoever - even though you describe the geography in the text. Again, it would be helpful to add troop strengths to units and not just their commanders. I suspect that the symbols you use are a convention used to convey some of this (otherwise why have blocks of differing sizes, orientations, and "fill patterns), but I'm not a student of military cartography, and I don't think many casual readers will be either.

I think that overall, the scholarship and narrative are first rate. I especially like your addition of a Historiography section. As you've noted yourself, the presentation needs some tweaking to make it better "accessible" to the "causal lay-reader", but for a work-in-progress I think this is 80% of the way to being a spectacular article (and the 20% is only taken off because I know how much work/pain-in-the-ass maps, tables, and diagrams are to make). - Vedexent (talk) - 09:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the many suggestions! Adding a table-form order of battle and indicating troop strength on (at least one of) the tactical maps should be easy enough. The topography and situational maps will be a bit more difficult, as I'm no cartographer (and Oman's map helpfully omits the geographic features of the battlefield itself!); I'll see if I can find a halfway-decent map of the Piedmont that has some of these places marked, and then add in the requisite troop movements. Adding a key to the tactical maps would probably be a good idea as well. Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added a (pretty crude) table listing the order of battle. I'm not sure if the current format is a good one, or if a different form/presentation/choice of data would be easier to read, though. Kirill Lokshin 19:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense to me. I had envisioned rows being matching unit types, while you've laid them out geographically, but a little thought on my part would have pointed out that this accomplishes the same thing as units of similar types "face off" against each other. Your schema does "double duty" then, and is a better idea than mine :) - Vedexent (talk) - 21:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

I was truly impressed with the level of military scholarship that went into this article. It is not an easy battle to explain, and yet it was done so well that I was genuinely astonished. Many military historians are not familiar with this - and would be hard pressed to even name the major commanders. Kudos for this one. old windy bear 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Larry Dunn[edit]

I think the article is marvelous, and a great addition to Wikipedia. I have one suggestion.

In the second paragraph of the section titled "wholesale slaughter," you refer to the interspercing of pike and arquebus done by ranks in several of the regiments at Ceresole. Quite right, but the implication is that this is typical of pike and shot tactics, whereas it was in fact a strategem used rarely, if ever, and is one thing that makes this battle so noteworthy. The more normal functioning pike and shot formation has the pike block in the center, with sleeves of shot on either side. I would suggest something like this:

The pike and shot infantry had by this time adopted a system in which arquebusiers and pikemen were intermingled in combined units; both the French and Imperial infantry contained men with firearms interspersed in the larger columns of pikemen.[45] This intermingling of pikes and small arms made close-quarters fighting extremely bloody.[46] The pike and arquebus sub-units generally maintained their own sections of the unit's frontage, with pikes occupying the center with the arquebusiers to either side, but for this battle a further ruse was planned -- the French infantry had been arranged with the first rank of pikemen followed immediately by a rank of arquebusiers, who were ordered to hold their fire until the two columns met; Montluc, who claimed to have devised the scheme, wrote that:

(Bold text is the jist of the suggested revision.) It could actually be further developed -- that's just off the top of m head. Just a suggestion to point out the uniqueness of the arangement of troops. Again, a fine effort!Larry Dunn 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! Your suggestion is a very good one; the normal arrangement was alluded to in the footnotes and the "Historiography" section, but a more obvious placement is probably appropriate here. I've added a brief note ("The mixed infantry was normally arranged in separate clusters, with the arquebusiers on the flanks of a central column of pikemen") in the place you suggested; hopefully, it gets the jist of your suggestion mostly right.
(While there is, as you point out, more material that might be added there, I'm not sure that this particular article would be the best place to go into some of the finer details of different pike-and-shot formations. The overall theory there is probably worthy of an article in its own right.) Kirill Lokshin 02:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Demosthenes[edit]

Demosthenes fought as a hoplite and influenced with his political choices some major military events of the ancient world. He opposed both Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great and tried to revive Athens' splendor. I intend to nominate this for FAC. The article is already a GA and has already gone or is going through some peer-reviews. But I would like more feedback from the project and its excellent reviewers.--Yannismarou 19:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Overall, very nice (as usual!); some minor points to consider, though:

  • Some of the captions seem unusually qualitative (and potentially unsourced); e.g. "The knitted brow and compression of the lips suggest the inner struggle of an apprehensive mind". It's usually better to keep captions purely descriptive.
  • "In 335 BC, the King of Macedon crippled any attempt of the Greek cities at resistance and shattered Demosthenes' hopes for Athenian independence." is repeated several times, but it's not entirely clear from the article what exactly it refers to.
  • There are a few remaining grammatical errors (e.g. "Demosthenes barnstormed Peloponnese"), so getting another outside copyeditor to go through the article may be worthwhile.

Other than that, this looks great. Kirill Lokshin 23:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks Kirill. I'll try to fix these remaining issues.--Yannismarou 10:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think I've fixed the captions with qualitative comments. These were mostly old edits, before I started rewriting the article and I hadn't changed them (although I had to!). I also clarified the phrase you mention. The repetition was not mine. Probably some of the reviewers trying to help put it in the begining of "Harpalus" sub-section. I also put the photo-caption where this phrase was mentioned in the previous sub-section (where it is more relevant) and I clarified the chronological order of events. As far as the copy-editing is concerned I'll do my best and I'll also try to find an outside copy-editor to help. As matter of fact, I think this is the best place for such an invitation!--Yannismarou 15:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I gave the second half of the article myself another copy-editing and I think I improved the prose and corrected some mistakes. I hope I'll have another copyeditin by some volunteer!--Yannismarou 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Article also copyedited by Robth and Chaleyer61.--Yannismarou 14:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

1956 Hungarian Revolution[edit]

October 23, 2006 is the 50th anniversary of this uprising when Hungarian citizens dared to expel the Soviet military. This article was originally B-rated, but several editors have expanded content and references in several sections since then. An independent review would be very helpful in moving to an A rating, possibly even to featured article status by the anniversary date. Thanks in advance Ryanjo 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

This is pretty good. Some points that need work, though:

  • The lead section should be ~3 full paragraphs, and needs to summarize the entire article; absorbing most of the "Overview" section may be appropriate. Having footnotes in the lead is generally a bad idea, as everything there should be present—and cited—deeper in the article.
  • Is the title correct? I would have placed the article at Hungarian Revolution of 1956 or Hungarian Revolution (1956); starting the title with a number is rather clunky, particularly if it's just a way of getting the date in there for disambiguation purposes.
  • More citations throughout would be good for an article of this size. The "Historical debate" section, in particular, needs to be thoroughly cited.
  • Can the "Causes" section be rolled into the prelude or historical debate sections? It's rather stubby on its own.
  • The "The revolution" header is redundant; I suggest removing it and bumping its sub-headers up a level.
  • The dates in the headers should be linked so that date preferences work properly.
  • I'm a bit surprised at the sourcing, as much of it seems to be isolated articles and papers; are there no full-length books published on this topic?
  • The "See also" and "External links" sections should be trimmed as much as possible.
  • The gigantic template at the bottom has grown to the point where it's utterly unacceptable. I strongly suggest linking to Portal:Cold War instead.

Kirill Lokshin 22:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid response to the peer review request.
  • Regarding 1956 preceeding Hungarian Revolution, this was discussed early in the article history, and done to comply with several other Hungarian Revolutions (disambiguation page). I think it may be acceptable format in Wikipedia, such as 2000 Summer Olympics. I am going to start a discussion about changing the name to Hungarian Revolution of 1956, which I agree is a better title, and amend the disambiguation page..
  • Can you refer me to an example of the suggested way to link the dates in the section titles, and where to put the link to the Portal:Cold War? Regards Ryanjo 20:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To link the dates, we would replace, say, "23 October to 4 November" with "23 October to 4 November".
  • The portal link should just replace {{Cold War}} with {{portal|Cold War}}; but you might want to wait on the outcome of the discussion here about a general way of handling these templates.
Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 20:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Additional questions: Why trim the "See also" and "External links" sections? Also, what is considered pertinent in these sections? Would it help to add a brief phrase regarding pertinence of the link or group into related subsections? Thanks, Ryanjo 16:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
As a general rule, featured articles shouldn't have "See also" sections; if something isn't worth mentioning (and hence linking) in the text, it's probably not worth mentioning at all. As far as external links go, there's some decent advice at WP:EL; but the general principle is that links need to offer additional (useful) content beyond that which could be added to the article itself. Kirill Lokshin 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Kirill covered the big points. I just want to say it would be so freaking sweet if we could get this article to FA and on the Main Page in time. Right now the biggest challenge I see is the sources. Yeah you really need to get some books or published scholarly papers in there. I'm sure tons of material has been written about an event like this.UberCryxic 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree, thanks, that's my focus now. Ryanjo 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

EXCELLENT article, historically accurate, and fair. There are only one thing that needs immediate addressing:

  • 1) SOURCING - there have been numerous books written on the tragedy of 1956, as the US encouraged the revolt, then abandoned them to their fate when the Soviets moved in. We need sourcing throughout, and especially from some of the excellent books written on the revolt, such as "The 1956 Hungarian Revolution: A History in Documents," by Csaba Bekes, Malcolm Byrne, and Janos Rainer, or "Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest, And the 1956 Hungarian Revolt" (Cold War International History Project Series) by Charles Gati. old windy bear 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for these references. I will dig these up and include them as they apply. Ryanjo 01:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Ryanjo You are more than welcome - you did an excellent job on this article, and all it lacks is the sourcing for an A rating. If you need additional sources, let me know, and I will gladly find you some more, because you did a job worthy of an A rating. old windy bear 01:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Baton Rouge (1862)[edit]

Would like to know what I can do to improve the Quality of this article beyond start-class. Thanks, Sdsouza 17:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Let me go off and act on these. I am not sure about getting to FA - mainly because I thought the battle not as important as to merit it - but i guess all of the suggestions will go a long way in making this a good article. Sdsouza 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Several things you could do:

  1. Add more in-line citations.
  2. Expand the lead and the aftermath sections.
  3. Get rid of the order of battle section. It's unnecessary.
  4. Depends on how far you want to take this article. If you want to go to FA, then you're going to have to expand almost every section in there.

Hope that was helpful.UberCryxic 20:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Not too bad, actually. Some suggestions:

  • Citations are essential, and should be added in large numbers.
  • Expand the article with as much materials as you can find. The sections are rather short at the moment.
  • The order of battle is a complicated question. I would format it as a table and give more information (numbers, commanders, etc.) for each unit.
  • The lead should be two/three full paragraphs.
  • More pictures would be helpful. Are there any portraits of the people involved?
  • A map would be very nice.

Kirill Lokshin 20:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Rowlett's Station[edit]

Would like to know if the article is good enough in it's present state, and what I (or others) could do to improve it. Thanks Sdsouza 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Suggestions:

  • Again, citations in large numbers are needed.
  • Turn the order of battle into a more detailed table.
  • Expand the lead to two/three full paragraphs.
  • Maps and other images would be helpful.

In general, though, expanding the article as much as possible would be a good thing. While the engagement is fairly minor, it's still pretty short. Kirill Lokshin 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Kirill, will act on these. Sdsouza 22:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Pedro del Valle[edit]

The editors would like comments by the group on this article so it can be improved.--Oldwildbill 18:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A very decent article. Some issues that can be worked on:

  • The lead can probably be expanded to three paragraphs.
  • The awards section should, as much as possible, be turned into prose; see Aleksandr Vasilevsky for an example.
  • Headings should follow the MoS; in particular, "Works of Pedro del Valle" is redundant, and "The Banana Wars & pre-World War II" needs to be cleaned up.
  • The formatting in the works section needs to be cleaned up.
  • Since a full "References" section is provided, the notes only need to give a short-form (as in, say, Battle of Rennell Island) citation.
  • Are all the external links necessary?
  • The lone link in the "See also" section is something of an eyesore; would it be possible to work it into the text somehow?

Kirill Lokshin 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Kirill got most of the specifics. I just wanted to say that, generally speaking, this article should probably be expanded. Along with that, more in-line citations would also help. The last link under the 'References' section does not work for me. Anyone else experiencing this problem? And finally, do you have any print sources? These would go a long way to making the article more professional and encyclopedic. Overall, a nice start though.UberCryxic 18:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Humbert Roque Versace[edit]

The editors would like for the group to comment on the areas that need improvement and any ideals for areas that need expansion.--Oldwildbill 18:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Some brief remarks:

  • The lead should be longer; two full-length paragraphs would probably be suitable.
  • The "Biography" section can be split into two or three separate sections to make the flow somewhat easier.
  • The "Awards and decorations" and "Medal of Honor citation" sections should be combined into a single section giving the MoH citation as well as giving a prose summary of the other awards (with dates, etc.). The citation should use <blockquote>Text.</blockquote>, incidentally.
  • The "In memory" section looks rather stubby; if there's no more material with which to expand it, it may be better to simply merge it onto the end of the "Biography" section.
  • The "Bibliography" section is redundant with the "Further reading" section, and should be eliminated.
  • The notes and references need to be more detailed. In particular, websites need to have a date of access, at a minimum, and ideally more details like publication dates and authors.
  • The "See also" should be eliminated by linking from within the main body of the article, if at all possible.
  • What's the strange "United States" doing at the bottom of the article?

Kirill Lokshin 02:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of orders, decorations and medals of the Republic of China[edit]

This is my first WP:FLC hopeful. Not sure if any of you guys are familiar with the quirks and habits of the powers that be who control FL ascension, but I'll try here anyway. (It's within our scope, right?) I'm about a half done with this article, which lists all the military and civilian awards of the ROC. I sort of followed the format of List of Canadian provincial and territorial orders (which isn't much) and did some table-pushing (not too complex) and got a fairly respectable (IMHO) semi-complete list here. I'm submitting this PR since I'll be finishing the rest of the article fairly soon and the new sections will be very similar to the current layout. Then I can submit it for FLC as soon as I finish the article and make changes (if any) based on you guys' suggestion. I'm already using the <references> tag for notes since I had to have a way of saying long-ish sentences about certain objects, so I had to resort to using the archaic reference system. (Outline, as opposed to inline :D) -- Миборовский 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

I have no experience with FLC in particular, so I'm not sure what the quirks are there; but looking at existing FLs suggests that the general idea is correct. A few comments about the list itself:

  • None of the titles are linked; I would have thought that many of these orders have (or could have) their own articles. Is that not the case?
  • The "Picture" column might be renamed to something like "Badge", to make it clearer what the image is.
  • This might be resolved if a separate article is created, but it's not at all clear what the different numbers of lions refer to on the saber; a footnote might be helpful here.

Other than that, this looks very good so far; please post an update when the other sections are filled out! Kirill Lokshin 09:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, at the moment only one of the awards have an article. :( The rest would show up as red links, and an article full of bold red links would be uglier than one full of bold black text but no red link. When done with this article, I will create stubs for all of the awards listed. (Probably)
  • Noted and changed.
  • Noted and changed.
-- Миборовский 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

Trying to compile an FLC myself, I studied the question a bit and your list is very nice. However, people might have two potential quibbles:

  • Sources for the date of institution (you have to source it one at the table header if the source is the same).
  • The number awarded if the information is available somewhere (I have no idea whether if it's compulsory though...)

Otherwise, I'm looking for this one to hit FLC, it really interests me!!! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • As I'm using the inline footnotes system for article/list notes, I can't (or shouldn't) mix up the references and the notes. So I did the next best thing, created a note and on it telling the reader to look at the references section for the reference. :/ Not sure if that'll work though.
  • I tried to, and could only find the number for one of the awards on the list. Though I'll be looking out for these figures when finishing up this list. -- Миборовский 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ulm Campaign[edit]

Time for another FA from our wonderful project. I created this article yesterday and, as always, would like all opinions on what can be done to improve it. Thank you!UberCryxic 21:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Bleh, I just didn't get a chance to review this yet, having spent all day writing my own article; no deep principle at work here! ;-)

Overall, the article is very nicely written, up to your usual standards. There are a few point on which some work may still be advisable, though:

  • There is some use of fairly informal language (e.g. "bagged an Austrian army") that should probably be replaced with something more staid.
  • All month/day combinations need to be wikified so that date preferences work; this includes dates in section headers. In particular, usage like "October 5th" should be avoided in favor of "October 5".
  • "The campaign" should be "Campaign", as a leading article is omitted from section names unless absolutely necessary. The same principle applies to any other section titles that begin with "The..."
  • When a block quote is given (e.g. in the "Aftermath" section), it's much neater to include the corresponding footnote directly after the quoted text, rather than leaving it trailing off after the block formatting.
  • There's a lot of redundant categories. Strictly speaking, this needs only four: 1805, Battles of France, Battles of Austria, and Napoleonic Wars (or a subcat of that, if there's one for the Third Coalition.
  • The formatting of the short-form citations is inconsistent; some are given as "Author, Title, page", while others are only "Author, page". Personally, I prefer the first form; but either is fine as long as it's consistent throughout the article.
  • The captions for the strategic situation maps could probably be a bit longer and more descriptive.
  • A thought: any chance of getting some more non-map images? Portraits of the chief commanders, for example, should be relatively easy to come by.

I would say that, given the requisite formatting fixes and copyediting, this should be ready for FAC shortly. Kirill Lokshin 02:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made every change except the citation thing. The reason why I do it that way is to save myself time. After the first instance of [Author, title, page] I figure the reader will be aware that if I keep citing from the same author it doesn't matter if I write just [Author, page]. I don't think this is a problem as I've seen it done in several scholarly works.UberCryxic 03:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Which would be fine, except the titles seem to pop up (pretty much at random) after the first instance as well. For example, "The Campaigns of Napoleon" is repeated no less than four times. (Or did you mean that they're given in full at the beginning of each set of citations from that work, similar to how "Ibid." works? That seems unnecessarily complicated, especially if the text gets rearranged, changing the order of the footnotes.)
There's also the fairly strange fn. 34, which uses a full name ("David Chandler") but no title. Kirill Lokshin 03:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
More pedantry: there's also plenty more dates that need to be linked. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

When there is a new author that I cite from, then yes I go back to [Author, title, page] even if it has appeared before. I don't think it's complicated and it's a standard I've used on other FAs as well. If the text get rearranged, then I rearrange the citations appropriately. Footnote 34 was a mistake; I've corrected that now. I normally don't link dates unless they're in the infobox or they're very important, and in the latter case it's very iffy for me. What dates in particular were you thinking should be linked?UberCryxic 03:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Any date that includes both a month and a day needs to be linked so that readers' date format preferences work properly. In other words, "September 5" should be "September 5". Kirill Lokshin 03:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Done.UberCryxic 04:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Alcibiades[edit]

Hi! More ancient Greece for you to review! This article had been initially rewritten by Dmcheatw. Robth has also worked on this. I then got in, tried to made it NPOV, add information and citate it. My rewritting is now over and I intend to nominate it for FA. I would appreciate your suggestions, remarks and propositions. Any feedback is valuable!--Yannismarou 20:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Thoroughly excellent article. Aside from some light copyediting, primarily for the occasional grammatical error (e.g. "Alcibiades career"), there isn't much that needs to be done here. I might suggest trying to get rid of the "See also" section entirely, though, as well as fleshing out the "References in comedy, philosophy and literature" section to be a little less stubby.

Some other suggestions I have are more in the vein of personal preferences of mine, and needn't be followed if you don't like them:

  • Change {{main}} to {{details}}, which produces text that's somewhat more meaningful to the reader.
  • Combine the discursive notes and the citations; or at least change the discursive notes to use English letters. Most readers aren't familiar with the Greek alphabet, and will likely be somewhat confused as to the order of the notes.

Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I fleshed out a bit the stubby section. I hope it is better.
  • I also changed {{main}} to {{details}}.
  • The "See also" section has some useful links that I cannot easily incorporate in the main text. I think keeping it, at least for the time being.
  • I'm a structure-freak in everything I write! That is why I seperate "Notes" from "Citations". I think it is also better for the reader and for the layout, since in the "Notes" section I can make further inline citations, without "burdaining" the text. It seems to me a "neater" structure. But as you say, these things are mostly a matter of personal taste. As far as the Greek alphabet is concerned, if I see that those reading the article feel uncomfortable with it or confused, I'll turn it into English letters. Thanks!--Yannismarou 08:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I also got rid of the "See Also" section and incorporated its links in the prose.--Yannismarou 08:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Robth[edit]

Excellent work, as always. I gave it a copyedit, and made a few content changes (mostly battle-related, since that's the stuff I know best). Places that might be able to use improvement:

  • More details on his return to Athens would be good; it's one of the more interesting episodes of his career, so things like his delay at Gytheum while he waited for news of the city's mood, his curious mistake in returning to Athens on the Plynteria, and the political masterstroke of the procession to Eleusis would definitely be good details to include. The latter two in particular would be good.
  • The details of his split with Phrynichus in 411 could be worth including, although that might be more borderline. --RobthTalk 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestions and the copy-edit. I tried to cover the topics you mentioned.--Yannismarou 13:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks great. --RobthTalk 14:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Trigg[edit]

Prior peer review

This is an A-class article that I would like to see if it has a chance for FA? If it does, what things can I do to get it ready for nomination? Thanks! --plange 00:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Fairly good article overall. You may want to address some of the following points....

- The lead and the article generally should be expanded. Right now they are slightly shorter than typical FAs. For example, the Early life section seems sort of stubby.

-There are some prose problems:

When the town of Fincastle, Virginia was forming in 1770, Trigg was instrumental in its formation, helping to sell lots, build a Court House (with his father-in-law Israel Christian) and the town's prison. Repetitive ("formation" used twice).

The British refused to address the issues that were of greatest concern to the colonists, and so the freeholders of Fincastle County met at the Lead Mines on January 20, 1775, being one of the first to respond to the request of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence and formed a Committee of Safety, of which Trigg was a member. Grammatically fine but stylistically very disjointed.

There are a lot of paranthetical statements. You should get rid of most of these. Paranthetical commentary in encyclopedic entries should normally be reserved for acronyms (ie. National Basketball Association (NBA)) or short explanations. If you want, ask me for a copyedit on my talk page before you nominate this for FA.

- Maybe add some sort of Legacy section? Don't know if there's enough material to do this or not.UberCryxic 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

This is quite good. I see no significant issues with the content—I wouldn't focus too much on the length, as even fairly short articles manage to get through FAC—but there are a few formatting points that need to be cleaned up:

  • Having multiple footnotes numbers in the same place in the text (e.g. fn. 17–19) is rather poor style. While it's somewhat unavoidable when citing websites, this isn't the case here, and they should be collapsed into single footnotes listing all the applicable citations.
  • The quote at the very end isn't cited.
  • A bit of further copyediting, as per UberCryxic, might be advisable.

Other than that, everything looks fine. Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll get to work on your suggestions. On the multiple footnotes, ironically I had someone tell me that combining it was bad form, but I trust your opinion.... --plange 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the CMoS says "Using more than one note reference at a single location (such as 5, 6) should be rigorously avoided"; it seems as good a rule to follow as any. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent[edit]

A very good article indeed.

A few minor quibbles perhaps.

  • The lead should reflect the structure of the article. I think that the above suggestion that you expand the "early life" section if possible is a good one, and I'd put a 1-2 sentence summary of that section in the lead. Right now the lead's summary of his life starts mid-career. You should add something like, "Born the nth of y sons to a ___ in ___, ....", etc.
  • "Trigg was one of several appointed as its first Justice of the Peace"... one of several, yet he was first? This is confusing to me. If he was the first how can there be several? If there were several appointed all at the same time, who held the position jointly, then he would have been "one of several who were appointed the counties first Justices of the Peace"? A minor quibble, but slightly confusing.
  • build a Court House with his father-in-law Israel Christian, and the town's prison. - I didn't know town prisons helped build court houses ;) I know what you really meant - just a bit of an amusing - and very common - structural problem.
  • Footnote merger, as noted previously.

In short, apart from some tweaks to the lead, and some grammar and style polishing (I'd really take up UberCryxic's offer - he's copy edited one of my articles and done a really good job), this is an excellent article.

I think with a little more polish it has a really good shot at featured article status. - Vedexent (talkcontribs) - 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Vedexent! I've made the changes you suggested and will definitely avail myself of UberCryxic's offer :-) --plange 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Theramenes[edit]

My first attempt at an FA in a few months; very heavily cited, I wish I had more images. In particular, some feedback about the way I've handled the conflicts between sources would be much appreciated. --RobthTalk 06:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice article overall; the treatment of sources seems to be quite good. A few miscellaneous suggestions:

  • An infobox might be helpful here, if a suitable one can be found; I'm not sure which of the existing types fits best here.
  • "Historical treatments" might be renamed to "Historiography".
  • I'm surprised that there's only one (very broad) category here; adding some more specific ones may be appropriate.

Kirill Lokshin 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the suggestions. I added a more specific category and renamed the historiography section. As far as infoboxes, {{Infobox biography}} looks fairly appropriate, but I the idea of an infobox with a picture of something other than the article subject in it seems kind of weird to me. Of the three possibilities for this (infobox w/ picture, infobox w/o picture, and picture w/o infobox), which would you recommend? --RobthTalk 08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • {{Infobox Biography}} isn't particularly useful without a picture, so if one can't be found, I would suggest simply leaving the current layout in place. Kirill Lokshin 12:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Raymond Palmer[edit]

Nice overall. Just some suggestions:

  • An info box as used in other historical biographies.
  • Why not make some of the pictures larger ie: ‘The Athenian acropolis’ and the ‘Ancient Greek Trireme’ pictures.
  • To make the pictures more relevant add a bit more information, or a relevant summation for each eg: Xenophon (420s BC – 350s BC), sculpture by {artists name}. In his Hellenica Xenophon’s hostile portrayal of Theramenes’ early political career contrasts with a more favourble interpretation of his later life.” Anything brief and relevant.
  • To keep with other articles, ‘Citations’ should be renamed ‘Notes’ and moved above ‘References’
  • I found a few typos – may need checking

The handling of the conflict in historical sources was fine. Good work overall. Raymond Palmer 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the feedback. I've expanded the captions, replaced the acropolis image with an image of the pnyx, which I made bigger, and renamed the notes section; I kept it at the bottom for now however. I've always preferred it there, since I figure people will scroll down to the references but click footnotes down to the notes, so the references should be above. As far as typos, I just found out how cool the google toolbar spellcheck thing is; very nifty, and hopefully I got 'em all. Thanks again, --RobthTalk 08:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It does not matter if the section is named "Citations" or "Notes"; both titles are acceptable. Maybe in this particular case "Notes" is better, because in the section we have both Notes and citations. It is not a rule that the "Notes" section goes before "References". It is a matter of personal taste.--Yannismarou 14:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

Excellent article as always. Some minor remarks:

  • Make sure you donot link to disambiguation pages. For instance, Agis links to a disambiguation page and not to the specific Agis you want.
  • I think it is better to divide your sources in primary and secondary, but this is maybe a personal taste and, definitely, not something very important.
  • I have made some minor edits based on Aristotle's Constitution of Athens. Make sure you've examined this particular source thoroughly.
  • If you don't have a picture of Theramenes, then an infobox is not nice.--Yannismarou 14:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Servile War[edit]

After much blood, sweat, and tears in researching, editing, writing, and map-creation, I think I've finally got the article on the Third Servile War beat into "acceptable" shape. However, any one writer/editor has blind spots, so I would very much like to hear input, thoughts, criticisms, and suggestions as to how the article might be improved - especially comments/suggestions on how to improve the prose and style.

Thank you in advance for any (constructive) comments made :) - Vedexent 16:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Question: Is the entry summary too "scrunched up"? I tried to make it concise, but it may be trying to cram too many events into too small a space. Comments? - Vedexent 19:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Question: Would the article lose a great deal by removing the "In popular culture" section? I'm not convinced historical articles require these - even though it seems to be a current wikipedia fad. The effects of the legend of Spartacus might be better incorporated into the the article Spartacus, and removed from Third Servile War completely. - Vedexent 21:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated a number of changes based on suggestions from this review, and others. I would appreciate it if people might re-examine the article after these changes based on your suggestions :) - Vedexent 09:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

This looks to be a very good article; most of my concerns are rather technical points of formatting:

  • The maps are set very large and heavily stacked; I would shrink them to 300px and stagger them across both margins to prevent the impression of a continous column of images.
  • Some issues with the section headings:
    • It's cleaner, in my opinion, to put the date in parentheses after the title than to start with it.
    • The dates for "Appian" and "Plutarch" are redundant.
    • "The war in popular culture" can be shortened to "In popular culture";
    • The "Bibliography" section should, I assume, be titled "References"?
    • The "Notes & Citations" section can be shortened to "Notes".
  • {{RomanCivilWars}} needs to be turned into a normal campaignbox. (Why do people keep creating these non-standard boxes anyways?!)
  • A little more material in the popular culture section might be appropriate; at the very least, it might be worthwhile to mention the extent to which the various depictions are historically accurate.

I would also suggest asking oldwindybear and Wandalstouring to take part in this review, as they have a far better knowledge of the period than I do, and may actually be able to comment at greater length on the historical material itself. Kirill Lokshin 19:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift response. I've incorporated many of your suggestions, as well as some of the organizational changes that those changes seem to prompt. I also managed to remove one map which was really only a "set up" for the map following it, and not really needed.
Unfortunately, I can't expand the "In popular culture" as I've not read/seen most of the listed depictions - only Kubrick's film. Other editors will have to do that, I guess :) - Vedexent 19:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You could probably get away with removing it (and adding the links to Spartacus, if they're not already there). Unless there's something significant to be said about these works from a scholarly standpoint—and this appears not to be the case here—there's little benefit to retaining a mere list. Kirill Lokshin
Agreed. While I'm sure there is something scholarly to be said for the portrayal of Spartacus in modern culture, I think it is probably all literary and sociological rather than historical. Plus the article is over the recommended largest size already. I removed the section. - Vedexent 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Comments after changes

Very nice work; all of my concerns appear to have been fixed, and the text has become rather stronger since the last time I looked at this. One point to consider might be expanding the first paragraph of the lead to summarize the next three; ideally, the dates and outcome should be clear after reading it. Other than that, this looks great! Kirill Lokshin 15:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

old windy bear[edit]

Vedexent This is one of the best organized, best researched, and best sourced articles I have had the pleasure of reviewing on wikipedia. You did an outstanding job. I looked at the earlier versions, and the changes you made with the maps addressed most of Kirill's suggestions. As to the historical accuracy of the article, it is outstanding. You used primary sources, and did so with good solid writing. I am fairly familiar with the period, certainly with how Crassus and Pompey used the threat of the Slave/Gladitor rebellions to manipulate, subvert and weaken the Republic. I agree that you cannot expand the "in popular culture" section because most of what is in "popular culture" about the Third Servile War is a misunderstood myth about Spartacus. Historians don't know whether he was anti-slavery or not; they guess at his intentions. You put it very well that people are guessing at intentions based on events of a failed rebellion. Moreover, in popular myth there are no slave commanders except Spartacus and due to a book by Howard Fast and Kubrick's movie, he has become some sort of mythical romantic hero. (And he may have been such a man - we simply do not know, and this article does an excellent job of retelling what we do know from the primary sources, piercing the myth only one leader existed in the Third Servile War for the slaves/gladiators, and laying out what facts are available, and allowing readers to make their own conclusions) An excellent job. old windy bear 21:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Phenomenal article. It will easily get to FA status. My suggestions are mostly trivial. The Popular culture section could still be written in summary style even with the material you now have. It might not be a bad idea to give some short descriptions of the artistic works you list (or alternatively you can adopt Kirill's suggestion). You don't necessarily have to be extremely familiar with these works; just do a few google searches to familiarize yourself and then write the descriptions. That should get you at least two paragraphs and obstruct calls for the section's deletion (which will certainly be forthcoming if you take it to FAC like this).

It may be a matter of stylistic preference, but perhaps the first three sections (ending with the Motives of the escaped slaves) could all be grouped under a 'Background' or 'Prelude' mother section. For someone unfamiliar with the history, the current state of the article might give the impression that those sections were actually part of the war. But again, that's not a big deal and shouldn't affect anyone's votes in FAC. Terrific article overall.UberCryxic 21:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words :) As you can see from the discussion above, I removed "In popular culture" section as less relevant to the history. As for your grouping suggestion, I'm somewhat torn. I consider the Capuan revolt and the initial clashes with the praetorian armis as part of the war. The section discussing the motives of the slaves is an aside of a type, and not really part of the narrative. Yet, it doesn't really make sense until after the slaves have apparent "free reign" to do as they please. Would it make sense to make this a sub-section of the "Defeat of the praetorian armies (73 BC)" section? - Vedexent 22:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Or how about this? - Vedexent 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but I think every classical military history I have read considers the Capuan revolt and the early battles with the Praetorian armis as part of the war. Speaking personally, I would say that would have to be true because they were the opening acts of what the Romans initially foolishly thought was merely a minor slave problem, but quite obviously ended up in a war that ended up requiring most of the Republic's resources to subdue. old windy bear 22:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I've grouped the Capuan revolt and the defeat of the Praetorian armies under their own section, and left the section on motives a "top level" section. Hopefully this adds a little clarity. - Vedexent 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent Again, an outstanding article. Historically accurate, from primary sources, well written, and very well structured.

old windy bear 23:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring[edit]

There are some points which seem strange and others that could do with a link to other articles or an explanation.

"During the conflict, an army of escaped slaves eventually numbering around 120,000, under command of the famous gladiator-general Spartacus, raided the Italian countryside; defeated several Roman armies sent out to capture or destroy them; and — according to some historical accounts — attempted to escape northwards to freedom over the Alps in Cisalpine Gaul but for reasons that are unclear turned back southwards to occupy parts of southern Italy."

The numbers of captured slaves are too small for such an army. 5,000 or 6,000 are mentioned. So they can not all have been fighters, but in a military sense these number also included camp followers. Traditionally army strength is listed without mentioning their numbers, sometimes they are estimated. This way, the number under Spartacus command makes more sense, for they needed supplies.

"an event in which up to 4,000 legionaries would have been executed" Is known about the decimation. OK, I know that in a decimation every tenth man is killed, so the total number must have been 40,000 before this event. But information on the Roman troopstrength is really missing.

While other reports from the Classic state how it was possible to recruit slaves to help their former owners in military conflicts (Battle of Marathon, Third Punic War) there have been many crushed servile revolts. What was the reason for these revolts? What did change after these revolts? This is important to understand how 70 escaped gladiators could create such a storm and it is important to understand the initial Roman view.

It is very good, that you worked out the military background of Spartacus. I can tell you in some hours the source, Spartacus used a trick, his soldiers had a tactical advantage towards other enemys of the Romans. They used leather shields. These could be penetrated by a pilum, but were not rendered useless, nor is a pilum construction likely to break or bend if sticking in such a shield, so it is useable, contrary to hitting a Roman scutum. Wandalstouring 14:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback :) Let me rebut :)
Firstly
Admittedly the figure 120,000, taken from Appian's history says in the 1913 Loeb classical library edition (I'm not sure who the translator is in this case)
and marched on Rome with 120,000 foot, having burned all his useless material, killed all his prisoners...
While the John Carter translation says:
made for Rome with 120,000 foot soldiers after burning the useless equipment and putting all the prisoners to death and slaughtering the draught animals to free himself of all encumbrances....
However, I would concur that perhaps calling this the "army size" is misleading, as I agree that this is more than likely the size of the entire band. I'll edit the intro to reflect this "soldiers and followers" perhaps?
Secondly,
Again, the figures are not mine, but Appians. Still, the troop stretngth is given. In the text it is stated as 8 legions, and in the infobox estimated at 40,000-50,000. This would fit nicely with the "1 in 10" rule for decimating the entire army. Perhaps the 40,000 - 50,000 should be added to the text. I don't have a reference at hand which states the standard size of the Roman legion at this time in history (I know the "standard legion size" varied historically). I believe it was around 4,000 - 5,000 - but I don't have a reference. Would you happen to know of one?
Addendum: found one in William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875.. - Vedexent 17:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Thirdly,
I'm not sure what you mean by "5,000 or 6,000 are mentioned". In Appian and others, there are several mentions of the size of Spartacus's followers, and the estimates grow - 10,000, 70,000 and finally 120,000 (as stated above probably not the total number of effective fighters).
If you mean mentioned per engagement, then this varies: 30,000 at mount Garganus, 60,000 in the final conflct, 35,000 in one of the later skirmishes. It is true that there are a number of smaller battles during the retreat to Messana (which I kind of "glossed over") in which the numbers involved are smaller - but this is also explained in Appian. I can add this point in, and explain it, if you think expanding this point is worthwhile.
You mention engagements and state such small numbers as captured while there are only much bigger numbers of participants mentioned. I estimated, that this is more likely the result of smaller engagements, but you give no numbers for this. Wandalstouring 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Fourthly,
If I understand you correctly, I like the idea of explaining the sociological setup that made the servile wars possible: Large numbers of slaves in Italia (up to 1/3 the general population according to some estimates), the general hard life of an agricultural slave, etc. Again, I lack references specific to the state of slaves in Republican Rome. Can anyone help with this?
Will try, a system of pocket money was introduced afterwards and no slave was forced to fight as gladiator any more. Wandalstouring 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Fifthly,
As far as the tactical advantages (leather shields, etc) that Spartacus had over the Roman troops, I have not seen anything to this effect (other than the mention of some of Spartacus' more inspired moves in Frontinus' Stratagems). Again - do you have any sources that might aid in fleshing this out?
Yes, leather shields and their construction is mentioned [2], it is very flexible. The rest comes from reading the description of what a pilum needs to work -> a wooden shield, where it is not possible to pull out. I will try a formulation that fits better and make some more research. Wandalstouring 22:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
All in all some good criticism, and a good handle of some aventues for improving the article. Thank you :) - Vedexent 17:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent In reviewing my Plutarch on this war, one suggestion I would make as to the article is that Plutarch gave a fairly detailed and interesting description of Spartacus, which I believe should be in the article. Plutarch said that Spartacus was:

"a man not only of high spirit and bravery, but also in understanding and gentleness superior to his condition."

The article does detail that Plutarch credited Spartacus with wanting to lead his men to freedom, but the majority evidently preferred looting Italy. And given that Spartacus allowed 300 prisoners to battle to the death for the amusement of their captors, one has to question somewhat Plutarch's description of his character. Nonetheless, I would suggest it might be included. old windy bear 01:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is something I did wrestle with. I'm not sure at what point details about Spartacus should be left to the article on Spartacus. While most historical depictions of the war focus on Spartacus, he was one of several leaders - even though he may have been the main leader behind the rebellion. If details on Spartacus are included, should there be a discussion on how the leadership of the rebellion was structured - or at least as much as we know?
The episode about forcing 300 captives to fight to the death is mentioned in Appian's version - as is the comment about "putting all the prisoners to death and slaughtering the draught animals". Again, a contrast between Appian and Plutarch.
The point about wanting to escape over the Alps while his men prefered to stay and loot is referenced indirectly in two places, but I think you're right in that it needs to be more clearly spelled out. - Vedexent 02:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent In considering your thoughts, I see your point and I am uncertain to what extent you should focus on Spartacus - he has become the symbol for the rebellion even though he was only part of the leadership (another suggestion for your consideration - should this be mentioned, in discussing what we do know of the leadership versus the popular perception that Spartacus led his followers in a quasi traditional command/control structure, has become remembered as "the leader" of a slave army fighting for it's freedom, when according to Plutarch he wanted to do just that, and his followers balked evidently so they could continue to raid and loot. Anyway, the popular perception is of course wrong from what we know, and can guess) - I think you will have to make the decision on whether or not to include the strong commendation of his character by Plutarch, and then try to explain historically in more detail what we know of the leadership. I think you are right on the issue of the captives fighting to the death - several writers have dismissed those claims as Roman propaganda to diminish Spartacus after the end of the War. Even if it was true, could Spartacus have prevented it, had he wanted to? That also is unknown. Plutarch strongly believed Spartacus wanted to lead his followers to freedom, but was evidently was unable to persude them, and would not abandon them. But I do think you are right that the issue of his wanting to lead his men to freedom over the Alps might be a topic more clearly spelled out. I still think you have done such an outstanding job that you should make these decisions. old windy bear 03:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Armatus[edit]

I would like to raise the quality of this article, so I need to know its weak spots.BlaiseMuhaddib 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky[edit]

  1. It's short, below what would normally be expected of a FAC.
  2. It lacks pictures. The 2 pictures currently there are only of peripheral relation to the person, a portrait of him would be nice, as would be some things directly related to him.
  3. Paragraphs, especially the first half and the lead, are too short. Either flesh them out or merge them into longer paragraphs.

-- Миборовский 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this person is that informations on him are very sketchy. This means that the article, as far as I understand, will not grow large. Furthermore, there are no images of Armatus I am aware of.--BlaiseMuhaddib 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is true. But I do not think that the length of the article is such a major issue for GA status. For FAC it could be. But, after all, I do not believe that all articles are destinated to become FA.--Yannismarou 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

  • Nice start, but be careful! Check better all the sources. Searching for material to add in your article, I found that Onoulphus (not Onoolphos as you had written [a typo, obviously]), whom you present as Armatus' killer, may have been Armatus' brother. Onoulphus was Odoacer's brother and Krautschick established that, Odoacer, Onoulphus and Armatus were brothers. Hence, Onoulphus may not have been just a close friend of Armatus, as you say, but a very close relative as well. Armory argues that Onoulphus could have been both brother and murderer of Armatus. Check Armory for a beginning of your research. Thereby, I think the 1st and the 3d section need rewriting.
  • Your secondary sources are poor. In the Book Search I saw names like Armory and Blockley, who have written about Armatus, Basiliscus and Zeno. You should check as many secondary sources as possible.--Yannismarou 10:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your corrections. After consulting other books, I notice that the matter about the relationship between Armatus and Onoulphus is quite controversial, so I moved the bit abouth them in a separate section that I improved with the aid of another secondary source.--BlaiseMuhaddib 22:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Schellenberg[edit]

I have just rewritten the Battle of Schellenberg - the 'warm up act' to the main event the Battle of Blenheim. I found it harder to write (much less info available then the bigger Blenheim battle), so I would be interested in your responses. Thanks.Raymond Palmer 13:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice! A few things that still need work, though:

  • More footnotes! For an article of this length, ~60–70 would not be inappropriate; in particular, every substantive paragraph needs to have at least one (and ideally multiple) citations, or you'll see no end of "undercited" criticism at FAC.
  • Links to sections of other articles should actually work like this.
  • The lead could probably be lengthened to summarize a bit more of the article.
  • Quotes in the body of the text need to be introduced better; simply having a quotation followed by a name only works for epigraphs.
  • The Franco-Bavarian commanders should be linked; I would assume they're deserving of articles, even if they don't presently have them.

Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

Very good article. Minor remarks:

  • Kirill is right. If you go for FAC, you need more citations. Some parts of the article are really under-citated.
  • Try, wherever possible, to place the citations at the end of the sentence and not in the middle of it. You'll face criticisms that you interrupt the flow of the reading. Even if the citation is within the sentence, try to place it after a punctuation.
  • I'm a bit concerned about the small number of references, but, as you say, this is not the "main" battle and, thus, it may be indeed difficult to trace further bibliography.
  • In "Cultural references" you name only Joseph Addison. Aren't there any other cultural references?
  • As Kirill pointed out, you must incorporate the citations into the flow of your prose.--Yannismarou 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both. I have ammended the article accordingly. I fear it is a forlorn hope of finding more cultural references; and more info, even for a stub, on one of the Franco-Bavarian commanders is also proving very hard. I may nominate for FAC because I want to try a larger project so feedback for this will be helpful. Raymond Palmer 15:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Compiègne[edit]

This was Joan of Arc's final military action. Hoping to make this a GA: there isn't much prospect for expansion because other than her capture, the siege was a minor event in the Hundred Years' War (the French edition is a three line substub). A few months ago the page was highlighted on the main page under "...Did you know?" Seeking feedback before submission. Durova 17:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice, if rather brief (but I suppose that's not something that can be easily dealt with). A few points to look at:

  • The lead should probably have another paragraph summarizing the article in slightly more detail; as it is, it fails to mention such basic points as the combatants involved.
  • As regards the combatants: why are Philip and John commanders for England? I was under the impression that the forces involved here were Burgundians in an alliance with the English, not the English themselves.
  • There are a number of unlinked names and titles throughout the article (e.g. "the count of Clermont"); these should probably be linked even if they don't currently have articles, as they are likely deserving of getting them written.
  • The placement of references outside the article would probably draw significant criticism at FAC, given how strict citation standards have become; but I doubt this will be an issue at the GA level. I would suggest, however, converting the footnotes to the newer cite.php format.

Kirill Lokshin 02:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, excellent comments. Durova 16:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

  • There is a problem with the footnotes: When I am in the text and I click [2] I go nowhere. When I am in the footnotes and click [3] to go back to the text, I go to the text but to citation [4]. Likewise, when I am in the footnotes and click [3] to go back to the text, I go to the text but to citation [4]. By the way, Kirill is right for the cite.php format.
  • The references should be in this article. You may be criticized even in GA Candidacy for linking to another article for references. For instance, when you say "DeVries, pp. 132 - 133.", I want to find right away which is this ref and not search to Joan of Arc bibliography, where by the way I did not find DeVries!

If you fix the lead, the notes and the refs, I donot think you'll have any major problem to make the article GA.--Yannismarou 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Axis naval activity in Australian waters[edit]

Grant65 and I have been working on this page regularly since January and I think that it has the potential to reach featured article status. I would appreciate any comments on the article. Comments on whether too much or too little space has been dedicated to the various incidents would be particularly useful to developing the article. --Nick Dowling 08:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Quite nice; some general remarks:

  • The lead should be lengthened to two or three full paragraphs.
  • There are a number of very short sections scattered throughout the article. In general, it's not necessary to have a distinct section for every incident; merging them together into continuous blocks of prose is likely to improve the article.
  • What are the works in the "Bibliography" section? If they're actually sources for the article, they need to be in a section named "References" (with the current "References" either left in place or renamed to "Notes").
  • The "See also" section should be ruthlessly trimmed, with terms linked in the text instead.

I would also suggest asking Cla68 to help with reviewing the article, as he's very knowledgeable in the various aspects of WWII warfare in the Pacific. Kirill Lokshin 22:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

cla68[edit]

  • The first sentence of the second paragraph in the intro is present tense while the rest is past tense.
  • Use ``U.S.`` instead of ``American`` because ``American`` can technically mean any place in North or South America.
  • Perhaps change section title to ``Overview of Australian defenses``
  • Every paragraph should have at least one inline citation to avoid any FA reviewers complaining that it's ``under-referenced.``
  • Explain what ``picket duties`` are.
  • ``Bombardment of Port Gregory``: There will eventually be an article for Operation Ke, the Japanese evacuation of Guadalcanal, if you would like to link to it now or in the future.
  • There's a link problem in the ``Japanese invasion`` section.
  • Where were the German submarines sunk?
  • Last sentence in U-862 section is rather subjective and not cited.
  • Needs a ``graceful ending`` such as a summary of the impact, or lack thereof, of Axis naval activity around Australia. From what I understand, Australia was the main Allied base supporting the South West Pacific and Solomon Islands campaigns, so, Japan's inability or unwillingness to interdict Allied supply lines from Australia had major strategic impact. Perhaps it would be a good idea to tie the article to the ``Big Picture,`` i.e. the Pacific War with an assessment of how Axis naval operations, or lack thereof, around Australia impacted the ultimate outcome of WWII in the Pacific.

No problems with the content, a very informative and enjoyable article to read. Cla68 02:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Miles Browning[edit]

This article needs review by someone more familiar with Browning and US naval history than I am. I took it from a long list of quotes from historians to its current status, but it needs a fresh set of eyes, especially for the periods before and after the Battle of Midway. I don't know if this article has too much information for a piece about a rear admiral or not enough. I looked at the bios of Halsey and Nimitz, but they weren't much help because they're done in two different styles. I ultimately chose Halsey's article as a basic reference, though I'm willing to reformat it if necessary.

Also, I've looked in many places for a photo of Browning, including the US Naval Historical Center and Google Images, without success. The USNHC has a few photos of Browning standing with Halsey and in groups, but I simply cannot find a formal portrait of Browning. Any help is welcome and appreciated, both with the photo and with the format and tone of the article. Baseball,Baby! ballsstrikes 20:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's a photo http://www.mtnlakes.org/Library/b-bio.htm Raymond Palmer 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A good start. Some issues, though:

  • Inline citations to printed works must include page numbers; otherwise, they won't be taken seriously at the FAC level.
  • The lead should be increased to two or three paragraphs.
  • The "Awards and decorations" section should be rewritten as prose (as in, for example, Aleksandr Vasilevsky) or pulled entirely into the infobox.
  • Pictures would be good; group photos are entirely fine.
  • The "Early life" section could probably use a bit of expansion, if there's any more material available; alternately, you could merge it with the pre-aviation military section to avoid the appearance of a stub section there.
  • More generally, the article is rather undercited—for an article of this length, having ~50 footnotes would not be the least bit unusual—and filled with rather subjective assertions that really must be cited (e.g. "he displayed a quick, calculating and incisive mind", "as aggressive in his tactical thinking as he was in the cockpit", "He seems a man of tremendous contradictions", etc.).

As far as length is concerned: there's no inherent reason to limit length by rank. The article is well under the 32K of text that are commonly considered a good upper limit for readability; if there is more material of interest, it can probably be safely added. Kirill Lokshin 01:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

I liked the prose and the tone. A few remarks:

  • You must citate all the assessments and the statements you make. Kirill is right, when he says that the article is under-citated.
  • Citations go straight after the punctuation. Do not let a gap between the punctuation and the citation.
  • You have some assessments about Browning in sections "Midway", "controversy" and in the notes. Personally, I like these assessments better organized, maybe in a seperate section. I would also like to know what was the US Navy's stance after his death: was he awarded after his death? Was his contribution recognized? What do other distinguished US officers said about him? The historians? Has he supporters and opponents? You have some of this material, but it seems to me scattered and insufficient.
  • More photos are needed. If you do not have a portrait, add a group-photo is the infobox and explain that this is a group photo and Browning is him.
  • You have a biiig quote of an historian named Wildenberg. Can't you just rephrase his wording and incorporate it in the text. It seems to me better like that. If you choose to keep the quotes as they are you may like to use a Template:Cquote or a similar one. But this is a matter of style. It is up to you.
  • You have no year for the awards and the decorations. For instance, when was he awarded with the Distinguished Service Medal? I agree that a prose is recommended, but, even if you keep the list, you must add information.
  • By the way, I think you should add this article to the disambiguation page Browning. I think it is not there.--Yannismarou 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

History of the Royal Australian Navy[edit]

I would like to get this article to FA status or at least A class. Any help would greatly appreciated. Hossen27 14:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I have expanded most of the sections and they have referenced the article thoroughly. Also expanded the introduction, what should I do now.Hossen27 07:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have stated the date of access for the websites I accessed. Removed all the {{Main}} and most of the {{Seealso}}. Some of images are now on the other side and the ship list has been removed, probably more suitable in the Vietnam article.Hossen27 14:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The page has passed its Good Article nominationHossen27 05:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

  • You will need a lot more inline citations and references to get such an article to FA.
  • The skeleton of the article looks OK but some flesh needs to be put on.
    • The lead must be expanded to 3 quite big paragraphs (obviously, only once the body of the article is done)
    • All the sections must be expanded, either with information from child articles or with new sources. Child articles seem to have additional references that should be used. I know one does not judge an article by its size, but one or two paragraphs per section is barely enough.
    • A lot of FAC reviewers seem to dislike lists, so these should be spinned in child articles or converted to prose (or converted to a drawing).

All in all, it looks like a nice start plan-wise, but the article still has to be built, either with new sources or with additional information from child articles (or both). And in any case, everything has to be referenced, preferably using inline citations. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Much better; but some technical things to clean up:

  • The footnotes need to be formatted properly. Particularly for online sources, at least a date of access is required; and any additional information would be good.
  • Stacking the images along one margin will produce spacing problems in the text if they're too close; I would suggest staggering them along both margins.
  • Why is there a list of ships for the Vietnam War, but not for the others? Either it needs to be removed, or the other ones added, for consistency; I would suggest the first option, as lists are generally frowned on at FAC.
  • {{Main}} is somewhat overused here; some battles, in particular, would be better linked directly rather than through an intrusive template.
  • The "See also" section should be eliminated as much as possible by linking these terms within the body of the article.

Kirill Lokshin 13:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Nick Dowling[edit]

Hossen, you have clearly put a lot of effort into devloping this article and it is progressing nicely. However, it faces some major future challenges:

  • The main challenge is re-writing the article so that it's more than just copy-and-pastes from other RAN-related articles. At present the article is less than the sum of its parts as these disparate articles often don't sit together well. Obvious examples of this are changes in tense between paras and the lack of introductory wording in some sections.
  • The article needs to be expanded so that adequate coverage is provided to all the important aspects of the RAN's history. For example, there is currently no mention of the RAN's role in the Malayan Emergency and Indonesian Confrontation or its support to INTERFET in 1999 or the intervention into the Solomon Islands in 2003.
  • The article also needs to discuss matters of naval policy. At present its coverage is restricted to discussions of the RAN's role in various wars and the ships it was equipped with. For this article to reach FA status it needs to explain the political and military considerations behind the RAN's force structure and deployments over time. --Nick Dowling 11:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

2nd Battalion 9th Marines[edit]

This article has passed the good article nomination and the editors feel that it is ready to go to the next step. So it has been requested that the group conduct a peer review so the weak areas can be addressed. It would be nice to get a unit article up to FA status.--Oldwildbill 05:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

  • There is way too much lists. If you want to go with the next step (that means FAC, right?) these lists must be converted to prose. For instance, the MoH recipeients could be converted into a nice chunk of text, while the ribbons could be converted into a kind of ribbon bar with a chunk of text next to it (if you have award dates it is even better - where and when did the unit get this or that ribbon?) Generally speaking, I think that lists should be either converted to prose, or to a chart (for instance, the unit composition could be drawn in a nice graph with some prose explaining it), as some reviewers don't like lists at all.
  • 9 inline citations is OK for a GA but might be insufficient for a better article.
  • Unless really needed, a section title should not start with "The" (see WP:MOS).

That's all I can think of at the moment, I might have some other ideas later on :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

I'll reiterate what Grafikm said about lists and inline citations. These are two issues which are very easy to spot, and which will consequently be jumped on at FAC. A few other points:

  • The "Unit composition" section really needs to be filled out. There isn't an actual description of what the battalion is in there.
  • The references are fairly weak for a topic of this nature. Are there published works which deal with this topic?
  • Lots of copyediting is needed; there are things like unlinked dates throughout the article.

This is off to a good start, but still needs more work to be up to FA level. Kirill Lokshin 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Kirill and Grafikm have identified the major technical problems, but this article needs major help with prose.

-"Formed during World War I the unit was to play an instrumental role in the defeat of the Japanese forces in the Battles of Guam and Iwo Jima during the World War II." Just say "played," not "was to play."

-"The battalion, who was to distinguish itself in the defense of Khe Sanh during the Vietnam War," See above.

-"With the advent of World War I, the United States saw a necessity of expanding its Armed Forces." For expanding, not "of."

And I could go on. Before you take this article to FA, spend some time implementing the suggestions of Kirill and Grafikm, by which point this article will look completely different, and drop a line on my talkpage. I'll give it a thorough copyedit.UberCryxic 19:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fifth Coalition[edit]

Hey guys, time for another FA attempt from me. I've worked on this article feverishly in the past few days and hope it meets most (if not all) FA criteria. Any points, suggestions, ideas, and criticisms are, as always, strongly welcomed and appreciated. Thank you very much!UberCryxic 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very good article, overall. Now, for a variety of more minor quibbles and suggestions, in no particular order:

  • Shouldn't this be located at "War of the Fifth Coalition"?
  • Bavaria should be explicitly mentioned as a participant in the intro, as it wasn't part of the Empire proper.
  • There's some funny inconsistencies in the footnotes in terms of how names and titles are formatted, leading to things like "David G. Chandler, The Campaigns of Napoleon. p. 708." and, on the next note, "Chandler p. 708." You should pick one form and stick to it throughout; I personally prefer the newer CMS ("Last name, Shortened title, #"), but feel free to use anything you like, as long as it's consistent.
  • An overall {{Campaignbox Napoleonic Wars}} would be very helpful.
  • "Although Napoleon maneuvered with customary brilliance, as evidenced by overturning the awful initial French position, the growing size of his armies stretched even his impressive mental faculties. The scale of Napoleonic warfare grew too large for even Napoleon to fully cope with, a lesson that would be brutally repeated during the invasion of Russia in 1812." really needs to be cited to a reputable source.
  • The headings need to be edited to conform to the MoS; in particular, a leading "The" should be avoided where possible.
  • The "Other theaters" section is choppy, and should be coalesced into one or two solid paragraphs.
  • Maps are nice, but can we also get some other pictures here? There's a wide variety of paintings available for many of these battles, so availability shouldn't really be a problem.
  • I would replace {{main}} with {{details}}, which reads somewhat nicer; but that's just a personal preference.

Kirill Lokshin 04:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I think I made every change that you suggested. Thanks!UberCryxic 15:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Very nice. Another suggestion would be to simply merge Treaty of Schönbrunn into this article; I doubt there's enough material there to warrant a separate one, or to allow for anything more than a stub to be written. Kirill Lokshin 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmmm I'm not sure about that. There isn't much there now, but that's because no one has written about it, not because the topic is devoid of information. We are, after all, talking about months of negotiations that led to Schonbrunn in October 1809. They should probably stay separate.UberCryxic 16:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Meh, your call. I typically merge treaties into wars, but if you think there's enough separate material here to make for a decent article... ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II[edit]

I have been working on this article for a couple of months now. I think it is coming along nicely. Although I am not entirely done with it, I think this would be a good time to get some feedback. Gaius Cornelius 19:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply 
My thanks for the comments above. I have taken note of the constructive critisism and the article has now changed quite a bit. I have decided to remove much of the technical detail on pillboxes to another article. Otherwise, the article re-arranged and expanded considerably with many new citations. Given the scope of the changes, I would appreciate a re-review: what does it take to get better than B-class? I have taken the liberty of bumping this entry up the peer review list before it drops into an archive. Gaius Cornelius 19:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the further comments and for the minor formatting edits in See Also and References sections. I will re-arrange the pictures, I had put this off simply because experience had suggested that a simple scheme for pictures is best in the early days otherwise one is forever moving them about trying to get things to look right. I am of course aware of reservations regarding web-citations, but most of the links are to real-world photos or the verbatim memoirs, speaches, leaflets etc. Gaius Cornelius 21:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Grafikm
"br clear both" - they are gone (thanks). The references - I am not sure what you mean, the references should NOT be separated from the punctuation by a space, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. You are quite right about the "Early beginnings" title and the short paragraphs. I will do something about the dates. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Thoroughly fascinating stuff. I have very little knowledge of this particular topic, so I'll limit myself primarily to general remarks:

  • Is {{Infobox Military Conflict}} really useful here? This isn't an article about the proposed operation itself, and the box doesn't seem to give any particularly important information.
  • Footnotes should be added in large numbers; the technical material that makes up the bulk of the article is quite sparsely cited.
  • It might be better to stagger the images between the two margins; the current layout produces an almost continuous column of images in some places, and results in gaps in the text itself.
  • The prose is quite choppy in many places, owing in large part to the use of too many pseudo-sections. I would remove most (if not all!) of those and combine the material into more smoothly flowing paragraphs.

Overall, though, this is off to a very nice start. Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 20:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The work done on this article since the initial review has been quite amazing. There are a few technical points which still need to be resolved:
  • An apparently empty "See also" section isn't useful; the box should just be moved into the next section instead.
  • There's something funny about the line spacing in the "References" section, if I'm not mistaken.
  • The columns of images along the right margin are producing spacing problems, and look quite crowded. I would again suggest staggering them between the two margins, at least in some places.
  • The number of external links is rather high, but I suppose these might actually be useful.
Other than that, a bit of copyediting should be all this article needs. Great work! Kirill Lokshin 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nick Dowling[edit]

This is an excellent and very interesting article. Its title is somewhat miss leading, however, as it only covers the fixed defences and weapons developed to counter the feared German invasion, and doesn't really discuss the deployment of mobile military units to counter the Germans. --Nick Dowling 12:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

I think the article is coming along quite nicely. Some format-style issues remain:

  • Watch out for those "br clear both" tags, they create unneeded empty spaces. One should rather play with image alignment.
  • There are no space between a punctuation and a ref, like this.[1]
  • The "Early beginnings" title is confusing IMHO, "context" or something should be better.
  • There are some short paragraphs that should be probably merged together, especially in the lead.
  • Data formats are inconsistent, sometimes with a comma between day/month and year, sometimes without.

Otherwise, the article is quite nice, I'm looking forward to see on WP:FAC! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Katyusha[edit]

I've done some work to this article. Would just like some general comments to help identify what is lacking, or what direction to take. Michael Z. 2006-08-04 15:07 Z

Thanks for all of the feedback. I think I've addressed all of the concerns that I can without doing some further reading—let me know if I've missed anything obvious. I'd like to continue improving this article gradually, so please feel free to drop a note on talk:Katyusha or my talk page. Michael Z. 2006-08-07 21:44 Z

UberCryxic[edit]

The lead is good in terms of length, but the prose could use help in certain spots. Also, there seems to be too much focus on World War II in the article. The Post-war section needs to be expanded, though I think this is obvious. Put some in-line citations in there as well. The development section should come first. I would suggest you put in some sort of popular culture section in there; I know this rocket is huge in Russia (in terms of fame) and many other spots around the world. Finally, any impact on future rockets? If so, this should be noted.UberCryxic 18:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This started out as an article on the Soviet WWII launchers, but it's become obvious that it is growing in scope. I didn't include inline citations because practically all of the WWII section was based on a single book, but I should get them in there before a lot of other additions are made. Michael Z. 2006-08-05 14:58 Z

Oh definitely. In-line citations are a must even if an article has a single book for a source.UberCryxic 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Commander Zulu[edit]

An excellent start, but I can't help feeling it's still missing something. As UberCryxic says, some citates are a must (I know it's frustrating- I went through the same thing with some of my other articles!), and some more information on the Katyusha's effectiveness during the war might be in order. Also- and I may be wrong on this- but my understanding is that "Katyusha" really only refers to the Russian truck-mounted unguided rocket batteries. I know the BBC keep calling the rockets used in the current Middle East situation "Katyushas", but I can't see Hezbollah having garages full of WWII-era Soviet Rocket Artillery, although I could be very wrong on that.
Perhaps something to the effect that the term "Katyusha" has now evolved to refer to all vehicle-based multi-launch rocket artillery batteries, especially those made on the cheap, might be in order? --Commander Zulu 01:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess Katyusha refers to any Soviet-legacy, truck-mounted multiple rocket launcher: WWII BM-13 etc, the similar Cold War BM-21, and Chinese, North Korean, or Iranian derivatives (I'd like to see what the OED says). The Hezbollah vehicles starring in the IDF missile-cam videos look virtually the same as the WWII models. I guess BM-13, BM-8 and BM-31 can be spun off to contain the technical details, and the article can remain an umbrella. I wonder if it should be merged with multiple rocket launcher. Michael Z. 2006-08-05 14:58 Z

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

As the other reviewers have commented, inline citations are essential, particularly for an article filled with numerical statistics. Aside from that:

  • The "Post-war use" section is pretty stubby. Were these used in any other conflicts? Even if not, there has been enough press coverage of them lately that a decently-sized chunk of prose (two/three paragraphs) about the current conflict alone should be possible.
  • The "See also" section should be ruthlessly trimmed of anything linked in the article.
  • Would a {{Infobox Weapon}} be meaningful here? Some of the statistics might be too variable to give good numbers for, but at least the more general parameters would seem applicable.

Overall, this is off to a good start, but still needs some work. Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

See also is just a collection of WWII German MRLs, but that is looking more misplaced as the scope of the article is growing. I'll write a sentence or two to put Katyushas in the larger context. I'll have a look at the suitability of the infobox. The article covers several weapons of a class, but it still might work with many of the values left out. Michael Z. 2006-08-05 14:58 Z

Wandalstouring[edit]

BM-13-16 was the first type used, while the massproduced types of WWII were BM-8 and BM-13. Somehow I missed this technical background of official names since Katyusha is military slang. In German it was also called "Stalinorgel" (slang).

I like the focus on the Soviet history. The sections about modern use should be integrated in an article about mobile rocket launchers (just give a brief overview). This is a weapon class of its own now and we can refer there to the similar Fajr-3, Fajr-5, BM-21, etc. Wandalstouring 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

United States Air Force[edit]

This article has not (ever?) been peer reviewed or rated. It is an important major article. Bburton 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Not bad, but it still requires major work:

  • Citations should be liberally inserted into the text. As it stands, the article is very underreferenced; it should be possible to find quite reputable sources—particularly print works—for much of the material.
  • Lots of choppy prose, one-sentence paragraphs, one-paragraph sections, and so forth, particularly after the "History" section.
  • The "Air Force Core Values" section really isn't one. If these are to be included, they would be better off in a floating box.
  • The "Aircraft" section is basically a giant list. This should be turned into (descriptive) prose, possibly discussing types of aircraft.
  • The gallery of aircraft pictures should be spread out. Not all of them need to be in this particular article, for that matter.
  • The "Common badges" section is another list.
  • The "Rank Structure" table needs to have some labels added; there's no way to tell what some of the fields mean at the moment.
  • The "Trivia" section should be removed with extreme prejudice. If it can't be worked into the text, it's not worth mentioning (except, perhaps, in a footnote).
  • The "See also" should be trimmed of anything linked in the article (which should, ideally, be everything).
  • The external links should be limited to those which provide substantial resources beyond what's available on Wikipedia.

Overall, lots of things to be improved on. Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Arab Israeli conflict[edit]

Interested to hear what people have to say about this article in its current state of disrepair. I must say I've very disappointed: it used to be very good! What do we need to do to sort this out? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Ah, the nasty side of summary style that nobody ever discusses ;-)

This article has been killed by excessive branching into sub-articles, basically; so much content has been removed that this is essentially a glorified disambiguation page/linkfarm. I'm not really sure where one would start on this (and this topic is rather outside of my particular ken anyway), but, off the top of my head:

  • The most expedient way of filling out the article would be to merge History of the Arab-Israeli conflict back into it. I have no idea why that material was split out, actually; in my view, the basic framework of the article must be the actual narrative of the conflict.
  • Turn each of the major see-also links into a section with a two/three paragraph summary of the most salient points and a {{details}} link to the issue. These sections should follow the main body of narrative sections.
  • Trim the "See also" and "External links" sections with wild abandon.

Once that's done, there will still be a considerable amount of cleanup required to get the article into a worthy state; but at least there will be some material to work with. Kirill Lokshin 00:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

If we can find someone genuinely interested in the topic, it wouldn't be a bad idea to write it from scratch and ignore the excised material. On top of the military aspects that I presume will be heavily mentioned once this article regains its form, there should also be a discussion of intellectual history and the extensive ideological conflicts simmering beneath the violence. To that end, however, it's currently unclear what aspects the article covers and doesn't cover.UberCryxic 21:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring[edit]

Views of the Arab-Israeli conflict should be summarized in the article. We can rewrite it from existing material. What we definetly need before writing is clear defintions what to consider, what not.

The Intifada is not included in the article (but Palestine is recognized UN member and member of the Arab League) and joint operations between Israel and groups in the Lebanese civil war is missing, so the reference as conflict in the Middle East looks senseless. Iraq had the idea of sending several rockets towards Israel during the Second Gulf War and Israel developed the Arrow Defence System to counter further threads (from different powers in the region). Furthermore many political leaders in this region do point out conflicts with Israel from time to time (Ahmadinedshad, Saddam Hussein, Assad senior, etc.) and the immigration of Jews from the region to Israel does have origins in behaviours which are argumented to be based on Israel causing problem by sheer existence, etc. I forgot, occupation of parts of Lebanon by Israel and combat against the PLO there. Furthermore the displaced PLO also caused civil war in the kingdom of Jordania. We should discuss an outline of the conflict on the talk page. Wandalstouring 16:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Cretan War[edit]

I have been improving this article over since it was first made and I want to see how I can improve it and what can be done to tidy it up. Kyriakos 07:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Some general points:

  • Inline citations are a sine qua non for articles now.
  • Some images would be nice.
  • The lead section should be expanded.

More generally, the article seems quite short. Any additional material that could be added to it would be quite helpful. Kirill Lokshin 00:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ikokki[edit]

I assume that the main literary source for this war is Polybius. He is available in English at http://www.Perseus.tufts.edu so that you can improve the article and add citations. You can add images from wikimedia, like for example a satellite picture of Crete. Other than that:

  • What led to the battle of Lade? Who fought and with how many ships? A dedicated paragraph can only help
  • When did the fleets form, what did they do before and after the battles?
  • What were the terms of the peace treaty?

I hope I helped somewhat Ikokki 23:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaius Cornelius[edit]

This is a period I find interesting, but I am no expert.

  • As previously mentioned, the article seems quite short, if this is because little is known about this topic and the article does represent a good summary of what is known then that should be explained.
  • There should be some scope for more internal wiki links.
  • If you have any ambitions for your aticle, in-line citations are a must.

United States Marine Corps[edit]

After a significant rework over the past few weeks, I'd like some other opinions on this article as a precursor to a FA- nomination. There are two specific unresolved issues I'd like opinions on - there are two sections marked as disputed for factual accuracy or POV. I intend to delete them but would prefer some other opinions before I do so. --Mmx1 19:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

A very nice article, however:

  • I'm worried about the size. 85k is just gigantic. And the TOC is gigantic as well. Although, if adequately referenced with a generous amount of footnotes, it could pass easily.
  • There are disputed tags on some sections and {{fact}} templates somewhere, those obviously need to be corrected before the article can go through a FAC. I'm no expert and therefore don't see any problems with POV, but these tags have to be dealt with.
  • The "famous marines" section is too short and could use at least two or three paragraphs (no that does not contradict my previous statement about the article being too long :)
  • There are way too much lists that could be spinned off into child articles or converted to prose (or both, using summary style in the parent article) or converted into charts.
  • There are some one sentence paragraphs that could be merged together.
  • Some sections have no refs in them ("Aircraft") for instance. Generally speaking, 36 refs is barely enough for such an amount of prose, because statistically, it means some facts have a high chance of not being referenced (just from a statistical point of view).

Overall, NPOV should be dealt with and missing citations added. The size could also pose a problem, altough if adequately referenced with a generous amount of footnotes, it could pass easily.

-- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


Wandalstouring[edit]

  • It needs more intext citations.

"The Marines' most famous action of this period occurred in the First Barbary War (1801–1805) when William Eaton and First Lieutenant Presley O'Bannon led a group of eight Marines and 300 Arab and European mercenaries in an attempt to capture Tripoli. Though they only made it as far as Derna, Tripoli has been immortalized in the Marines Hymn and the Mameluke sword carried by Marine officers."

Potter(Hg), E.B. und Chester W. Nimitz (Hg.): Sea Power. A Naval History. London, Prentice Hall International, 1960. 932 S., 4° describes the history, tactics and strategies of the US Navy and Marines pretty much in detail, especially this incident, but it is very heavy (gives some muscles) to read. Wandalstouring 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback; I will fix or address them on the talk page --Mmx1 03:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I recall from the book mentioned, US marines used tomahawks. Wandalstouring 22:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Savo Island[edit]

Respectfully request a neutral review of this article, checking for errors, NPOV, etc. before final preparation for submitting for FA. It's not completely finished, however, I need to do some major work on the maps to make them more accurate before considering FA submission. I know it's been awhile since my last article submission, but I was on vacation. Cla68 04:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Excellent article, as usual. A few points of formatting that need to be fixed, though:

  • Image captions shouldn't be unnecessarily self-referential (or web-referential); "(Click on map for larger image.)" isn't really needed.
  • The "p." in the footnotes is sort of redundant; but, in any case, it should never be capitalized.

I'd also suggest adding another paragraph to the lead; the sizes of the forces and the names of the commanders really ought to be given there in addition to being listed in the infobox.

Finally, another round of copyediting would be a good idea, as there seem to be a few errors of usage and grammar still scattered throughout the artice (e.g. "Overall commander of the naval forces involved in the Guadalcanal and Tulagi operation, as well as commander of the aircraft carrier task groups providing air cover for the landings, was Vice Admiral Frank Jack Fletcher, headquartered in the U.S. carrier Saratoga."). Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Corrections and copyedit done as suggested. Thank you for the review. Cla68 03:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Submarine[edit]

Submarine is a former featured article, but it has lost its status a few months ago. Since then I've made some major edits, mostly additions, to counter the problems stated in the FA removal. The context suggests this article deserves FA status, and I hope to improve it at least to the best of FA standarts. However, the views on required improvement can differ, and I'd like to get advice before making new major changes. The specific problems may be:

  • Length. The article is above average length, being about 67 kilobytes. In my personal opinion, this is justified by the subject being both highly technical and historical, and too complex to be covered in a short article. However, prior to further expansion, I'd appreciate comments on what sections might be removed or compressed, and how. Please don't suggest breaking it in subarticles; while there already are some, I'd prefer the subject to be mostly covered in a single article. I'd also appreciate opinions on whether increased length is justified.
  • Readability. While I tried to make the article well readable, I'm still not sure whether all sections can be understood by all readers. Anyone with a technical higher education should have no problems reading it, but there can be some hardships for people without it. Please read the article and note any sections or sentences that might be difficult to understand and should be explained.
  • Citations. My job is connected with design og submarines, and I wrote sections (in the first half of the article) mostly basing on first-hand knowledge, however inserting citations wherever I found some sources. There still may be a number of statements without sources stated, so any help with pointing them or, better, suggesting sources to mention, would improve the article.
  • Other concerns. The article might miss some important detail, be too technical, or have other problems. Please point whatever else could improve it, and just improve it if you have time. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 00:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Some observations:

1. The length should not be a problem if it stays in summary style and keeps the reader's attention. The main problem, however, is that there are 8 citations for a 67 KB-long article. That's unacceptable for FA. You need to get a lot more in; around 50 would be nice.

2. I notice that the book references are, with the exception of one, about specific events and wars. Do you have any books that strictly focus on the submarine as a weapon of war?

3. The following paragraph should be removed from the lead as it is not that important:

"It has been claimed that Nuclear powered submarines and other large submarines are sometimes classed as ships, but a discussion with a RN Commodore has revealed that "In the Navy submarines are always referred to as boats! Ships stay on the surface!". The term U-Boat is sometimes used for German submarines in English. This comes from the German word for submarine, 'U-Boot', itself an abbreviation for Unterseeboot ('undersea boat')."

4. The sections Military submarines, Major submarine incidents since 2000, and Submarine movies need to be expanded. It would actually be better if you got rid of the last two altogether...would help to reduce size. You could put those articles in the See also section.

5. The structure is a bit odd. The History section should be first. I'm also not certain about the inclusion of Women on submarines in the Life support section.

6. Some issue with prose, both from a "literary" and factual perspective. The following caught my attention:

-"Submarines, first widely used in World War I, are used by all major navies today, especially the American, Russian and British navies." The word "especially" is a bit odd; it should be replaced with "like" or "such as." I know, for example, that the French and German navies heavily use submarines as well.

-"Some firms who make diving gear but not parts for submarines, called their work "submarine engineering"." Needs a comma after "gear."

-The Submersion and navigation section needs a huge copyedit. It is also heavily technical, way too much for my liking (not that I'm a sub expert, but I know a little bit about them). Like what's "trim"? That's not explained.

That's all I can think of for now. Good luck!UberCryxic 23:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

Oh yes, the submarine article... Well, I think that before any twinking with prose and things like that, this article needs a big structural overhaul, as it is currently a gigantic mess (I see it was improved since the FAR but still...) Of course, an experienced reader knows all the prereqs, but not an average, let alone a basic one. When was the first submarine created? How does a submarine float? Who even had the great idea that a ship going underwater was needed? The information is there, but hidden, while it should go first (and if possible, have much less subsections). So, I think that section 8 should go up, possibly abbreviated and put into a child article, sections 1 & 2 merged into something like "uses of submarines" and sections 3 to 7 put down, preferably in a big section called "How submarine works" or something. I really think that is the prereq for the whole work.

The section on modern submarines needs some work too, with some examples of "turning point" designs (details about development of first nuc boats, the "Alfa" with its titanium hull. A paragraph or section on current developments would be nice too.

Of course, the lead should be modified accordingly.

I think this is really the main thing about this article, and it should IMHO be dealt with first. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. There already is a subarticle for History section, so I'll just cut it down. However, I wonder if some kind of a partial rewrite with condensing text and focusing it on development would be better, with removal of some submarines and describing just milestones (this is for pre-WW1 history). I also think about splitting section 8 into just history of developments (and put it up) and application (about how many ships were sunk, how subs impacted WW 1-2, and how they are/were used in post-WW2 times). Any ideas on this? CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom Special Forces[edit]

Someone has recently added a lot of {{fact}} tags to this article. Some of the statements tagged are well known in military circles, but difficult to source. Please could someone review the article from a perspective of how it can be sourced, or written in such a way that the {{fact}} tags can be removed? Yorkshire Phoenix (talkcontribs) 09:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's going to need to be sourced, I think; but I'm not sure what the best place to pull citations from would be. Are there any canonical books on the topic (or on the SAS in particular)?

More generally, this article could use a great deal of filling out; as it is now, it reads basically more like a list than a real article. Each of the component groups probably deserves more than a single stubby paragraph, for example. Kirill Lokshin 19:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Whoever did ask for the tags probably had a global perspective and the casual reader in mind. I would never ask for a citation on the claim that this is one of the greatest special units in the world (duh, it is), but most Wikipedia users would probably need something that highlights the importance of the unit. As Kirill said, it will need to be expanded. I suggest starting out with the lead; make that a good two paragraphs or so and go from there. The only thing I can recommend about the sources is to do a quick search on Amazon. If that or other internet searches fail to yield anything substantial, well....it depends how serious you are about this article. I'm sure you could hit up some British libraries if you live in the good ol UK.UberCryxic 21:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring[edit]

Write to their media/PR officer a kind letter and ask him if he could recommend you some sources on the topics listed, where you need citations. (Here in Germany the army has some nice old civilian ladies who try to help you with any sources required.) Furthermore all militaries tend to have a "museum/memorial" somewhere, the guy doing this can certainly help you if you have an OK from the press officer. Wandalstouring 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've included some refs from one of the most 'canonical' books I think there is, Ken Connor's, and some other ones to fill things in. Cheers Buckshot06 00:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

United States Navy[edit]

This is a former fac, having failed due to various reasons, but mostly because of writing style. I have gone through and done as thorough a copyedit as I can and would like to get some more feedback and suggestions. I think it is very close to being fa quality.Arcimpulse 05:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck[edit]

A lot of good work has gone into the article. At first read, I find a few items that could be improved:

  • In the lead paragraphs, provide specific citations for the following:
  1. "the right 'to provide and maintain a navy.'"
  2. "enacted this right in 1794"
  3. "Its ability to project force is considered a key asset for the U.S. military." (Who considers it a key asset?)
  1. The first paragraph does not flow smoothly — a listing of areas of relationship, but the lead sentence and the rest of the paragraph do not tie together.
  2. The Medal of Honor and the U.S. Naval Academy are given as examples. How about the Blue Angels?

ERcheck (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Not bad at all. One point that might come up, though, is the overwhelming prevalence of official Navy resources in the references, and the lack of books and other dead-tree works. Are there any good books on the topic that could get some citations pulled from them? Kirill Lokshin 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sure there are; I'll check out my local library and try to dig some up.Arcimpulse 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

This is a very good but a very long article also! I think some of the sections at the end will have to be grouped together - and obviously shortened - into some larger section about additional information on the US Navy. Beyond that, Kirill makes a good point with the books. All the references are internet sites, and while that may be acceptable since they seem to be prestigious and reputable, it would add a greater touch of professionalism and sincerity if this article had two or three books as references. Also, there are currently about 40 some footnotes, which is a bit low for an article this size. Try to get some more like on the following:

-"On May 31, 2002, Secretary of the Navy Gordon England directed all U.S. naval ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism."

-"It includes traditional sailing terms, archaic English words, and a plethora of acronyms, joke phrases, crude expressions, and abbreviations that have been created within the past hundred years." Give an example too.

"Historically, the United States Navy has enjoyed a unique relationship with the United States Marine Corps (USMC), partly because they both specialize in seaborne operations."

-It may not also be a bad idea to source all the numbers given for the different amount of ships in the navy.

Overall, good job though.UberCryxic 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Vukovar[edit]

I completely rewrote this article a while back, adding maps, references etc. I think it's in a pretty good shape now - it had been the subject of extensive edit-warring between partisan editors, which thankfully now seems to have ceased. I would appreciate a peer-review. -- ChrisO 22:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Quite nice, assuming the edit-warring doesn't pick up again ;-)

Some suggestions:

  • Expand the lead to two or three paragraphs.
  • More footnotes would be appropriate. There are still some "citation needed" tags in the article that need to be fixed, at a minimum.
  • "Casualties" should come before "Aftermath", no?
  • Can you stub out some of the redlinks?

Overall, this isn't bad; but more thorough citation and some copyediting would do well here. Kirill Lokshin 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation Medak Pocket[edit]

I completely rewrote this article a while back, adding maps, references etc. I think it's in a pretty good shape now - it had been the subject of extensive edit-warring between partisan editors, which thankfully now seems to have ceased. I would appreciate a peer-review. -- ChrisO 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky[edit]

Some style suggestions.

  1. Find a representative photo/picture/map for the infobox.
  2. Fill in Serbian strength box.
  3. Blue-ify red links.
  4. More images if possible for the second half of the article.
  5. Reference 8 (ref-Ademi-Norac_0) is empty.

-- Миборовский 00:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Operation Storm[edit]

I completely rewrote this article a while back, adding maps, references etc. I think it's in a pretty good shape now - it had been the subject of extensive edit-warring between partisan editors, which thankfully now seems to have ceased. I would appreciate a peer-review. -- ChrisO 22:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Hmm, let's see:

  • The list of figures at the bottom should be turned into prose.
  • Lots of citation is needed here, as it's almost entirely absent.
  • The day-by-day sections are very short; if they can't be expanded, it might be better to merge them into more substantial blocks of prose.

This still has quite a lot of work needed, I think. Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rhys ap Gruffydd[edit]

I am hoping to put this article forward as a candidate for FA. Any suggestions for improvement would be gratefully received.Rhion 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

An outstanding article well worth its FA star! Some issues remain however:

  • Watch out for short paragraphs - it is usually better to merge them together.
  • Sometimes you wikilink a year, sometimes not. I don't know the exact policy about this when there are no complete dates in the article, but some thought should go in there.
  • A preventive copyedit should be made by someone knowledgeable in copyedit (not me) before sending it to FAC.

I think it would fly through FAC as it is, but an additional load of protection is never useless. Congrats on the amazing job! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Excellent article; in my opinion, this is basically ready for FAC. A few minor points of formatting that could be cleaned up, though:

  • The dates in the section headers would look much neater in parentheses.
  • The listing of references seems inconsistent. If you have a separate "References" section in addition to the notes, it would make sense to list all the references cited there, no? As it is, a number of the references are given only in the footnotes, with no corresponding entry below.

Other than that, looks great! Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the comments. The suggestions have all been implemented apart from the copyedit, which will follow later. I have removed the linking from all dates except the complete dates. Rhion 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Since there haven't been any more comments for over a week now, I have put the article forward for FAC. Rhion 09:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Greco–Persian Wars[edit]

This is perhaps the best of the articles of the Persian Wars. It shows (at least in the Persian invasion of Greece part) arguments on the size of Xerxes' army on why it was large or small. Short of a larger lead section and copy-editing what else is necessary before this is to become an FA?Ikokki 12:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Cla68[edit]

Article looks really good to me, but a few things I noticed:

  • Are the total "strength" and "casualty" numbers known for the infobox?
  • Check Wikipedia:Citing sources to ensure your references are formatted correctly and consistently.
  • The way some of the pictures are arranged appears to be creating some big white spaces in the article.
  • Use the template in the sections that refer to a specific battle that already has its own entry and label each section after the major battle that was involved in that part of the campaign.
  • Perhaps the lists of forces and numbers of each force could be reserved for the individual battle articles and summarized more briefly in this article since it's an overview of the entire campaign.
  • Any subjective assertion made, like, "This state of affairs was going to cause trouble sooner or later" ("Origins," 1st paragraph) should probably have a citation attached directly to it so that it doesn't look like the assertion is coming from an editor of the article instead of a referenced source.

Cla68 14:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought {{details}} would make more sense there than {{further}}, but that might just be personal preference. Kirill Lokshin 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
We are talking about several different campaigns if we are to calculate numbers:
  • Darius in Scythia: Marginally part of this article, numbers of the Persians given by Herodotus or Ctesias (800,000) considered bloated bloated, of the Scythians completely unknown, casualties mysterious
  • Ionian Revolt: Somewhat better known than the previous campaign, numbers are still a guess
  • Mardonius' first campaign of 492 BC: The numbers of his troops are debated but at least by a magnitude of 2.
  • Datis and Artaphernes' campaign: It is agreed Athens and Plataea had between 8,000-11,000 troops, for the Persian army it is believed between 25,000-60,000. It is believed that among the troops were survivors of the previous campaign.
  • Xerxes' campaign: MAJOR disagreement to the point that at battle of Thermopylae it has caused edit wars. Most historians today in the West (but not all, see article) believe Xerxes begun with 250,000 at the most. Most modern Greek historians find hard to accept that the 110,000 Greeks at Plataea faced less than the 300,000 mentioned by Herodotus and thus Xerxes could not have come with less than 500,000. Fleet numbers are also in disagreement: Either Herodotus' 1200 is true or it is a reference to the Iliad so it could not be more than 600 ships.
  • Pausanias' last campaign: Perhaps the only campaign about which there is agreement on numbers. About 30,000 Greeks (including fleet crew) and somewhat more Persians
  • Kimon's campaigns in Thrace: No source gives numbers for the Persians
  • Battle of Euremedon: The Persian numbers are again subject to debate.
  • Campaign of Egypt: Sources disagree on Athenian numbers. For the Persian numbers historians disagree even more
  • Battle of Salamis in Cyprus: Again there is disagreement on Persian numbers
If we were to add Greek numbers we would get something like 200,000+. For the Persians the total number is debated because in the West since 1850 there is a popular theory that noone could have possibly fielded more than 100,000 troops before the Napoleonic Wars. Ikokki 17:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
(I was interrupted earlier) All ancient Greek and Roman sources, some of which are actually considered biased in favor of the Persians like Ctesias always give numbers of over 100,000 for the vast majority of the campaigns. In the end the numbers debated boils down to how reliable ancient sources are and how dogmatic each historian is. Thus numbers in the infobox qre not advised
I am aware that references to modern sources are lacking. I will try to remedy this but it will be difficult because there are different editions of modern historians depending on the language: Page 23 of the German edition of Bengtson says different things from page 23 of the English edition of Bengtson. I will try to more references for subjective arguments
The gaps only appear in Explorer and seem to be cause by a bug in that programm. They do not appear on Firefox. I will try to add templates referring to the battles. As for the tables the overview article is IMO a better discussion forum than say battle of Thermopylae which does not deal with how the army gathered.
Thanks for the commentsIkokki 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

The article is quite good, overall. Three things that stand out, though:

  • More citations are definitely needed. As it is, there are significant portions of the article completely devoid of citation, which will get you hammered at FAC.
  • The section names are too long and convoluted. I would try to shorten them considerably, and perhaps add years in parentheses to them in order to aid the reader in finding periods in the narrative.
  • The lists of troops should be formatted as floating tables, as they create large visual gaps in the article otherwise.

Obviously, the lead section will need to be expanded as well, but you're already aware of that. Kirill Lokshin 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How can I do floating tables?Ikokki 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The full syntax is at Help:Table; basically, you need to set style="float: right;" on the table elements. Kirill Lokshin 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaius Cornelius[edit]

Great read, thanks! You have a couple of in-line external links: I don't know what the concensus is, but I prefer to make all references as footnotes (see British anti-invasion preparations of World War II for an example). By-the-way, I cannot recommend Tom Holland's Persian Fire too highly.

Operation Gibraltar[edit]

I feel this operation was very significant in terms of the Indo-Pak conflicts as it was the one that was responsible for the Second Kashmir War of '65. I have made every attempt to write this article from a NPOV and in doing so have used sources entirely from Pakistani authors and a few from neutral sites (Interestingly none from Indian authors) to produce an unbiased historical account of the war. I haven't included a battlebox since this isn't a battle by traditional definition, but any inputs will be appreciated. Tx --Idleguy 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Nice. A few suggestions:

  • Adding more footnotes is always a good idea.
  • A map of the regions mentioned, perhaps?
  • More details on the Indian military movements would be nice. Is this something that's available?
  • I would go ahead and add a (partial) battlebox, as the article does discuss combat operations. Most of the fields should be pretty usable here.
  • Expand the lead out to two or three paragraphs.

Overall, quite a nice article. Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Completed a few tasks like maps, expanded lead and battlebox addition. military movement details are hard to obtain but i'll see what i can do. --Idleguy 10:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky[edit]

  1. Find a nicer (more professional-looking) map for the infobox, if possible.
  2. Article is rather short.
  3. Article lacks pictures.

-- Миборовский 00:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lee-Enfield[edit]

Previous review

After the last Peer Review in 2006, I've been involved in getting references for the article and trying to expand it again. The Lee-Enfield is, of course, one of the most influential firearms in history and one of the Core Topics of the "Technology" aspect of the WWI Centenary Drive. As such, I'd like to think it warrants a much better rating than "B" and would like some feedback and assistance on how to get it to Featured Article status; or at least an improvement over its current rating. The previous Peer Review is located here, for anyone that's interested. Commander Zulu (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a delicate way to put this, but seeing as no-one has come in and said "This article is terrible and it's uncited and its full of redlinks and spelling errors!", then perhaps the article deserves to be ranked a lot higher than a "B"? I mean, I'm increasingly seeing people linking to the article on shooting message boards whenever someone asks about the Lee-Enfield with a "It's all in there" comment to accompany it... Commander Zulu (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


GraemeLeggett[edit]

I'd like to see the units in the infobox in a consistent form - either Imperial then metric or vice versa - as a mattere of feel I personally would expect Imp first... There's also units in the text without the space before and at least one occaision of " where inches ought to be. Probably do some of them right now myself. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

I've separated the book list from teh specific footnotes for you. In the footnotes, you should use shortform instead of repeating the full details over and over. "Smith (2004), p. 53." and so forth. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Una Smith[edit]

Recently I disambiguated incoming links to Enfield; some of the links I sent to Lee-Enfield and related articles. So, many I suggest inspecting the links (especially the redirects) to Lee-Enfield to see if any further disambiguating is needed there? --Una Smith (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Martini-Enfield[edit]

It seemed odd that there was a Wikipedia entry for the Martini-Henry rifle, but not for the Martini-Enfield- and seeing as how the Martini-Enfield was still in service as a reserve arm as late as WWII, I figured I'd better write a Wikipedia Entry for it. It'd just be nice to get some feedback from other military historians on Wikipedia so it can be improved on, especially because British military arms are such a fascinating subject. --Commander Zulu 02:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very interesting article. Some general suggestions:

  • Citations (preferably using footnotes) should be liberally sprinkled throughout.
  • The newer {{Infobox Weapon}} should be used here, as we're standardizing on it now.
  • I notice that the Khyber Pass material is very similar between this article and the Lee-Enfield one. It might be worthwhile to write a separate article on the weapon copying, in order to avoid having redundant text in each of the rifle articles it's applicable to.

More generally, adding any additional material that's available would be helpful in filling out the article. (I would assume that there must be more on the rifle's use—accounts from those who used it in combat, perhaps, or official records—that might be of interest.) Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the suggestions... I thought about creating a separate article on Khyber Pass rifles, but I can't find quite enough information to justify a complete article... and if you take the Khyber Pass stuff out of the Martini-Enfield article, you're left with not very much information. There's surprisingly little information on the Martini-Enfield out there, but the article is very much a work in progress. I didn't bother with spreading citations through the article, however, because the two references at the bottom are the citations for the entire article, so to speak.--Commander Zulu 03:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

S-300[edit]

The article has gone through a lot of changes over the past few weeks and has really grown. I think it can get Good article status with some work, so hence this request for peer review. - Dammit 17:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Quite a nice article. Some general suggestions:

  • More footnotes are always helpful. This is particularly important for articles such as this one, which have a lot of statistics one might wish to verify.
  • The bulleted lists in every section are excessive. I would rewrite them into regular prose; otherwise, the article looks too choppy.
  • Some general condensing of the shorter sections into more substantial contiguous blocks might be helpful. Again, you want to fight the impression of list- or table-heaviness in an article.

Overall, though, the material looks quite good. Kirill Lokshin 05:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I've written the bulleted lists into prose, but what do you mean with condensing of the shorter sections into more substantial contiguous blocks, could you give an example? - Dammit 11:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It's an issue that's mostly gone away now that the lists are gone. There are still some very short sections (e.g. "S-300PMU"), though; I don't know how important it is that each variant get its own section, but if multiple ones can be grouped together, it would create less choppy prose. Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've tried to work away those, but I'm not exactly convinced it looks better this way. It seems a bit harder to find information about specific subversions now, but that might just be my inexperience. - Dammit 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski[edit]

This article has (barely) failed last FAC. Perhaps the members of WPMH could offer further insight how to improve this article, and help to address some of the FAC objections, so it can be renominated in the near future?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Well, I didn't see any of the mentioned problems with the article to begin with, so I'm probably not the best person to comment. I would suggest—and I do not know to what extent this would actually be feasible—approaching the objectors and asking them if they might be able to point out some references for their points. If they can, all is good; if they can't, then the points presumably need not be included, as no sources can be found for them. (I would assume that the objectors do have sources—where could they be getting detailed objections otherwise?—and just need to be coaxed into providing them.)

The issue, in my mind, is the timing; now that you know what the objections center around, you can hash the points out on the talk page for as long as is needed to achieve consensus on whether—and how—they should be presented, without the time pressure of a FAC nom. Then, when you do renominate the article, you can point to the previous discussions for any issues that come up again. Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked the objectors for the references in question and received none so far. I will approach them again but if they fail to provide them, I am not sure what can be done, so I was hoping for input from other editors.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  04:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
PS. Plus I think the article can use expantion with relation to miltiary policies of Piłsudski during his reign as dictator - perhaps this would be something that memebers of this WikiProject could more easily help with?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  15:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm guessing that further expansion there would have to come from editors with a good knowledge of Polish military history—and I suspect most of those have already worked on the article (or at least commented on the FAC). Kirill Lokshin 15:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

While I was supporting the original FAC, it appears that the article has some POV issues. I think that one thing some people want to avoid is to portray a dictator, whatever he/she is, as a nice person. In a sense, a dictator is always a potential (and more often than not real) tyrant.

I found a French article about Pilsudski, written by a French researcher [3]. Among other things, it states, as some pointed out, that JP was indeed a Lithuanian of a noble family. This fact needs further investigation, because factual accuracy is essential. However, this looks like a valid ref to me.

Furthermore, objections from Ukrainian wikipedians pointing out that "Polish-Ukrainian War did not crush the independence of Ukraine, only resolved a territorial dispute." should be addressed because the issue is indeed quite delicate.

Incidentally, it would also appear that the question of POW camps is a delicate one, and should be further explained in the text.

Another issue is IMHO the attempt to portray JP as someone delegating all the affairs to his "colonels" and as such, a potential attempt to improve his image. I think this point either needs further sources proving (or disproving) the whole thing

Overall, I think this is quite FA material (and I supported it), however I can understand that it can cause moderate controversies among some wikipedians. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 15:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Siffin[edit]

I've massively rewritten and changed the article, because it was not in an acceptable state previously. But this is my first attempt at an article and I'd appreciate feedback. Thank you. Salim555 01:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Salim555

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Not a bad start. Some things to consider:

  • The article needs to cite its sources (typically done via footnotes). As it is, there's very little of the article that can be easily traced to an outside reference.
  • Images would be helpful. One obvious one is a map, if you can obtain one.
  • The lead section can be lengthened to two/three paragraphs.

Working through these points—particularly the first one—should strengthen the article quite substantially. Kirill Lokshin 05:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring[edit]

  • images: a map showing the location of the battle, some geographical features and the positions of the camps could do. Wandalstouring 11:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Gepard anti-materiel rifles[edit]

I've nominated this article for peer review in an attempt to guage my writing and find ways to improve it. I started this article and have done all the writing.Shoe1127 03:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A nice start to the article. Some general suggestions:

  • Inline citation is a must. I personally prefer using footnotes, but there are a number of other possible styles as well.
  • The "Ammunition" and "Service" sections are very short. It might be worthwhile to merge the ammunition into the "Description" section. The service section could use expansion, if you can find any sources: where were they reported used? What units field them? Are they used in training exercises? And so forth.
  • The lead could probably be expanded to two paragraphs.
  • The "Comparison with M-82" section is too generally worded to be useful. Who is doing the comparisons, and who prefers the Gepard?

Overall, though, not bad. Kirill Lokshin 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pericles[edit]

A general Wikipedia:Peer review/Pericles/archive2 is still under way, but the response was not the adequate. The article re-written by me is an A-class article and a failed FA and GA nominee. Since these failures huge improvements have been made by me and two fellow users (Druworos and Konstable). I think this article is too close to be FA, but I need your support!--Yannismarou 07:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

Fascinating article, well worth a FA star!!! Some work should be put in before though, mostly format and style-related:

  • The bottom of the article needs to be reworked: Ref_label templates should be converted into inline citations, external links and further reading go below refs, and so on.
  • I'm not sure what to do with the timeline. Maybe there is a way to put it horizontally rather than vertically and ditch his birth date to gain some place? And put it somewhere else in the article?
  • inline refs formatting needs some work: the ref goes after punctuation, with no space in between, like this.[1]
  • There are some one-sentence paragraphs that should be merged.
  • The References section could be put under a navframe to gain some place, as they're basically redundant with inline quotes. Some editors even don't put that section (although I disagree with them).

Overall, this is an awesome article! Keep up the work! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback, the suggestions and the encouragement. Now, point by point:
  • I've reworked (as much as I could for now!) the bottom of the article. I removed the external links as well the further reading, the timeline and certain templates. I'm not sure I want to merge Ref_label templates (the notes) with the citations. In my mind, notes and citations are distinctive. In this case, I followed the pattern of FA article Rabindranath Tagore, which I liked. After all, notes are also inline. Anyway, I may be wrong ...
  • I'm also not sure what to do with the timeline! For the time being, I changed its position. I think is better with the citation. If I find a way to do it horizontally and if this is nice stylistically I'll try it.
  • I think I corrected all the inline refs formatting wherever it was wrong. In the very few occasions, I kept the inline ref within a sentence and not after the punctuation I did it on purpose, in order to emphasize something within the sentence.
  • I merged all one-sentence paragraphs.
  • I use a naframe. I donot know if it is nice, but it works! Thanks for the idea by the way. I also disagree with those who donot put the Ref section.--Yannismarou 14:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

The article is much better than when it last went up for FAC. A few further suggestions for improvement:

  • Hiding the references but not the further reading is somewhat counterintuitive. I actually don't like the navbar for these; but if it stays, you should at least use a colored bar there. Otherwise, the "show" link is almost impossible to notice unless you're looking for it.
  • Not sure that hiding the timeline is worthwhile, as the column of citations running alongside it is longer anyways. One option might be to move the timeline to the previous section and have the citations in a two-column format.
  • In the "Skill of oratory" section: "Thucydides' contemporary commentators are still trying to unriddle..." doesn't make any sense. Perhaps "Thucydides' modern commentators..." is what's meant here?
  • The "See also" section should be trimmed as much as possible by intergrating links into the body of the text. I'm not sure how difficult this will be in this case, though.

Kirill Lokshin 16:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Point by point:
  • I tried to find a less counterintuitive solution through the navbars. I'm open to something even better.
  • The idea about the two columns in the citation is good, but I donot know how to do it! If anybody has a clue ...
  • Yes, I meant "modern". I made the correction.
  • I trimmed the "See also" section as much as I could. But I donot think is counter-productive to have some extra links in this section.--Yannismarou 18:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the citations over to a two-column format and moved the timeline bar up to the "see also" section; does that seem cleaner? The use of navbars isn't something that's very common in FAs, so I suspect that there may be some further discussion during the FAC about how to arrange these things; maybe someone there will have better ideas. Personally, I don't really see anything wrong with simply having both the references and the further reading listed out completely; but this might be a question of personal preference more than anything else. Kirill Lokshin 19:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems cleaner. Thanks. I agree that someone might have better ideas about the navbars. Hence, I have the Ref section as it was previously.--Yannismarou 12:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Kirill and Grafikm got most of the "major" problems, but I just wanted to say this article should fly through FAC. Very very good article.UberCryxic 16:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaius Cornelius[edit]

What a great read! I have no real expertise in this area, I just wanted to say how very much I enjoyed it. Gaius Cornelius 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Wandalstouring[edit]

Close to FAC, some minor critics concerning content, I wrote them on the articles talk page. The role of Aspia and her appearance in Perikles life should be clearer (one-two sentences). The legal issue of giving citizenship to his third son, Perikles the Younger (mother not Athenian) could be mentioned. Efficiency is a disputable word to describe the rule of Perikles in the header. Wandalstouring 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of these issues as well.--Yannismarou 14:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
We had a long dispute and have everything fine and sourced now. No more objections. Wandalstouring 15:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Moscow[edit]

After almost 2 months of research and writing, this article about one of the most epical battles of WWII is finally done (sort of). Since I spent so much time writing it, I need an external view and help more than ever.

Thanks, Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

I'll reiterate my earlier comments about the article needing a thorough copyedit (primarily for issues of grammar rather than style, at this point). I'll try to go over it sometime soon (this weekend, perhaps?), but multiple copyeditors would probably be beneficial here. Aside from that:

  • Month/day combinations should always be linked—even in headings—to allow date preferences to work properly.
  • Care should be taken to keep the tone appropriately academic; wording like "the Army Group North was stopped cold" is probably too informal.
  • Images shouldn't be allowed to drift too close together along a single margin, or they will cause extra spacing to appear in the text.
  • Quotes shouldn't be italicized (and aren't consistently, in any case).
  • It might be worthwhile to use OKW/OKH (whichever one is more appropriate) in place of the generic "German high command".
  • The first paragraph of the "Casualties" section is uncited and has some pretty noticeable weasel-wording (e.g. "some historians").
  • Self-references (e.g. "In this article..." in the "Casualties" section) should be avoided.
  • The "References" section needs to be alphabetized and should include everyone cited in the footnotes (Jukes, notably, is missing).
  • Not really a complaint related to this article per se, but the monster template at the bottom needs to be killed somehow, as it's way too big of a see-also section. I recall that turning it into a portal was discussed; do you know if anything came of that idea?

Overall, though, the material looks solid; I suspect this will be ready for FAC in a couple of weeks, if not sooner. Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I corrected all your objections. Save the copyedit that is, because I'm utterly bad at grammar (in all three languages I speak). I'm looking more than ever for copyeditors :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq[edit]

This fairly large and detailed article is pretty stable and should form a good source of information for anyone with an interest in the Australian military's role in the war. However, it would benefit from a review by non-Australians in order to correct any underlying Australian POV issues. In addition, it would be nice to get some advice on whether the discussion of Australian operations following the 'end of major hostilities' should be split into a seperate article. --Nick Dowling 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Not a bad start. There are two obvious issues that jump out:

  • No inline citations (and very vague references). (This is especially jarring when there are little "citation needed" tags floating all over the page.)
  • Choppy prose (or not-prose, in some cases). The "Forces committed" section is basically just a list.

I would avoid splitting anything out into separate articles; this one isn't all that long, and what results from the split would likely be an over-politicized stub, if the current state of the articles on the US side of things suggests anything. Kirill Lokshin 15:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising (1794)[edit]

I recently expanded the article, rewriting it almost from scratch. I focused primarily on the military aspect of the uprising, but the result might be too military-oriented for an average reader. Anyway, all comments appreciated. //Halibutt 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice! I don't think the military orientation is a problem, as this encounter was quite military in nature.

Some other points:

  • The overarching "History" heading seems unnecesary. Why not move its sub-sections up?
  • The setup of the references is a little bizarre. "Further reading" should definitely be its own section (and is usually bulleted, not numbered); the same is probably true for the general reference (although if you split that out, you should also include the fill bibiliographic information for the works cited in the footnotes.
  • Headings like "Day two" might look better as "Second day"?
  • I would stagger the images along both margins, but that might just be a personal preference.
  • Are the civilians mentioned in the infobox the National Militia? Or are those included as "soldiers" and the civilians are in reference to other groups?
  • You might want to be more specific on what you mean by "technical superiority" in the lead, as it's not a term that lends itself well to this period. Is this in reference to superiority in artillery, or something else entirely?
  • I think that abbreviations for military ranks should generally be avoided. They're often unclear to the casual reader, and don't really save much in terms of space.
  • The materials from the first two external links seem to be public domain. Any chance of getting them uploaded on WikiCommons/WikiSource?
  • Lots of redlinks that could use filling. I'm curious as to whether we need to link all of the authors for the reference works. Are all of them notable enough to sustain articles of their own?

Overall, though, very good article! Kirill Lokshin 17:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. I generally like all important parts of the article to be at the same level: History/Biography, References, See also, OOB and so on. It's a matter of personal preference I guess, and I don't feel very strongly about it so feel free to move them up.
  2. It's a left-over. As a matter of fact both positions in the further reading section were mentioned in other publications, so they might as well be moved to General refs. Speaking of which, I'm not sure it's the best word here. General references are those used in preparation of the article, but not linked from any particular statement. Could you think of a better word here? Oh, and as to the numbering - I really like the idea that I could add "see also reference No.2" in the inline notes.
  3. Done
  4. We still lack images, I believe. All of them appear in the relevant sections, next to the description of what happened on the pic. I also like the text flow to be preserved, while left-aligned images IMO do not help that, but you're right that it's a matter of preference.
  5. Good one! Indeed, I used civilians and militia interchangeably. Fixed that now (hopefully).
  6. As to technical superiority - this is what I call a mental shortcut. Obviously the Polish regular units were no better nor worse than the regular Russian forces. The only difference was that the Russians had slightly more artillery and of a grater calibre. However, a large part of the Polish force was militia, armed with sabres, rifles, muzzle-loaders, pikes, anvils (sic!), hammers and anything they could find. That is not even comparable to regular forces. Could you think of a better wording?
  7. Never thought of that. As a temporary measure I linked all the first instances of usage of abbreviations to proper articles.
  8. All of Norblin's sketches related to the fights in Warsaw are already there (the rest in that gallery are related to other battles of the Kościuszko's Uprising). On the other hand the document could indeed be a nice addition, I'll upload it right away.
  9. In my previous FAC someone suggested that this was a good idea to link'em all, that's why I did it here. I'm sure we could safely unlink most of them, though perhaps writing at least stubs on them would be a more wiki-like approach. I'll see what I can do in my spare time.

Overall, thanks for your review. //Halibutt 09:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

2. "General references" is probably the best term in this case. If you were to use just plain "References", people would assume that the ones that have been directly cited are also listed.
4. I think it might be a bit clearer if you change over to adjective forms: "Although the Russian force had both numerical and technical superiority..." → "Although the Russian forces were more numerous and better equipped..." Kirill Lokshin 12:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Both things fixed now. //Halibutt 10:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Webley Revolver[edit]

I've been expanding this article quite a bit over the last few weeks, and whilst I think it's well on the way to being a FAC, I'd like to get some feedback and suggestions on it (I'll be adding some footnotes over the next few days, as time permits!) --Commander Zulu 13:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken all the suggestions on board (including the addition of citations), as well as added some new material and generally improved the article, so I'd again like to ask for feedback and re-assessment of the article. --Commander Zulu 11:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions have been noted and implemented... can I get some more thoughts? I'm pretty happy with it now, but there may still be some things I'm missing. --Commander Zulu 07:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't suppose anyone's had a chance to duck by and give the article another look-over, have they? It would be greatly appreciated... --Commander Zulu 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm[edit]

First and foremost, here goes the results of the automated PR script:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.[2]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space - &nbsp; between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18&nbsp;mm.[3]
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like "also", "in addition", "additionally", "moreover", and "furthermore" may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 9 additive terms, a bit too much.

{{#if:|*The article has a few or too many inline external links, which hamper the readability of the article. Please convert them to footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA.|*This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named "References" or "Footnotes", add {{reflist}}

Now, my own complement:

  • Two weapon infoboxes is kinda strange to see in an article. Maybe they could be merged.
  • Inline citations are a must.
  • The list should be converted into prose
  • There are too much one-sentence paragraphs, they should be merged.

Overall, it is a great start but the article still has a long journey awaiting him... :)

Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ See footnote
  2. ^ See footnote
  3. ^ See footnote

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

I'll second (third?) the remark that inline citations are absolutely critical. A few more suggestions:

  • I don't think there's anything particularly problematic about multiple infoboxes, provided they don't overwhelm the text.
  • On that note, the Boer War and WWI sections are really small, and should be expanded if they're to remain as distinct sections.
  • The mess of templates at the bottom is rather unpleasant from an aesthetic standpoint. We should probably work on getting some sort of standard layout for these so the sizes don't jump so much; but that's probably a broader issue rather than one tied specifically to this article. Kirill Lokshin 01:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments after changes:
  • The "Military service .455 Webley revolver marks and models" section is just a list.
  • The "References" section should be bulleted.
  • The two left-hand images in the "The Webley Mk IV .38/200 Service Revolver" section are too close together, and will cause problems on higher-resolution monitors.
  • The "Webley Revolvers in Popular Culture" section is full of weasel-wording (e.g. "perhaps most famous") and uncited opinion (e.g. "Webley Mk IV 'looks right' for the period in which the film is set").
Overall, though, this is much improved. Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good now; it's probably ready to be sent to FAC. Kirill Lokshin 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

CSS Virginia II[edit]

First attempt at fleshing out an article on a ship. Was a stub and felt comfortable removing those. plange 22:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice article. A few general suggestions:

  • The citations should really include page numbers, as I doubt the entire book(s) being cited are relevant to this particular ship; this should also alleviate the clustering of footnotes under only two numbers.
  • The lead could be a bit longer.
  • Are there any existant images of the entire ship? Or, if not, of any ship that would have been similar in appearance?
  • I assume you just haven't finished going all the way through the article yet, but the last line ("She was raised by the United States after the U.S. Civil War.") breaks off quite abruptly. What did the US do with her once this was done?

Overall, great work! Kirill Lokshin 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On the page number thing, how do I add that to the {{cite book}} template? There didn't seem to be a parameter for that. I've seen people do renderings, so I'll contact them and see if they'd be willing to contribute. That last sentence was actually there before me, and it didn't make sense. I think I'll take it out as I think she's still underwater-- I have an email sent to NUMA to verify....plange 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
never mind on page numbers, helps to look at the template :-) plange 00:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, there's a field in there for that ;-)
I've never particularly liked it, though; if you wind up citing from a number of different pages, I generally prefer to create a separate "References" section listing the full details of the book and only using short-form citations in the footnotes (as here, for example). This is just my personal preference, though, so feel free to do whatever you're most comfortable with. Kirill Lokshin 00:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for that tip, that makes things so much easier and cleaner! having all those cite web templates in the middle of the text can get quite messy...plange 01:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
How does it look now? Have addressed your suggestions except for another picture. As far as I know there is not another historical one, photo or drawing, but will hunt up modern renderings, unless that's not something we should put in there (of course getting permission first though). plange 01:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice! I would add another paragraph to the lead summarizing her service, though; the lead should really contain major points all the way through the article. As far as images are concerned, I see no problems with using modern ones if you can get some with the appropriate copyright status. Kirill Lokshin 02:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Imjin War[edit]

Hello, I just edited the entire Imjin War article by adding information on the Second Invasion and the timeline. I would like a review on how the article is doing but the timeline is still incomplete and I am currently looking for more information so I will try and finish it up. For the rest of the article, I need some feedback because I am struggling on improving the article. Thank you for the review. Good friend100 01:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

I have very little knowledge of the specific historical details here, so I can't comment too much on the exact content. However, some more general suggestions:

  • Inline citations should be added in large quantities throughout. This is particularly important in an article like this because of the occasional arguments that break out along national lines.
  • The timeline might be better off being moved to a separate Timeline of the Imjin War; otherwise, its presence will draw criticism of the article being too list-oriented.
  • The list of battles should be removed in favor of a standard-format campaignbox template. This might require a bit of work, as we seem to have a number of badly-designed or overlapping ones for this war (this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this); it would probably be worthwhile to merge them into a single template once you have a good idea of the order of the various battles.
  • The lead section can probably be expanded to two or three paragraphs.
  • The paintings are very nice; but a map of some sort (even if it's just a geographical map of Korea) would be very useful as well.
  • The very short sections later in the article should either be expanded or merged together to create longer and better-flowing blocks of prose.

Overall, though, this looks like it's well on its way! Kirill Lokshin 03:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. But I don't know how to cite a reference of Wikipedia. Could you show me how? Also, I don't know how to create a campaignbox template. In fact I don't even know what a campaignbox template is. Thanks for the instructions, I appreciate it very much. Good friend100 22:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
My personal preference for citation is Wikipedia:Footnotes. It's fairly easy to use and quite versatile. There are other methods, of course, but I'm not all that familiar with them.
As far as campaignbox templates go, there's an overview of how they function here; for your purposes, though, it might be easier just to start with {{Campaignbox Seven-Year War}} and add in the missing links to other battles, copying the existing format.
If you have any other questions, or if the explanations I've linked above aren't sufficient, please don't hesitate to ask. Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Reference

What is a difference between a reference and a citation? When I look at certain articles, there is a reference section and a "notes" section. Also, can a "notes" section be used for referencing information? Thank you again. Good friend100 02:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The "References" section is typically used to present an alphabetical bibliography, while the "Notes" section is used for footnotes (both those containing referencing information and more discursive ones). If every work that was used as a source is cited through a footnote, the "References" section can technically be omitted; but it's usually helpful to include one anyways, even if it does duplicate some information. Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello. If you already didn't know, I am a high schooler. Currently, I am in an argument with someone over the Dokdo/Takeshima. He is increasingly making fun of my age and treating as if I know nothing because I am young. He is also indirectly making fun of my home country. I threatened to refer to an administrator but instead he calls me a baby. What should I do? thank you. Good friend100 15:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Links to the discussion, please? Admins really can't do anything based on general comments. Kirill Lokshin 15:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
My talk page. The discussion first started with a user named "Komdori" asking me why I raised the question of Dokdo/Takeshima at the talk page of Yasukuni Shrine. For some reason, he left, and a user named LactoseTI claiming I am ganging up and spewing personal ideas. The argument went from there. Good friend100 16:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand. Its just that how he looks down on me because I'm young makes me angry. Just because you are young doesn't mean you cannot be part of Wikipedia, right?
"masturbatory diatribes". Thats how he treats me. What should I do? Should I ignore him and back off, or should I continue to reply? Good friend100 16:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Replied on user's talk page. Kirill Lokshin 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I wil follow your suggestion. Good friend100 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Is the word "invaded" and "executed" POV? Good friend100 22:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It may or may not be, depending on the circumstances. It doesn't jump out as particularly unusual, but there may be other factors. It's an issue that should really be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. Kirill Lokshin 22:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Would it be ok if there should be something like "Japan invaded Korea in 1592" in the Imjin War article? Its because I am seeing users moving around on Korea or Japan related articles and deleting words like "invaded" or "killed" claiming they are POV. Should I revert them? Good friend100 23:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
That one seems perfectly obvious to me. What word are they suggesting we use in place of "invaded"? Kirill Lokshin 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"Conflict" replaced "invaded". Good friend100 00:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That's quite bizarre, as "conflict" isn't a verb. It seems quite clear to me that the conflict was an invasion; this is utterly unrelated to any questions of justification and so forth. Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Good Friend 100, if you are going to complain, at least give the appropriate facts. First, no one said "executed" was POV. You wanted it to say the Yasukuni article to explicitly state that 14 convicted of class A war crimes were executed from Japan, and that 1,000 others convicted of class B and C war crimes were executed. Not one of the B/C convictions resulted in execution, and no more than half of the class A convictions led to execution. It's not a POV discussion, it's a factual discussion.
Also, in the same article, there was a list of sources for the war dead spirits. Some lines said thinks like, "Conflict between Japan and ...," while others were tantamount to saying "Japan's invasion of the world during the second world war." The list was changed to be consistent, to head off any accusations of POV, and also to head off a discussion over whether or not the actions were really constitutded "invasions" or not. This had nothing to do with this conflict. I'm not sure why it spilled over onto this page.
Good Friend 100, I am not "looking down at you." I know you are making some really! valuable contributions. I've said so repeatedly, and I don't want to discourage you. However, in situations like this one--when Kirill Lokshin asked for an example--why did you simply fabricate one, instead of describing the situation like you were asked? LactoseTI 21:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Lokshin,

Thank you for the past help. I feel that the Korea related articles are being attacked and messed around with. The editors that edit the articles are heavily changing the articles but they don't seem to be getting any better. What should I do?

Also, a user moved the Imjin War article to Seven Year War (Asia) without any vote or consensus of others. I strongly disagree with this title because it is confusing with other users and websurfers looking for information. Also, there are several wars with the name of "Seven Year War". "Seven Year War (Asia)" makes it seem even more vague.

The article seems to be in a mess, after a lot of hard work. I don't know what to do. Should I open a poll? Good friend100 03:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest opening a request for comments on the article. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello again Mr. Lokshin.
About the Imjin War article, although the article is tagged from moving, a user has deliberately moved the article to Hideyoshi's Invasions without consensus from the other editors. I believe that I should revert the move and put up the tag again, but I am not sure because I don't want to create a move war. Good friend100 13:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If anyone was able to move it, it means that the article had already been unprotected—which means that some other administrator believed that consensus had already been reached. Talk to that admin, please ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you post the protect from moves template? thank you

Also, the user that deleted the tag is not an admin but one of the editors. He claimed that the argument was calm enough to delete it. Good friend100 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Nihonjoe (an administrator) removed it. I believe you need to be an admin to add or remove it. Incidently, he appears to have been right. LactoseTI 13:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, Nihonjoe (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an administrator; non-admins can remove the tag, but can't actually change the underlying page protection. If you don't agree with his decision, it would be best to consult with him directly. Kirill Lokshin 15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What if the move tag was taken off because it was his favor? After reading his userpage, he seems to be Japanese, or really like Japanese culture. I think that his judgement is biased, because he stated that the discussion was "now stable and ok" even though it obviously is not. Good friend100 16:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, why not take it up with him directly? He's, as far as I know, a diligent admin; I very much doubt that he would have allowed any personal feelings to affect his decision. Kirill Lokshin 16:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked on his talk page but simply told me to discuss in the discussion page of the article itself. I am not expressing any personal feelings. I simply disagree with the move. Good friend100 17:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I referred to WP:RM to request a move on the article. Good friend100 17:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Article

Mr. Lokshin, could you review the article of the "Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea" (Imjin War) again? Also, could you review the talk page and could you reconsider moving the article back to the original title? I wrote an argument at the bottom of the article and I believe I have every right to move the article back into its former name.

Thank you Good friend100 22:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to move it again, please open a move request and try to get consensus for your preferred name. Moving it anywhere without the agreement of the other editors is practically guaranteed to start up the move war again, and I very much doubt that would be an enjoyable experience for anyone involved. Kirill Lokshin 22:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
(Incidentally, we probably shouldn't keep having these discussions on an already-archived peer review; if you'd like to ask me something, just use my talk page.) Kirill Lokshin 22:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Bicocca[edit]

A fairly important battle, but one that's quite difficult to find sources for. I've tried to collect as much as I could; hopefully, the narrative is sufficiently detailed. I plan on taking this to FAC at some point in the near future; hence, any feedback on potential weaknesses or problems with the article would be much appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 04:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Plange[edit]

Great article! Just a few things....I know absolutely nothing about this time period, so this coming from someone who has no previous knowledge. In that light, this paragraph was confusing for me (I put where I was confused in brackets):

"At the start of the war in 1521, Emperor Charles V and Pope Leo X moved jointly against the French territories in Lombardy. A large Papal force under the Marquis of Mantua, together with such Spanish troops as were available in Naples and some smaller Italian contingents, concentrated near Mantua, intending to advance into the Duchy of Milan.[3] The German forces which Charles had sent south to aid this managed to pass through Venetian territory near Vallegio unmolested and reach Mantua, prompting French complaints that their allies [who were their allies? The Venetians? That's what I inferred, so maybe that's enough] were doing nothing to aid them.[4] The combined Papal, Spanish, and Imperial army then proceeded into [the] French territory [of Lombardy?] under the command of Prosper Colonna.[5] For the next several months, Colonna fought a war of maneuver against the French, refusing to give battle."

Shouldn't Pescara get his full name here since this is the first mention of him? "Pescara positioned his Spanish arquebusiers four ranks deep immediately behind the rampart"

Also, was thinking it might be nice if in the prelude area I could see a map that showed Lombardy and Milan in the bigger scheme of things (as opposed to the very close-in map in the infobox) -plange 16:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! The convoluted wording (and not mentioning Pescara's name—thanks for catching that!) are definitely issues. I'll give the article a few more rounds of copyediting soon; hopefully, I'll catch all of the things like that.
As far as maps go, I'll see if I can find a bigger one that doesn't have nonsensical borders drawn on it. Kirill Lokshin 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I've done some pretty extensive copyediting, so the language should be somewhat more readable now. Still looking for another map, though. Kirill Lokshin 22:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Rennell Island[edit]

Requesting peer review to help make sure this article is ready before nominating for FA. Also, request reassessment of quality and assessment of "importance" (I recommend "Mid"). I'll be adding one or two battle maps to the article tonight or this weekend. One concern, do you think that the FA reviewers will consider the article "too short?" Cla68 16:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Fully up to your usual high standards; this is essentially ready for FAC, in my opinion. A few comments:

  • It's not that short. While it's not as long as some of the other articles we've seen recently, there have been even shorter articles getting promoted in the past few weeks (I've recently checked this because my next article is also going to wind up fairly short). I doubt the length will be an issue.
  • Per the MoS, the "th" should be left off the dates. In other words, "Action on January 30th" → "Action on January 30". (Note the linking in order to allow date preferences to work now.)
  • There doesn't seem to be a citation for "The victory was apparently a great morale booster for Japanese forces, who widely publicized the results of the engagement, although they claimed to have sunk a 'battleship' and 'three cruisers.'" Is the next footnote meant to include that as well?

Overall, excellent work! Kirill Lokshin 16:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "th" from the dates. The next footnote is meant to include the "Japanese morale" statement. However, I'll try to add another citation to that statement since it's very subjective and the kind of assertion that the FA reviewers might zero-in on if I don't have it sourced thoroughly. I appreciate the constructive feedback, and, congratulations, by the way, on the approval of Italian War of 1521 for FA. Cla68 18:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 18:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

William A. Webb[edit]

Officer in the USN and CSN. This had major problems and several editors have contributed to making it more readable. It still needed work, and I've rewritten lots, added more detail and images and added missing sources...Would like to see how it can be improved, and if it was okay that I took the cleanup tag off-plange 21:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice article, with lots of fascinating detail. The major deficiency—and I suspect that this is fairly obvious—is that there's nothing on his life aside from his military record. At the very least, it should be possible to find (rough?) dates of birth and death for him. The "CSS Richmond" section also breaks off quite abruptly; I don't know whether this is because there is material that hasn't been added yet.

A more minor point is the "Trivia" section, whose contents should be worked into the article proper in some way. This might be easier once there's a paragraph or two about his life before and after the war.

Overall, though, this is excellent work. Kirill Lokshin 21:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The CSS Richmond part I commented out until I could get it sourced as it had conflicting facts. I've done a Google search and can't find a DOB or death and couldn't find anything on what he did after, but I'll keep looking.-plange 21:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added more to the CSS Richmond part and addressed most of this, but still haven't found non-war stuff. Will keep looking. -plange 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Tet Offensive[edit]

I've done some major editing on this article recently, and would like comments & improvements. Thanks! KarlBunker 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Quite nice! A few general suggestions:

  • There's some very choppy prose—things like single-sentence paragraphs and such—throughout the article, but particularly in the "ARVN and U.S. readiness" and "Media impact" sections. This should be cleaned up, either by adding more material or by combining neighboring paragraphs.
  • More footnotes would be helpful, particularly as this article is one prone to the occasional POV-pusher.

Overall, though, this is very good. Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lelantine War[edit]

For a war on which we have so little information, other than in line references, what else is necessary for FA status? Ikokki 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Well, aside from the lack of inline citations that you noted, the main problem that this article would have is its short length. While the lack of material is a problem here, there's a number of potential ways to fill it out:

  • Classical Greek works are in the public domain, which means they can be quoted with abandon. Including some substantial quotes from the original sources may be appropriate here.
  • Images, particularly maps, would be helpful. Are there any archaeological images (such as weapons or armor from the period) available.
  • There are frequent allusions to archaeological evidence of various conflicts here. If there are more specific details on the archaeology of the period available, they can be added here.

If a substantial amount of material can be added to the article (even if that material is fairly technical or esoteric), it'll stand a much better chance of getting featured. Kirill Lokshin 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thucydides dedicates one line, Herodotus half, I havent seen Strabo yet but,knowing him, it will probably no more than 5 lines. The only semi-related activity worth I can think is armament and tactics of the time. I might hust try that here. ThanksIkokki 09:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, well, that doesn't really help then ;-) Still, anything at all that you could add would probably help at this point. Kirill Lokshin 11:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added quotations from Thucydides, Herodotus and Strabo. Apparently the battle description comes from a Hesiod fragment, but finding fragments of ancient sources on the web is HARD (as opposed to entire books). I'll do what I can with pics, maybe there is a nice sat photo at Wikimedia. In about a week's time I'll move the peer review into old.Ikokki 21:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuomo111[edit]

I had a bit of a look and for the most part I simply agree with Kirill. A few more references, maybe a map or two simply to indicate the location of Euboea with regards to the rest of Greece, as well as the relative locations of Chalcis, Eretria and their respective allies. Under 'Origins' there was some awkward phrasing that I like to think I improved. :) Good luck with this one. --Cuomo111 01:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Morgan's Raid[edit]

Morgan's Raid is a particular favorite topic of mine. The raiders passed through the county where I grew up in SE Ohio, as well as near my ancestors' farm site. I would like suggestions for further improvements. Scott Mingus 02:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very well-written article. Some suggestions for further improvement:

  • Add {{Infobox Military Conflict}}.
  • More footnotes are always a good thing; they should be fairly easy to insert here, given that you're working from traditional print sources.
  • The lead section could be fleshed out with a few more sentences; as it is, having three separate paragraphs there is overkill for the amount of material present.
  • Is there any more information available on how the raid was treated in the media? There are tantalizing hints about it being "highly publicized" dropped in the lead, but the article doesn't really go into much more detail.

Overall, though, the historical material looks very nice. Good work! Kirill Lokshin 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I have added the military conflcit template box, as well as some more text in the introduction. I added a nice quote from Harper's Weekly that nicely summarizes the uncertainty over Morgan's whereabouts, the consternation of the civilian population, and the swift military response. I'll add footnotes over the next few days. Anything else to bring this up to a "good" rating? Scott Mingus 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The "good" rating requires going through WP:GA (and may be getting retired soon for that reason), but I see no reason why this couldn't get an "A" rating once some more footnotes appear. Kirill Lokshin 13:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hal Jespersen[edit]

Very good indeed. My comments are really rather trivial. Run a spellcheck. Use the Template:Quotation template for the lengthy quotes; for the shorter ones, put quote marks around them and WP:MOS says not to use italics. Your battle box has a final element that doesn't seem to match usage in others I've seen. Hal Jespersen 14:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing those are meant to be "footnotes" for the box but the numbers aren't there? Kirill Lokshin 15:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt[edit]

Indeed, a nice article, definitely on a good way towards FA. A few points though:

  1. More references, especially in-line refs. The number of books seems to be fine, but pointing to specific chapters might be a decent idea.
  2. Don't be afraid to repeat the same source again and again, there's nothing wrong with placing "Duke, op.cit., pp.20-25" here and there.
  3. Also, I'm pretty sure the topic is covered in some on-line sources as well. What about GoogleBooks?
  4. Also, if you're quoting some newspaper article - why not use a reference with {{Cite journal}}?
  5. Casualties in the battle box need to be explained. Did Morgan loose 2000 men killed? Or were they all taken captive?

//Halibutt 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


Hannibal[edit]

I didn't know of this page and started a normal Peer Review, so I request members of the project to take a look at Hannibal and its associated peer review. If you wish to respond here you can as well as both are on my watchlist. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice article! A variety of minor issues that could be improved, though:

  • Add {{Infobox Military Person}} at the top?
  • Footnotes! In particular, things like direct quotes require specific citations; and generous addition of them for key facts throughout would be appropriate as well.
  • The links in the "See also" section are redundant, and can be trimmed.
  • The list of films bears the disclaimer "This list is incomplete"; it's an issue to be fixed, either by completing it or by removing the tag.
  • Maybe use {{cquote}} for the various long quotes in the article?

Overall, though, this is quite well written! Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck[edit]

I second Kirill Lokshin's comments — very nice article; footnotes needed.

  • Footnotes: The article uses <ref><nowiki> tags for the few references. Likely, the references have been used for the entire article, not just those citations; also, there are likely specific page references that apply in various locations in the article. Using <nowiki><ref name="yyyy"> for general citations, and <ref> for specific pages, for example, would help. (You are probably aware of this reference, but just in case, see Wikipedia:Footnotes.) —ERcheck (talk) @ 00:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Henry III of Nassau-Breda[edit]

Hi, this article has just been assesed as B-class. I'm still quite new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to make it better still. Does anyone have any comments for improvement? Tom 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's quite a nice article, but it's still a bit short, particularly where his military career is concerned; he was a fairly significan military leader, so more than a paragraph's worth of detail is probably possible. (If I have time, I'll try to add some more details to that section, since I have a few usable references to him that I can use.) Also, the lead section should probably be made somewhat longer—perhaps two full paragraphs—and some inline citations should be added where appropriate.

Overall, though, this is very good work so far. I've been able to find only minimal material on him in English; is he a more prominent figure in the Netherlands? Kirill Lokshin 16:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind comments, I will try to do what I can. Unfortunately, he hardly is a more prominent figure in the Netherlands: much of the history of the direct pre-Revolt period usually is snowed under by the later period, the more so for the early Nassaus, who are all overshadowed by William the Silent and his successors. My main sources for this article were a prosopographic notition in a book concerning Low Countries' nobility in the period 1470-1530 in general, a chapter about the pre-William the Silent Nassaus in the Netherlands in a book about the Orange-Nassaus in general, an entry in biographic dictionary from 1911, and some research I conducted about 1,5 years ago. I only know of one book in Dutch that specifically concerns him, and that's mostly about his relation with the city of Breda.
As far as I know from the French, German and English/American literature about the period, he is often hardly mentioned at all, or only in passing. He might however figure more prominently in some works about the so-called Guelders Wars (Gelderse Oorlogen, something which Wikipedia needs an article about as well), but as far as I know no good general work on that subject exists either. Also flipping through some biographies of Charles V (mainly Karl Brandi's work) might help. May I ask in which works you found references to him? I've always been disappointed by the low level of attention he gets. Tom 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've found him mentioned (in passing) in Wim Blockmans' Emperor Charles V and Francis Hackett's Francis the First (in the course of researching the Italian War of 1521, if you're wondering). Unfortunately, aside from giving some indication of his role in the warfare on the Meuse in 1521–22, there is very little detail about him. Kirill Lokshin 16:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've read Blockmans' work some time ago (fun thing is, he is our own professor of Medieval History), but I haven't got access to the book right now. I guess I really should buy it. Anyway, I see there are some books here about Charles, Duke of Gelderland and his (in)famous army commander Maarten van Rossum (not to be confused with the Dutch historian Maarten van Rossem). Henry might be mentioned there. Tom 17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Cristovão da Gama[edit]

Although listed to be graded, none has been performed yet. Still, a fascinating personage who has been described by one historian (I'm trying to remember who) as "the last of the Crusaders". While I have no illusions this will reach FA status without some help, I'd still like some input. -- llywrch 23:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Fascinating stuff, and very well written. Aside from the generic suggestion to add in any more material that's available—which may not be much—there are a few more technical suggestions:

  • Adding {{Infobox Military Person}} would be helpful here.
  • Are there any good images (not necessarily of him) to use? A map of the region might be handy, but it may be problematic to find one relevant to the period in question.
  • Separating the footnotes from an alphabetical reference list may be useful.
  • Not directly related to this article, but it would be nice to have some more of the redlinks become stubs, at the least.

Overall, though, it's a very good article. Kirill Lokshin 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an image of his signature that I uploaded to commons some months ago -- would that help? (Images are almost always the weaknesses of my articles.) -- llywrch 01:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it's better than nothing ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm_fr[edit]

I'll just add a single comment: It would be nice to get inline citations in the conformity with cite.php by using <ref> tags. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

John Johns Trigg[edit]

Cleaned it up a bit, added sources, but don't know that there's much more to add about him plange 22:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

The article's quite short, so any additional material would help here. While there may be sparse sourcing for his military career, it might be easier to find material dealing with his political activities. Did he do anything interesting while a representative? The lead should also be expanded (once more material can be added).

Aside from that, what does "He was Sargeant under command of Gen. Washington in the First Virginia Regiment until it was disbanded" mean? Holding the rank of sergeant after having been a Major seems somwhat unusual; is this referring to some other position? Kirill Lokshin 23:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Trigg[edit]

Prior peer review

This is an A-class article that I would like to see if it has a chance for FA? If it does, what things can I do to get it ready for nomination? Thanks! --plange 00:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

Fairly good article overall. You may want to address some of the following points....

- The lead and the article generally should be expanded. Right now they are slightly shorter than typical FAs. For example, the Early life section seems sort of stubby.

-There are some prose problems:

When the town of Fincastle, Virginia was forming in 1770, Trigg was instrumental in its formation, helping to sell lots, build a Court House (with his father-in-law Israel Christian) and the town's prison. Repetitive ("formation" used twice).

The British refused to address the issues that were of greatest concern to the colonists, and so the freeholders of Fincastle County met at the Lead Mines on January 20, 1775, being one of the first to respond to the request of the Virginia Committee of Correspondence and formed a Committee of Safety, of which Trigg was a member. Grammatically fine but stylistically very disjointed.

There are a lot of paranthetical statements. You should get rid of most of these. Paranthetical commentary in encyclopedic entries should normally be reserved for acronyms (ie. National Basketball Association (NBA)) or short explanations. If you want, ask me for a copyedit on my talk page before you nominate this for FA.

- Maybe add some sort of Legacy section? Don't know if there's enough material to do this or not.UberCryxic 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

This is quite good. I see no significant issues with the content—I wouldn't focus too much on the length, as even fairly short articles manage to get through FAC—but there are a few formatting points that need to be cleaned up:

  • Having multiple footnotes numbers in the same place in the text (e.g. fn. 17–19) is rather poor style. While it's somewhat unavoidable when citing websites, this isn't the case here, and they should be collapsed into single footnotes listing all the applicable citations.
  • The quote at the very end isn't cited.
  • A bit of further copyediting, as per UberCryxic, might be advisable.

Other than that, everything looks fine. Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll get to work on your suggestions. On the multiple footnotes, ironically I had someone tell me that combining it was bad form, but I trust your opinion.... --plange 17:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the CMoS says "Using more than one note reference at a single location (such as 5, 6) should be rigorously avoided"; it seems as good a rule to follow as any. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent[edit]

A very good article indeed.

A few minor quibbles perhaps.

  • The lead should reflect the structure of the article. I think that the above suggestion that you expand the "early life" section if possible is a good one, and I'd put a 1-2 sentence summary of that section in the lead. Right now the lead's summary of his life starts mid-career. You should add something like, "Born the nth of y sons to a ___ in ___, ....", etc.
  • "Trigg was one of several appointed as its first Justice of the Peace"... one of several, yet he was first? This is confusing to me. If he was the first how can there be several? If there were several appointed all at the same time, who held the position jointly, then he would have been "one of several who were appointed the counties first Justices of the Peace"? A minor quibble, but slightly confusing.
  • build a Court House with his father-in-law Israel Christian, and the town's prison. - I didn't know town prisons helped build court houses ;) I know what you really meant - just a bit of an amusing - and very common - structural problem.
  • Footnote merger, as noted previously.

In short, apart from some tweaks to the lead, and some grammar and style polishing (I'd really take up UberCryxic's offer - he's copy edited one of my articles and done a really good job), this is an excellent article.

I think with a little more polish it has a really good shot at featured article status. - Vedexent (talkcontribs) - 22:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Vedexent! I've made the changes you suggested and will definitely avail myself of UberCryxic's offer :-) --plange 23:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Aleksandr Vasilevsky[edit]

A biography of one of the greatest Soviet WWII commanders, that was reduced to stubiness so far. I rewrote the article and now would like to hear your opinion :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 12:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's much better than it was before! Still, a number of formatting and stylistic point that probably need to be looked at:

  • Lots of copyediting. In particular:
    • Unexpected switches in tense (e.g. "Vasilevsky was again conscripted" versus "Later that year, Vasilevsky becomes commander").
    • Strange or ambiguous word choice (e.g. "Vasilevsky was affected to several reserve regiments", "Vasilevsky fought with various anti-Soviet paramilitary groups in Belarus", "topping his military career, Vasilevsky was appoined").
    • Lots of occasional spelling mistakes. It might be worthwhile to run this text through a spellchecker and see what it flags.
  • "Personality and contemporary opinion": "contemporary", in this context, would refer to the opinions of people living at the same time as he was. The section seems to focus primarily on modern historical opinion, so it should probably be retitled.
  • "Bibliography" has been deprecated as a section title for some time now. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be "References" or "Further reading" here, though.
  • The infobox should probably mention that his allegiance prior to the revolution would have been to Imperial Russia.
  • There's a strange gap at the end of the "Post-WWII" section; and it should probably be retitled to avoid the abbreviation.

These are just minor issues, though; overall, it's a great article! Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work! Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Wait I haven't finished copyed yet... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 17:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I have every confidence you'll get through it at this point ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
OK I'm finished now. You're welcome to have a second look Kirill :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The copyedit seems to have fixed all the more-or-less obvious issues. There are probably some places in the text where the style and wording could be tightened up; but I'm sure the nice people at FAC will be happy to point those out if they see them ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands[edit]

I believe this article is ready for peer review. Also, respectfully request a reassessment of the article's quality scale and an assessment of the article's importance scale. Thank you in advance, Cla68 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Exquisite work, as usual. Are you planning to do the entire Pacific Theater like this? :-)

A couple of things that might need copyediting, though:

  • Do ship types take articles? In other words, should "sinking light cruiser Yura and damaging destroyer Akizuki" be "sinking the light cruiser Yura and damaging the destroyer Akizuki"?
  • As far as I know, when discursive material follows a source citation in a footnote, the two should be separated by a period, not a semicolon.

Overall, though, this is a great article! Kirill Lokshin 01:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure on using "the" with ship types + the ship name. Sometimes I use it, and sometimes I don't, depending on how the sentence sounds when I vocalize it to myself. I guess I need to look-up what the standard is for consistency purposes. I'll change the footnote semicolons to periods. I'll wait a couple of days before I archive the peer review while I proofread the article a couple more times to make sure I didn't miss any other mistakes, then submit it for FA. I do plan on working through the Pacific campaign as long as I'm willing and able to. Perhaps I should put more information on my User page that gives the reasons why I'm so interested in that particular campaign. Anyway, thank you for the review and feedback. Cla68 02:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region[edit]

I've been writing this for the past month and a half and researching it even longer. I think I've reached the end of what I can do with it without outside suggestions, so I'm looking for fresh eyes to tell me what else needs to be done with it so I can get it up to snuff. I welcome all suggestions. Many thanks! ScreaminEagle 20:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice article! Some (fairly general) suggestions:

  • Maybe add {{Infobox Military Unit}}? It's not exactly designed for this sort of thing, but I think it would fit pretty well.
  • Trim the contact information; we're not really supposed to be writing a phonebook here, and it's easily found on the group's own site anyways.
  • The second half of the article is mostly lists of links to other units. It might be worthwhile to expand this somewhat by describing what (at least some of) the groups mentioned do in the context of the JFHQ-NCR, since it's not at all obvious for some of them.
  • Has there been any media coverage of this? (Probably politicized, if any, but it might help pad out the article.)

Overall, though, this looks quite decent, considering that the recent nature of the JFHQ-NCR makes for a lack of historical narrative. Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, thanks for looking this over! I have a few questions, though. First off, thanks for the Unit Box suggestion--I was unsure which would be best to use and that helped. I have one concern with it though, and that's the seal/logo picture with it. I used the 300x as directed, but it made the logo huge and terribly pixelated. 210x corrected the problem, but I don't know if it's OK to use that or not. Please advise.
Also, I worried about the plethora of lists, too. For further clarification, do you recommend writing paragraphs talking about how these units participate together and what they have to offer JFHQ, or did you mean writing a small 1-2 sentence snippet next to several/all of the bulletted points? Also, would it be better to cut out the military installations section and fit those pieces into the other military unit sections? Or leave it as is?
As for media coverage, yes there has been a little coverage. The problem is most of it (almost all of it is documented at the end of the article) comes from JFHQ's public affairs office, or their people writing specials for other military papers, tooting its own horn. It seems that few people really know JFHQ exists, let alone what it does except JFHQ/MDW itself and a few of the partners it works with (hence, why I wrote the article in the first place). Most of the media/public take JFHQ's security for granted--not really questioning where it comes from--and that's my problem. Your comments did remind me of one situation when it actually got a little press coverage in providing security for the Army's 21st 10-Miler that was turned into a "Fun Run" due to a bomb package scare. So I will add that in certainly, but even then the best coverage was put out by JFHQ's P.A. office itself (Tom Mani, yet again). What can I say? Should I just expound on what they did for each of the events that they took part in, even though they didn't get a lot of attention out of it? Or will that be overkill? ScreaminEagIe 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Some responses:
  • Yes, any size for the logo is fine; the 300px is just the maximum that should be used.
  • The best option would be to turn the lists completely into paragraph form, but if there's not enough material for that, snippets can be used too.
  • As a general rule, more information is better; if the article gets too long, we can always trim it later. Some description of the JFHQ's actual role in various events would probably be quite interesting to the reader; the fact that there hasn't been a lot of attention shouldn't be a problem so long as there are sources (however few in number) that can be cited.
Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 21:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Decatur[edit]

Hoping to receive a review of the article on the overall accuracy, mechanics, construction and quality of the article. This is one of my first articles I have expanded more or less and I would value any and all suggestions on how to improve. Auror 21:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice start! A few suggestions:

  • Add an {{Infobox Military Person}}.
  • Combine some of the very short early sections. Unless there's significant material to be added, everything until the Barbary War could probably be merged.
  • Inline citations would be nice to have.
  • A longer lead section would be appropriate. Any other additions of material would also be helpful, of course.

Overall, though, this looks quite good. Kirill Lokshin 08:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuomo111[edit]

Well-written, well-researched, well-referenced and the structure and layout of the article is easy to read. Kudos to you, sir! --Cuomo111 01:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

James River Squadron[edit]

One of my first articles and just want to make sure I'm doing things right plange 03:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice article! Some suggestions you might want to consider:

  • The lead section should eventually be two or three paragraphs; but this will probably require adding some more material to the article.
  • The composition section might be expanded by adding some details (no more than a few sentences) about each ship and its role in the squadron; it'll look a bit more like article text and a bit less like a plain list of links.
  • Inline citations would be useful.
  • Are any more details about the squadron's formation and its early activities available? The bulk of the article seems to focus on post-1862 material.

Overall, though, the article is off to a great start! Kirill Lokshin 03:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Blenheim[edit]

This is my fifth article. Could you please give me a quick summation of where this article fails. Thanks. Raymond Palmer 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

An excellent article throughout. There are a few (minor) quibbles, though:

  • The quotes given in the article aren't cited; direct quotes are one of the things that absolutely must be referenced. You might also consider using {{cquote}} for the more epigraph-like quotes, such as Churchill's early in the article.
  • An issue with French ranks: is it "Marshal Villeroi" or "Marshall Villeroi"? I was under the impression that the former was the proper spelling.
  • Some important terms mentioned (most notably the Lines of Stollhofen) should have at least stubs written for them (or should have a more detailed explanation within the article). As it is, their meaning is rather baffling to the casual reader.
  • Military time probably shouldn't be used even in articles on modern warfare; here, it's terribly anachronistic.

Overall, though, this is an amazingly well-written article. Great work! Kirill Lokshin 01:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. The correct spelling is Marshal. I totally agree about the 'Lines of Stollhofen' and thought that might be a problem. Point taken about the military times. Thankyou so much Kirill. I'm so much happier now. Raymond Palmer 01:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Evans Carlson[edit]

Welcoming input on this article on Evans Carlson (Carlson's Raiders). —ERcheck @ 23:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Nice article overall; some fairly uncreative general suggestions:

  • A longer lead would be good.
  • The short sections in the beginning of the article might be better off merged together.
  • Inline citations? ;-)
  • The "Decorations" section is just a list; if there's not going to be any more text there, you might want to abandon paragraph form there and format it with bullets.
  • Just adding more details on his exact role in the engagements mentioned would be worthwhile; is the information available somewhere? I would assume the award citations, if you can get them, would probably have some more names and places, at the least. Kirill Lokshin 00:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and suggestions. There is a lot of information available; so, I'll work on putting the appropriate amount of detail and balance. I've added the Navy Cross citations which do add some details on his roles in Nicaragua, Makin Island, and the Long Patrol. I welcome contributions from others. —ERcheck @ 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Douglas Wimberley[edit]

This is my first major article creation and therefore would like to know whether it is up to the standard expected of the Military history WikiProject. Not exactly necessary, but it complements the 51st HD page.

Harlsbottom 23:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice article! A few suggestions for further improvements, in no particular order:

  • I think there's enough material that a more-or-less meaningful {{Infobox Military Person}} can be added.
  • Any extant pictures of him? Given his position, I would think some official photos might be available under Crown Copyright.
  • As you mentioned on the talk page, there are some gaps in the narrative that should be filled in; but this will obviously require finding some more sources.
  • Inline citations would be nice to have, particularly if you start adding material from more obscure sources. It's also a good idea to start adding them early on, as they've become required for GA and FA status.

Overall, though, this is a great start! Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 23:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

AndyZ[edit]

Some more comments:

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
  • Thanks, AndyZ t 02:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Harlsbottom[edit]

Thank you, gentlemen, for the comments.

  • Dates will be brought to standard when I have a chance.
  • Footnotes, and the length of the article, will be improved when I've finished trawling through Montgomery's opinion of Wimberley. When I've accumulated information from my sources I'll put in foot-notes and citations and the article should have more depth then.
  • Will study WP:LEAD and make changes accordingly.

Cheers, Harlsbottom 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added quite a bit of content, cleaned it up as much as I can and added all the citations I can from secondary sources without going to Scotland and reading the autobiography (!). Is it worth another review in its present state?

Cheers, Harlsbottom 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better now! The only major suggestion I have—aside from adding more material (and images?) if you do manage to find anything useful—would be to fill out the lead section; there's enough material in the article now that two or three full paragraphs would not be inappropriate. Keep up the great work! Kirill Lokshin 15:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Eastern Solomons[edit]

I believe this article is ready for peer review. I hope, in the near future, to replace the old U.S. Navy battle map with a color one that I will attempt to draw myself. Also, respectfully request a reassessment of the article's quality scale and an assessment of the article's importance scale. Thank you in advance, Cla68 16:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Excellent article in every respect, as far as I can tell. The only thing it needs is a bit of copyediting to clean up the occasional grammar problems (e.g. "Although heavily damaged and afire, Enterprise damage-control teams were able..."). Also, you might want to consider using {{cquote}} for the long quote in the "Aftermath" section.

Overall, though, great work! Kirill Lokshin 16:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the quote template as you suggested. Since I'm so "close" to the article, it's hard for me to see the awkward grammar that a neutral 3rd party can see. If you or someone could just list the paragraphs (i.e. paragraphs 3, 7, 8, etc) where you see bad prose, I can go back and try to correct it. Otherwise, I'll step back for a few days and then proofread it again. After I try to add the color battle map I was talking about, I'll plan to go ahead and nominate it for FA. I'll archive this peer review in another couple of days if no one else adds input. Thanks again for the review. Cla68 18:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Italian War of 1521[edit]

I've been working on this article, on and off, for some time now. Obviously, it's not quite done, as I still have some more material I'd like to add (as well as providing the obligatory copyediting). I'm interested, primarily in an evaluation of the narrative: is the course of events understandable to someone who hasn't read the full sources? Are there any particular places that stand out as incomplete or in need of a more thorough level of detail? (I would be quite surprised if there's anyone on Wikipedia with actual knowledge of—or interest in—this particular event; but if there is someone, I'd be very grateful for any pointers on any gaps in the treatment as well, since piecing together the narrative from biographical works tend to make those difficult to notice.) Kirill Lokshin 02:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm fr[edit]

I'm a complete moron when it comes to Italian history (and to just about everthing short of WWII Eastern Front, to be honest :)), but the writing is just awesome and understandable even for me (which means something)!!!

However, if this one is to achieve FAC (and it should :)) it should be expanded slightly, especially the Pavia section. A map would also be a lot of help.

That's all I can think of atm, but I'll add some thing afterwards.

Keep on the amazing work Kirill! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! I just recently obtained another source for the Pavia campaign, so I'll be adding some material to that shortly. As for maps, I'll see what I can dig up; unfortunately, there aren't nearly as many maps available for the 16th century as there are for, say, WWII ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
A map of the region would already do... :) And by the way, if they were many good maps for WWII, I would not redraw them all <_<... -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added two maps showing the general borders of the period; I'll see if I can find one where all of the locations mentioned are actually shown. Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And fairly substantial expansion has now taken place, as requested! There's still a bunch of copyediting and minor details to fix, but that should be done over the next few days. Kirill Lokshin 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal:War[edit]

This is a somewhat unusual request, I suppose, given that (a) this isn't an article and (b) it's already featured; but I figured this was the best place to ask.

Portal:War was one of the first featured portals, and hasn't changed significantly in form since then, so it's missing some of the bells-and-whistles of the newer portals. I'm therefore considering a pretty substantial redesign, and would like some advice on a number of issues:

  1. The featured content is currently rotated weekly/monthly by the calendar. Now that we have the m:ParserFunctions extension, it would be possible to trigger it from something that changes more rapidly—like the number of articles—and have the content picked (from a pre-determined set of featured articles and pictures) essentially at random every minute or so. Would this be an improvement to the current model?
  2. Now that we have some more portals related to this, should I add a "Related portals" box? How about links to other Wikimedia projects (Commons, WikiNews, etc.)?
  3. Should the "Categories" box be expanded?
  4. How about the "Major topics" box? At present, it's mostly the links from {{History of war}}; I was considering making it rather more substantial, similarly to what Portal:London has. What would be some important topics to include?
  5. Finally, the issue of a Portal:Military has recently come up. Exact definitions aside, all of the featured material in Wikipedia sits squarely under both "War" and "Military" (as there are very few non-war-related military articles of any substantial size), so I haven't really been forced to make this distinction when selecting material. Do we need to leave the possibility of a separate military portal open indefinitely, or would it be better to simply create it as a redirect to Portal:War and run it as a joint portal?

Comments on these issues—or any other suggestions or feedback on the portal—would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 13:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: in light of the comments so far, I've switched the featured articles and featured pictures to rotate once every 24 hours (on a somewhat unpredictable schedule). Further comments are very welcome! Kirill Lokshin 17:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Update #2: to simplify the layout, I've combined the categories and topic links into a single box. I've also added a number of categories in response to some comments that the portal was imbalanced because it didn't mention anti-war movements and such. Any suggestions on what other topics and categories should be included would be appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 01:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Grafikm[edit]

  1. Every minute is kinda too much... Maybe change it at random once in 24 hours or something like that. It seems like a good compromise... :)
  2. What kind of portals do you exactly have in mind?
  3. Yes, but atm I'm clueless about how... Gotta think about it... :))
  4. Definitely yes, but a lengthy discussion will be necessary...
  5. "Do we need to leave the possibility of a separate military portal open indefinitely". No. No no. No no no. No? No. No!!! Seriously though, the risk of both these portals stepping on each other's toes is simply huge. OTOH, there are tons of articles related to military that beling to other wikiprojects (weaponry come to mind), and they're likely to go ape if we redirect... Maybe a discussion between these three projects is necessary?

Hope this helps, Kirill!:)) Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! Some responses:
1. Doing it once per day might work; alternately, we could try to speed it up to the point where every re-load of the portal page would have a new article & picture.
2. The USMC portal, mainly. I think there was another military-related one I saw recently, but I can't recall its name offhand.
5. Given that both the pure military and weaponry projects are inactive, I'm not sure how much discussion would be necessary, or even whether it's possible to start one. I doubt the members would complain too much, in any case, as most members of those projects are also in this one.
If you do come up with any good ideas for the category and topic boxes, please let me know! :-) Kirill Lokshin 01:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

ERcheck[edit]

  1. Featured content rotation schedule: I like a rotation schedule on the order of every two weeks. If it is too often, visitors will miss a feature.
  2. Related items: Only if there is as strong relationship.
  3. Categories list: Expand a little, but make simple.
  4. Major topics: I like the current format — simple, comprehensive, easy to navigate. Perhaps adding Military. The London one has too much on it for my preference.
  5. Separate Military Portal: I don't think we should close the door here. Thought tightly connected, War does not equate to Military. Likewise, if there is a desire to create a Military Portal, there should be close coordination.

ERcheck @ 02:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! On the topic of schedules, we have so many featured articles now that a two-week rotation period will cause us to exclude a significant number; I'm really not sure what the best course of action here is. I'll try to keep all of your other suggestions in mind ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Point well-taken. I favor not more often than daily; would weekly leave out too many? —ERcheck @ 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It's been running weekly now; I think we passed 52 featured articles about a month ago. My guess is that daily changes—with a fairly random schedule—would probably be the easiest way of making sure we get a chance to present all the material we can on the portal. Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the recent changes that have been made to the War Portal. The "Major topic and categories" is nicely formatted/easy to navigate. The addition of the portal box is a nice add. —ERcheck @ 11:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dott.Piergiorgio[edit]

  1. featured content: seems good and working.
  2. Related itema: nothing to say
  3. Categories list: why not add list of battles and list of wars ? I think that lists are more easy to browse than the categories, whose I find really awkward
  4. Major topics: nothing to say for now
  5. Separate military portal: IMHO is akin to make a separate musician or musical instrument portal to a music portal, or a separate hacker or hardware portal to computers portal. strongly disagree. dott.Piergiorgio 06:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keith Arbuthnott, 15th Viscount of Arbuthnott[edit]

I have added dates and facts in non-Wikified form. I would appreciate guidance re format of this 21st century General. Maybe a military info box is appropriate. If you would give me a steer, I will do the donkey work. Kittybrewster 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Not a bad start. The obvious thing to do would be to turn the service and promotion history sections into full sentences; that alone will probably increase the length of the article substantially. Also, wikification—and removing abbreviations—will make the article much easier to understand for the general reader.

The material does look fairly solid, though. Is there any more detail on his personal life available? Or was he pretty much a purely military man? Kirill Lokshin 11:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Tent pegging[edit]

As the origins of tent pegging lie in training of Asian and European cavalry, I hope that Wikipedians with an interest or expertise in the history of cavalry and martial training might offer the article the benefit of their constructive criticisms. - Tilting 21:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very interesting article! Some ideas:

  • "However, there are few reliable accounts of a cavalry squadron ever employing such tactics." - if there are any you can dig up, they should probably be discussed here.
  • Add more information on the modern sport. Are their major competitions? Leagues? International champions? And so forth.
  • More inline citations would be helpful, of course.

Overall, though, looks quite nice! Kirill Lokshin 08:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions which I very much appreciated. I have made a number of additions to the inline references, citations, competitions, and use of tent pegging tactics in the field, as per your suggestions above. - Tilting 15:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Good work! Kirill Lokshin 15:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Second Battle of Kharkov[edit]

This article failed its FAC quite recently, because of several (quite valid) remarks on its lack of inline citations, the fact it used only two sources, and so on (see its FAC page) for details. As such a beautyful article is a must-have for our collection, I messed with it a bit:

  • The article now uses both Western (Beevor and Glants) and Russian (Zhukov, Vasilevsky and Moskalenko) sources.
  • Inline citations were added (with ref tags and all)
  • A map of the offensive was drawn (it's grafikm-style but I think it should do).
  • The lead was expanded per WP:LEAD
  • The conclusion section was dealt with.

Please voice out your opinions, as I think it is FA material! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Oh yes, it is FA material! ;-)

A few minor points, though:

  • Per the MoS, section headings generally shouldn't begin with "The".
  • A few more inline citations might help, particularly in the "Soviet leadership and manpower" section.
  • The "Bibliography" section should be named "References".

Overall, though, this is another great article! Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill. I fixed the most obvious points but for more inline citations, time is kinda short as i'm quite busy these days. So just keep the review open atm, please, I'll get back to it shortly. :))
Citations fixed. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 20:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Central Asia[edit]

I'm looking for a review on this page. Comb over any grammatical or spelling mistakes. Fact check, etc. Thanks. Laserbeamcrossfire 06:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Looks quite nice. I'm not really qualified to do an exhaustive fact-check (you might want to ask oldwindybear, as he knows a great deal about the Mongols), but some general suggestions:

  • The lead section is very short ;-) Creating a two- or three-paragraph summary of the material would be quite helpful here.
  • Footnotes should really include page numbers; and simply having more of them would also be a good thing.
  • Any chance of getting articles on some of the individual battles/sieges here? Or is there not enough material available to make that worthwhile?

In general, though, it's a very interesting and quite well-written article. Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

oldwindybear[edit]

Kirill Lokshin Kirill, I have reworked the article, doing the following:

  • 1) adding 3 introductory paragraphs;
  • 2) correcting the historical context or adding detail - for instance, the Shah's differences with the Calpih were twofold: first, he demanded to be named Sultan without giving the obligatory (if illusory) oath that the Caliph was the "Commander of the Faithful" which of course would include the Shah, he refused to provide the obligatory bribes or presents, and the Caliph feared he would ultimately conquer what was left of the Caliphate;
  • 3) adding detail on the Mongols, army, intelligence, structure and command, and their fearful use of the tactics of indirect attack and wholesale terror on a scale not seen again until the German use of the same tactics in WWII;
  • 4) heavy sourcing of the article;
  • 5) explaining why Jochi was so enraged and estranged from his father after this war - which ironically, though it conquered the strongest of the Islamic states, literally gave birth forty years later to the Islamic Golden Horde, who would save the remainder of Islam from Hulegu Khan by siding - and literally fighting their cousins for - the Mamluks, (and in addition to the religious reasons, their personal animosity towards their cousins came from Jochi's estrangement, which was certainly passed to his heirs!);
And thus this war laid the seeds that brought down the Mongol Empire. Please look at the rewrite - I am continuing to tinker and source, the basic article was a good one, it just needed an intro, more detail, sourcing and linking, and better explanations for some of the events which would reverberate in world history in later decades. Please everyone let me know what you think. The Mongols are sort of my specialty, lol. old windy bear 00:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Looks excellent so far! The added sources are especially valuable; some of them still need more publication information, though (at least the year of publication, anyways). Please do add any further material you think would be valuable here; given that this period of history isn't particularly well-represented on the Internet—and even in other encyclopedias—this article is probably going to become the default reference work on the topic :-) Kirill Lokshin 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Kirill Lokshin Thank you very much - I worked hard on this, and am delighted you are pleased. I will add the publication dates this weekend, I shortchanged on that, (ouch!) but thanks, and I like the way the article looks now. This invasion was of particular macrohistorial importance for three reasons:
  • it began the destruction of the Islamic states, which would come to a horrific head at the sack of Bagdad under Hulegu Khan in 1258, and introduced the world to what Sir Edward Creasy (the greatest military historian of the west) would call Tactics of Terror and Indirect Attack;
  • it set the stage for expansion into Europe, and especially Kiev Rus;
  • ironically, the first two set the stage for the destruction of the Mongol Empire - it was Jochi, embittered at his father and brothers in this war, whose descendants would create the Golden Horde, and because he had less Mongols and more Turcomens in his forces, (plus their own bitterness over Jochi's estrangement, which was definately passed down) those forces would become Muslim, and end up defending Islam after 1260, when they invaded the realm of Hulegu Khan, to deter his intended vengence on the Mamluks for their defeat of one of his armies at Ain Jalut.
Thank you for letting me help with this - and just direct me elsewhere once I update the references, if I can be of immediate help anywhere, otherwise, i am going to continue helping with the updates on the Carolingian - Frankish Realm articles, and begin my long awaited work on the Romans.old windy bear 12:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't think of anything right now that requires particularly urgent attention; if you're done reworking this article, feel free to continue whereever you think would be most appropriate. Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 12:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin Smec set up the early campaigns of Charles Martel, and I had been over there working with him on expanding those stubs into full articles, since they really are the key to understanding the greatest general of the Dark Ages. I am also helping Amir with the Sassanid Empire article - he needed some information on their warrior caste, (which were the world's first "Knights"), and the economy, especially relating to their struggle with Bzyantium for control of the silk road. Once those things were done, I was finally going to post my articles on the campaigns of Hannibal and Scipio Africanus. BUT, if anything comes up you feel I can help with, please let me know, it is an honor to be asked. old windy bear 13:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Colonial war[edit]

Myself and User:Ve3 discovered that there was no page for colonial war, so this one has been created. Hopefully other Wikipedians on the project can chip in with this page, so that we can turn it into a quality article! Rusty2005 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A good start. Off the top of my head, some more topics that might be discussed here:

  • Anglo-Franco-Spanish colonial warfare in North America (e.g. French and Indian War and so forth). This would probably be easy to expand, since we have fairly extensive series of articles on those conflicts.
  • Aspects of WWI and WWII tied to colonial warfare, particularly the WWI East Africa campaigns.
  • Maybe discuss wars of independence to some extent here?
  • Gunboat diplomacy, banana republics, and so forth? Not sure to what extent this would fit under "colonial" warfare, though.

Mostly, the article just needs more material ;-) Kirill Lokshin 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

HMS Affray[edit]

See if this article can be improved, I would eventually like to see it as a featured article (Khanada 10:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC))

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Interesting article, but some obvious problems:

  • No references are provided. This alone would kill any nomination for featured article status.
  • The "Re-visited" section is basically one long quote; it should probably be paraphrased.
  • The list of sailors will probably cause complaints that Wikipedia is not a memorial; I'm not sure how significant these would be, or if there is any better way of presenting the information.

It's a fairly good article, but still needs some work. Kirill Lokshin 00:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I think the list of soldiers killed should be moved to the talkpage. It certainly is relevant, just not well-suited for the main article namespaces. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that casualties in the loss of a warship must be treated with caution. Surely for cases like HMS Hood listing 1,435 names, either on talk page or a separate linked pages, albeit a very noble and compassionate act, can't be done without putting all known names of fallen sailors, soldiers and airmen, of every country, whose is a thing, at least for a long while, well beyond the current storage capacity available on earth, sadly. dott.Piergiorgio 07:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Loopy[edit]

The image in the infobox looks rather off - I recommend copying the code for that bit from one of the other naval vessel pages to get it it nice. I'd reiterate Kirill's comment on references and the "Re-visited" quote. That aside, nice job. --Loopy e 06:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I fixed the image in the infobox. Too many pipes were causing problems. —ERcheck @ 19:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

dott.Piergiorgio[edit]

3 little things of note:

  1. there's a misspelling (or to be precise misbackspelling) YAFFRA isn't the exact backspelling of 'affray' whose is YARFFA
  2. Aside the trivial mispelling (dilema instead of dilemma) I feel that "dilemma" is a rather inadequate word for a desperate life-or-death situation.
  3. I'm puzzled about the inclusion of the ghost story, albeit I have a little knowledge in esoteric things, because seems rather out of place in an encyclopedia, IMVHO. dott.Piergiorgio 07:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Military history of Pakistan[edit]

Hi Guys, I wrote this article. I want to see what flaws (if any) are in this article. What could I do to improve this article before I submit it for FAC. Thanks

Mercenaryk2k April 18, 2006 6:05 PM

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Nice work with the article, but there are still some things I think would need to be improved before it could succeed at FAC:

  • Lots of very short sections, leading to both choppy prose and a giant table of contents. Instead of breaking things up by war, I would combine neighboring sections into a breakdown by somewhat broader periods.
  • The distinction between the main history and the involvement in foreign conflicts section is unnecessary; I would convert the article into a single chronological chain.
  • The template at the top should have the individual wars removed, as that's redundant with both Category:Wars of Pakistan and {{Campaignbox Indo-Pakistani Wars}}. (You might want to add the second one to the appropriate section in the article, incidentally.)
I've trimmed the listing of wars and replaced it with a link to the appropriate category. You may still want to take a look at organizing that template somewhat more cleanly. Kirill Lokshin 00:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Lots of uncited and potentially biased statements scattered throughout the article. Some of the more flagrant examples, all of which need to be cited to specific sources, at the least:
    • "The Pakistan Army covertly trains the Indian based Kashmiri separatists in their war against the Indian Army but on the international stage denies this by saying it only gives them moral support."
    • "Many Afghans had rendered the 19th century Anglo-Afghan border treaties as void and were trying to re-draw the borders with Pakistan and trying to create an independent nation of Pakhtunistan."
    • "Both nations offered important concessions and solution of the long-standing dispute seemed imminent."
    • "The expansion of the Indian armed forces was viewed by most Pakistanis as being directed towards Pakistan rather than China."
    • And so forth.
  • The UN missions table should be converted into a normal prose section.

It's a fairly decent article, but it still requires some more work, I think. Kirill Lokshin 23:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for your detailed analysis. 1 Question though. You said that this article has too many sub-sections and I should combine them to somewhat borader periods. Thats fine. But should I keep the sub-headers, I mean, should I have a small title, not the ones with equal, but an bold or Italics above certain paragraphs which were once independent sub-sections??
For example, lets say I combine all the sub-sections that deal with the military of pakistan in the 1970's, into one main sub-section. Do I just get rid of the headers.
1970's, with no sub-headers underneath it, or 1970's with Baloch nationalist uprising, yom kippur war, black september in jordan, all either bold or italicized?
Let me know,
Thanks
Mercenary2k 5:00 PM April 21, 2006 (UTC)
I would remove the headings entirely, since the sections aren't really that long, and headings break up the prose, making the article seem disjointed. Kirill Lokshin 21:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Smolensk (1943)[edit]

Well, it took me some time to put this article together, with pics and inline citations and so on, so I would like to improve it even further... :)) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A very good article; obviously you spent a great deal of time preparing it! A few suggestions, mostly formatting- and style-related:

  • The "References" section would benefit from a separate alphabetical listing of the books used; several of the sources given also need full publication information.
  • There are a lot of one-sentence paragraphs and one-paragraph sections. I'm not sure how much more material you're planning to add, but you might want to think about merging some of the smaller blocks of text together.
  • Out of curiosity, what's the original language of the quotes in the article? There's some unusual wording that I'd attribute to an attempt at a word-for-word translation; are these from an edition published in English or in Russian? Kirill Lokshin 02:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Done.
    • Done. A few cases remain, but sometimes they're paragraphs cut by the cquote template so heh.
    • Yeah, I know. All books I use are Russian and my translation is often fast and thus approximative. If you want, we can try to find a better one together :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice work! As far as the quotes go, I'm not sure if we can easily find a published source for them; but a few ideas based on what I'm guessing the Russian was:
  • "Russian West front forces strokestruck the Army Group Center from Yelnya and Dogorobuzh, planning to advance to Smolensk. It became clear that this part of the front, forming an eastern salient defended by the 9th Army, could not be held anymore."
  • "Despite the vigorous actions of the German command and the armed forces that had managed to create a single defensedefensive line, the fact that most of these troopsforces had low strength, lacked any reserve and were stretched on considerable distances constantly maintained the danger ofthat all of this patched front collapsing atwould collapse with the next Russian attack."
If you can get me the Russian text of the quotes, I might be able to make more sense of them; but don't bother if it's too much work ;-) Kirill Lokshin 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
but don't bother if it's too much work - Обижаешь, начальник! :)
«...войска русского Западного фронта нанесли с рубежа Дорогобуж, Ельня удар и по левому крылу группы армий «Центр» с целью осуществить прорыв на Смоленск. Теперь стало ясно, что выступающий далеко на восток участок фронта, на котором оборонялась 9-я армия, удерживать больше невозможно»
«Хотя в результате энергичных действий командования и войск немцам удалось создать сплошную линию фронта, однако не было никакого сомнения в том, что плохое состояние войск, полное отсутствие резервов и большая растянутость фронта отдельных соединений, ликвидировать которую было невозможно, постоянно таили в себе опасность того, что при следующем мощном ударе [157] русских этот залатанный с большим трудом фронт окончательно рухнет»
Thanks again for your help! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 21:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, here's how I would translate them:
"The forces of the Soviet Western Front struck the left wing of Army Group Center from the Dorogobuzh-Yelnya line with the aim of achieving a breakthrough in the direction of Smolensk. It became clear that the salient—projecting far to the east—in which the 9th Army was positioned could no longer be held."
"Although the vigorous actions of their command and troops allowed the Germans to create a continuous front, there was no doubt that the poor condition of the troops, the complete lack of reserves, and the uncorrectable lengthening of individual units' lines concealed the danger that the next major Soviet attack would cause this patchwork front—constructed with such difficulty—to collapse."
I might be trying too much for literary "correctness" rather than ease of understanding, though. (My normal writing style tends towards overly complicated structure and turgid prose, unfortunately). Hope that helps somehow! Kirill Lokshin 22:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Аффтар жжот! I inserted your translations into the text. Kudos.
Well, all remarks were taken into account. Wewt? -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
I'd probably leave the article in peer review for at least a week or so, to see if one of the more occasional reviewers drops by; you might try listing it for GA at the same time, if you're interested in that. But I think that it's in a position to wind up on FAC rather soon :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I really want it to promote it to GA and then FA :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Edit: nominated for GA! :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 23:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I also edited measurements to conform with WP:MOSNUM... :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 14:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

World War II[edit]

Previous review here.

The article has just undergone a huge reworking (thanks primarily to Oberiko). We'd like to see what everyone thinks of the new version, what improvements should be made, etc. Thanks for all input. Parsecboy (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Carom[edit]

A preliminary question: there are many sections with no inline citations whatsoever. Why is this the case? I'm assuming it's not simply an oversight, and I'm curious as to the rationale. Carom (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the issue there (and I could be wrong), is that the current version was created on a temp page, and when it was substituted, the references in the previous versions were lost. The task of working through the old version and transplanting the references into the current version still lies ahead of us. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Some other thoughts, then:

  • The "see also" section should be removed. Links here should be incorporated into the larger body of the article.
  • The "bombings" and "war trials" sections might warrant a little bit of expansion.
  • There should be a link to World War II material on Wikimedia Commons.
  • The prose is generally good, but could use a thorough copyedit.

Other than the lack of citation, I have no major complaints at this point. This is an excellent job so far; everyone involved is to be commended. Carom (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The citation issue is my doing. As I was writing, I really didn't see any facts that needed to be cited, considering that it's mostly a collection of links. If you see any disputable facts, let me know and I'll add a source. Oberiko (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I've always interpreted the citation guideline a little more strictly than that. It's not really just a collection of links; it still provides a narrative of the war. It seems to me that it should really be cited like any other article with regards to consistency and density. I also imagine that this might become a fairly large stumbling block if you intend to run this up to FA. Carom (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem to add them if required then, the page is (by necessity) such a generic overview that finding hard-copy confirmation shouldn't be an issue. Oberiko (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc[edit]

Am curious about the caption under the image in the info box. I know it doesnt mean to, but to me that key code is implying that all countires in light green joined because of the Japanese attack on the USA.

(on a slightly related note, wasn't Persia carved up between the Soviets and British before the American entry into the war?)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are working on the map issue at the moment. Another installment of the infobox montage discussion (which would replace the map) has been started here, all input there would of course be welcome. At the moment, Oberiko is working on a new version of an animated map that will address the concerns expressed here and elsewhere. Parsecboy (talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, i look forward to seeing it--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to the new montage: Image:WW2Montage.PNG. Take a look and see what you think. Parsecboy (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

TomStar81[edit]

I have to agree with Carom on the citation issue, I would like to see at least one citation perparagraph for the article because at the moment much of it is to me uncited. I will grant that this is largely a narrative history on the war, but the same could be said of the Iowa class battleships and those articles all have citations on a per paragraph basis. I will take a closer look at the article when I have the chance to (at the moment I have a book report to work on thats due Thursday) and will have further comments then. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling[edit]

This article is vastly improved and I'd congratulate everyone involved. The process in which the improvements were made (by proposing text on the talk page before adding it) is an excellent example of a consensus approach to editing and is a model for other difficult to manage articles. My comments are:

  • I agree with the need for citations as the article does make some assertions and they act to deter vandals. Using brief histories of the war should make this managable (I recomend John Keegan's excellent book).
  • The article's prose is rather breathless and hard to read at times. I'm not sure what can be done about this, but the article could be longer.
  • The common use of 'British' and 'United Kingdom' when describing actions of Commonwealth forces is inappropriate and inaccurate. For instance, Australian, and not 'British', troops made but the majority of the force which invaded Syria in 1941. Use either 'Commonwealth' or 'Allied'.
  • I'm suprised to see that China didn't declare war on Japan until after Pearl Harbour (4th para in the 'The war becomes global' section).
  • The article doesn't always describe the impact of the events it described. For instance, there's no mention that the Soviet offensive at the Battle of Moscow inflicted devastating losses on the German Army and that this was a key turning point in the war. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Your fourth bullet is correct; neither side formally declared war in the SSJW until after the US was attacked, because neither side wanted to alienate the US (which was trading with both China and Japan), which had been pushing for peace at the time. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Commonwealth issue I'll try to get taken care of today. I'd rather not have any analysis of battles/events here, a large number of them (Moscow, Stalingrad, Kursk, France (1940), El Alamein, Overlord, Bulge, Coral Sea, Midway, Guadalcanal, Okinawa etc.) can be described as pivotal; I'd rather leave explaining their significance to the daughter articles which cover the major theatres. Oberiko (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mrg3105[edit]

Despite the amount of editing done, and the significant improvement achieved, there is an entire concept, and at least a large section simply missing from the article!

  • For Germany SWW was predicated on the economic fallout of the previous war, and the Nazi rhetoric. What followed was a territorial expansion by any means, with the goal being an expansion of German economic power. Germany lost the economic war a few months after the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. Ultimately combined Allied economies secured victory on the battlefields. None of this s evident from the article. The economic dimension needs its own section at last, which will hopefully mention the role of women in wartime economies, and the effect this had on the post-war societies of the World.
  • If the economic issue was implicit in the Nazi Germany policy, then in Imperial Japanese policy this was an explicit cause for expansion of the Japanese Empire and its Economic Sphere. Where is this in the article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
We don't have it yet. If you check World War II/temp, you can see that we have a blank section called "Home front". This is where production figures and such will be located.
I don't really want to get to in-depth to the reasons for German or Soviet actions. I briefly mention Japan's motive (to create a defensive perimeter while exploiting the resources of SE Asia), and Italy's motives (to create a new Roman Empire) but Hitler's motives were at least as much about ethnic eradication and world domination (indeed, he was making plans for the eventual war against the United States after conquering Europe) as they were about economic gain. I feel that the European Theatre of World War II would be a better place to talk more about it. If you can summarize it briefly though (a sentance or two), then by all means give it a shot. Oberiko (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I kept looking in temp to see what's new. Sadly I can not devote time to this. This is a huge subject which comes trough in other articles where production and logistics are concerned, so of course the Eastern Front. It needs a category revamp, and not just a section here. The reason I'm concerned is because the Soviet wartime economy in Wikipedia is covered by two short paragraphs!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The wartime economy and production for each of the major belligerents (U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., China, Japan, Germany, Italy and France) each merit full articles. The most one could do in the WWII article itself is give a very brief comparison. Oberiko (talk) 02:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Military history of the United States during World War II[edit]

Well something is wrong with the Peer review tag, so I'm just adding it here. I'm adding this request because I started this article but I don't have a whole lot of time on my hands, and I would really like someone to come along and improve on my writing and add alot of the stuff I haven't gotten to yet. Rmt2m 18:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Rmt2m 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Miborovsky[edit]

Looks good at first glance. A few points I feel are noteworthy:

  1. I would like to see something about Roosevelt's evading the Neutrality Acts to send aid to China in 1937. Not strictly WW2, but still related.
  2. The Pacific Theater and European Theatre are not the only ones America was involved in. I would like to see something about the CBI (China-Burma-India) Theatres. There's a wealth of stuff: the American Volunteer Group, Merrill's Marauders, X Force, Y Force, etc.
  3. I think this article should be more than the sum of its parts, ie. not just a collection of summaries of the longer main articles. While the individual battle articles talk about the battles and tactics, this page, perhaps, should talk about the grand strategy...

Keep up the good work. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rmt2m[edit]

Would it be better for the article to be organized into years instead of theaters of operation? Rmt2m 15:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Up to you, I suppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Portuguese Colonial War[edit]

I need some expert advice in order to continue working on the article. This is a translation from pt.wikipedia, started by GTubio. The article is FA in pt.wikipedia, however I don't think it has such status, it lacks several references and mainly on the description of the war events, it says almost nothing. Of course the pt version quality is no match for the english version.

I want someone to say something about the structure, the need for pictures or templates, or whatever you think it needs. Along with that, every paragraph I translate will, probably, need copyediting as I'm not a native speaker. Thanks. Afonso Silva 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Obviously, the article isn't finished yet, so I can't comment on the comprehensiveness of the content. Nevertheless, some inital suggestions:

  • A {{Infobox Military Conflict}} template should be added at the beginning.
  • The structure looks quite feasible. Is there enough material for the "War in the arts" section?
  • More pictures would be nice; portraits of the people involved might work, if nothing else can be found. A map or two might be helpful as well.
  • Do you know of any good English-language references that could be consulted and added? Or is most of the usable material in Portuguese? Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your attention. I'll include the box, however, at a first time, I'll may lack some of the data. About the structure, I'll try to keep it like it is, there's not much more things to say and I don't want to make the article any longer, there's plenty of pictures available, of course most of them aren't free, but I'll try to find some. I can find free photos from the many veterans on my family, but perhaps they lack usefulness. About the references, there's some books in English about the colonial war, but I don't have any, only lots of stuff in Portuguese. I'll try to contact the authors of the Portuguese version. About the "war on the arts" there's several things to say. Thanks!
I'll add more things soon, if you can, just take a look. Regards! Afonso Silva 17:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

King's Regiment (Liverpool)[edit]

Previous review.

I've been intermittently developing this article for over a year. But compelling distractions have prevented me from completing this project (I'm on an occasionally enforced wikibreak;-). This article will undoubtedly surpass 60kb and I've therefore decided to omit the regiment's peripheral activities (this prominently includes its service in India and Macedonia during WWI). While I hope this decision won't be at the expense of the article's comprehensives, no online history, even published book, could possibly hope to equal Everard Wyrall's staggering three volume, The History of the King's Regiment (Liverpool) 1914-19;-). Three sub-sections still require substantial expansion: the "Colonial wars" (i.e. the Second Boer War), "1918", and "Burma". I suspect the prose is deficient in areas and certain sections are sparse. So suggestions and constructive criticism would be appreciated. SoLando (Talk) 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very nice, overall. Some suggestions, in no particular order:

  • I would try to avoid omitting any significant topic, particularly as the article is already over the recommended size. What I would suggest doing instead would be creating daughter articles (King's Regiment (Liverpool) in World War I and perhaps King's Regiment (Liverpool) in World War II) for the more detailed narrative, and trimming back the material in the main article to a more condensed summary. This would allow you to achieve comprehensive coverage without running into article length concerns.
  • The "History" header seems extraneous; I would suggest removing it and having those sub-sections directly off the main body of the article.
  • The battle honours can be placed in an infobox field now.
  • The table of VC recipients may be better off floated on the side rather than in an otherwise empty section of its own.
  • The rump "Batallions" section needs to either become a legitimate summary of the linked article or be eliminated; it shouldn't be difficult to work that link into the text somehow, in any case.

Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 22:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As ever, I appreciate your input.
  • Yes, that might be the most viable solution; however, the WWI and WWII sections are essentially, in their present form, already condensed summaries. I'll attempt to compress the 1918 sub-section into two paragraphs detailing the Spring Offensive and Hundred Days. Perhaps two paragraphs for India and Macedonia. I'll investigate the possibility of branching the history, but it could be problematic ;-)
  • Done.
  • Incorporating so many battle honours into the infobox makes the latter extremely cumbersome and disrupts the layout of the page. Any alternative?
  • I'm tempted, very tempted, to convert the VC section into prose. What would you suggest?
  • I've placed the link to the list of battalions in the infobox.
Again, I thank you. SoLando (Talk) 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's see:
  • The current content could likely be condensed further, but that's not the main point; my idea was more to create a place for more detailed coverage, thus eliminating the question of whether the article was comprehensive by allowing the material not fully discussed in this article to still be adequately covered in the child articles. (In any case, branching the history means simply putting the source article in your original edit summary; so this shouldn't be a practical concern. ;-)
  • You could, I suppose, have a separate table listing the battle honours by war and so forth; the main thing is to avoid the simple long list that we currently have.
  • The VC section might be workable as prose, but it's going to be somewhat repetetive. Perhaps the easiest approach would be to split it apart and add the recipients into the text in the relevant narrative sections?
Kirill Lokshin 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll attempt to formulate a subsidiary History of the King's Regiment (Liverpool) (preferable for the purposes of context). I can be an obsessive perfectionist (even if that is rarely evident;-), so it's conceivable that such an article would exceed 90kb alone (if it is initiated). My hands are trembling at such a prospect...
  • A table could have application here; I've seen a similar approach but can't remember the name of the article.
  • Integrating the recipients into the relevant sections seems preferable, although I'll miss that table. ;-)
SoLando (Talk) 00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've compiled a list of the regiment's Colonels-in-Chief, Colonels of the regiment and a modest number of "famous" members. This could be the ideal location for the VC recipients; however, it's of questionable encyclopaedic merit. Then again, the existence of numerous lists of even greater question which have survived AFD mitigate that somewhat;-)SoLando (Talk) 00:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Air Force Security Forces[edit]

Needs to read a little more like a dictionary entry, and not a manual. Rmt2m 22:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

This pretty much needs to be totally rewritten. Large sections have been copied directly from USAF materials, and it really shows in the language and style. I'm also a bit surprised that there's no discussion of the history of the unit. Kirill Lokshin 23:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Gildonic revolt[edit]

This is my first article I've created from scratch, i.e. not a translation/transcription from an other-language WP. Very little is to be found on the subject, and since I'm not an expert, perhaps others can comment, point to omissions or mistakes. Mhaesen 16:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Well, I'm not really an expert on this period either, but I do have a few suggestions:

  • The "Background" section should ideally discuss the various political scheming in more detail. As it stands, "Gildo seriously entertained the notion of joining the Eastern Roman empire" isn't very revealing. What were the "political machinations of the eunuch Eutropius" and how was Gildo tied up in them?
  • "Roman victory" is a rather bad way to describe the result here, as both sides could be considered Roman. I'm not sure what a better term would be, though.

I realise that this is probably quite hard to find good sources for. You might be able to pull some more background material from the surrounding sections in Gibbon; our coverage of the period is so sparse that there's no need to worry about overlap with other articles. Hope that helps somewhat! Kirill Lokshin 02:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Defense of Sihang Warehouse[edit]

OK first of all I've been working my butt off today to do this one. 300PM - 1230AM with dinner, supper and a haircut in between. (There goes my flowy locks!) Anyway, I've been meaning to do this one for a long time, and finally I've summoned up the resolve to completely overhaul it. Several potential problems I'm aware of:

  1. Chronological narrative style (day-by-day sections) might not be suitable for Wikipedia. Thoughts?
  2. Lacks references. I'm working on this, but to be honest finding published sources for these kinds of articles is not easy.
  3. Too long? The individual days sections are pretty long. I can comprehend everything of course, but I'm not sure others can.
  4. Lack of internal links. I wasn't paying much attention to this while writing, and I'm not keen on adding these at 1230AM... Still have to go to church tomorrow morning.
  5. Possible POV? I am (understandably, I'm sure you'd all agree) quite proud of this, so I might have let a few POVs slip through. I try my best though. Of course, I don't think there actually is a Japanese POV on this, perhaps except that it "never happened" and is "communist propaganda"... *rolleyes*

-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Some comments:

  • Chronological narrative style is not inappropriate per se, but you may want to look at a different sectioning if (in the final article) the sections are of significantly different size. Single-paragraph sections, in particular, should probably be avoided.
  • Once you can get some citeable print references, a decent number of footnotes would be a nice thing to have.
  • The lack of internal links can easily be fixed. It's a particular problem, though, when this causes ambiguous naming. For example, "At 9PM Yang concluded that there would be no more Japanese attacks" is somewhat confusing, initially, since the closest such name is Yang Huimin (rather than Yang Ruifu).
  • POV: not really a problem here, except for a few points where an implicit Chinese viewpoint is assumed (e.g "The location of the warehouse turned out to be a fortunate one").

Overall, it reads as a very nice article. The main things missing are the references and some copyediting to eliminate the occasional problems with sentence structure. Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kirill for your prompt feedback.
  • I'll either stuff more stuff about the negotiations into the 31 Oct heading, or I'll merge it with 30 Oct, thanks for the heads-up.
  • I'll get some inline references once I polish up the article.
  • I'm aware of this problem, it's one that plagues China-related articles. Perhaps I should add "Major Yang" for all mentions of Yang Ruifu, and then Yang Huimin's full name whenever she is mentioned.
  • Noted. I'll read through the article once I'm done with the final bits of the article to spot POV like this. But because of the way my brain is rigged to think (or is it the way I rigged my brain to think) it might not be easy... ;/
Thanks again for the comments. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 06:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article, disambiguated several terms, added some new content, removed some misc. nn information and added inline citations. How does it look like now? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Very nice! A few more suggestions you might want to consider:
  • The "Media Embellishment" section is very short. Maybe merging it with the "Aftermath" or "Legacy" sections would be beneficial?
  • The same for the "Equipment" section, but I'm not sure if there's a good place to merge that to.
  • The "Order of battle" and "Equipment" sections should include the Japanese forces as well.
  • Possibly lengthen the introduction to two or three paragraphs?
  • The "1937" in the section titles is implicit; is there any particular reason for including it?
  • Everything in the "See also" section seems to be linked in the main text, so it can probably be removed.
Seems to be an excellent article otherwise, but this isn't really my area of specialty, so I can't really comment on whether there are any more interesting details that should be included. Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I *think* this version should be FAC-worthy...[4]
  • Merged "Media Embellishment" into "Aftermath" and "Legacy"
  • Merged orbat and "Equipment" sections, subsections NRA and IJA.
  • Added some barebone IJA material, but I'm mainly getting my published sources from the Chinese participants, so *might* be a bit lacking...
  • Expanded lead section. I'm not especially good with introductions and conclusions, but I think it'll do.
  • My bad here. I assumed that for auto-date formatting it must be in the format [[1937-10-26]], but I forgot that 26 October is also auto-formatted. Changed. Should I be having internal links in section headers? WP:MOS says no, but there is no way to retain the auto-formatting without using links.
  • Removed as suggested.
Does anyone else have suggestions to make? I'd like to get a few more opinions before I *hopefully* submit it for FAC... -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BlueShirts[edit]

I think using American spelling here is more appropriate, for no reason other than consistency with other sino-japanese war articles. BlueShirts 23:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I did some copy-edit and I find the article well-written in terms of presenting what happened and the progression of combat. However, I find some parts a bit "anecdotal," like Xie Jinyuan picking off the enemy from the rooftop and the ladder part. The article also does not delve much into Chiang's insistence that the heroes be left there a bit more since the Nine Powers Treaty was in session in Brussels. But I think that stuff can go into the greater conflcit of Shanghai 1937. Just on its own, the Sihang Warehouse article is really good and is FA material. BlueShirts 00:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedits.
  • RE American spelling - I don't really care, but please have some consideration for me as I am in an American high skool and need a place to write proper English :D
  • RE anecdotal events - I believe that since this article already goes into a depth that is not typical for battle articles (day-by-day chronology, battalion-sized operation), we can include such anecdotal pieces. I think we can afford to, this lasting just 4-5 days, involving a small area. Besides it is sufficiently sourced and the relevant events have sources that document them.
  • RE Nine-Power Treaty - That was signed in 1922... The Brussels Conference did not involve the same participants. Japan (signatory to Nine-Power Treaty) was invited but declined to participate. Germany (not signatory) was invited but declined. Soviet Union (not signatory) was invited and participated.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll check this weekend, but I remember that it was the Nine Powers Treaty that was in session, not the League of Nations. BlueShirts 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Okay, yes it was the Nine-Powers Treaty conference. Zhang Boting's (張柏亭, chief of staff of the 88th Division) memoir has this error. The League of Nations conference adjourned on October 6th, before the 524th Regiment was assigned to make the death-stand. The Nine POwers Treaty conference started on November 3rd. The 524th's mission was to take the Shanghai battle "right into the conference room." BlueShirts 06:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I guess the other works on the battle of Shanghai carried over his error, then. Hmm. Got a source? Would be very reassuring. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 22:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It's from this book, originally a doctoral thesis, printed by the National Taiwan University. I don't have it with me now so I can't come up with the exact page number. BlueShirts 23:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's alright. If you get the chance please note down the page number and cite it, then we can change the relevant parts in the article. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal[edit]

I would like to nominate the article for a "Good" article designation and, if successful, eventually as a "featured" article. But first I'm requesting a peer review to help the article be as good as possible before nominating for those categories. Thank-you in advance for your inputs and suggestions. Cla68 17:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A nice article, but still some work to be done:

  • Inline citations are a must; this is especially needed for subjective or speculative material (e.g. "Abe appeared to lose his nerve"), but can be used liberally throughout the article.
  • There are a lot of single-sentence paragraphs that should be merged into less choppy prose.
  • The "Aftermath" section is far too short to stand on its own. If there's not enough material, it should be removed entirely; but I suspect there's more that can be added here.
  • Ideally, some of the red-links should be eliminated—particularly those for individual ships—but this is only an issue that might come up during a featured article nomination.

Otherwise, this looks to be a well-written piece! Kirill Lokshin 01:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive inputs. Is it ok to use non-linked citations like: "Abe appeared to lose his nerve (Morrison, 1958)"? Or should the citations be the "[5]" style? Cla68 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The preference on FAC is to use the new cite.php style (<ref>Morrison</ref>), but I think either of the other styles would probably be acceptable as well. Kirill Lokshin 13:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand now how to do the new cite style and I'm going to do that to the article as soon as I get a chance and have all the reference information I need. The short paragraphs have been combined and the "Aftermath" section has been expanded. I'll also take out some of the red-links. If no objection, I'll archive this peer review. I'll plan on nominating this article for "good" status once I've corrected the citation/reference issue. Thanks again for the help. Cla68 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Operation Ten-Go[edit]

I believe this article is ready for review. I used the old system of reference citations, because, to be honest, I still can't figure out how to use the newer, recommended Wikipedia footnote system (does anyone have an example article I can use as reference?). Anyway, after peer review and making any suggested changes, I hope to nominate the article for at least "good article" status. Thank you in advance for your suggestions and comments. Cla68 16:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Excellent article. I would go ahead and convert the inline citations to footnotes; see here for an example using the new cite.php method of creating them. In addition, expanding the lead section to at least two paragraphs might be appropriate here. Other than that, I see no problems with the article. Great work! Kirill Lokshin 01:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the example. I changed the citations to footnotes and expanded the lead section as requested. If no objection, I'll go ahead and archive this peer review and nominate the article for "good article" status. However, before I think about nominating it for "featured article" (FA) status I assume that I need to add a few more references, add the page numbers to each reference, and add at least one map showing exactly where the battle actually occurred and the position of the two forces in relation to each other because most of the battle FAs that I see contain those items. Thanks again for the assistance. Cla68 13:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
A proper military map would be nice, of course—particularly one with ship positions indicated. It's nothing to be terribly concerned about, though; if all else fails, just a map of the general area would probably suffice. Kirill Lokshin 21:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Vaslui[edit]

I think this article is quite detailed in its descriptions and offers many sources and references that defend its claim. With a little touch on the style that needs to be slightly improved, the article could be worthy for FA status. Thx. --Candide, or Optimism 01:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic[edit]

A tremendous article; if I were voting now, I'd vote for FAC. You've basically met the fundamental criteria for FAC: good research, nice pictures (I especially liked the battle diagram), well written. Overall, very very good. I'm comparing yours to the Battle of Alesia, which is FAC, and I think yours is better. However, I do think you could improve a few things, and one of those is the aftermath section. It'd be better if you expanded that a bit. For example, the Alesia article talks about the problems of historical reconstruction at the end. Do something like that for this battle; how is it viewed in Moldavian culture and what impact does in have in popular conceptions of the period? Stuff like that. Also, try to get some more wiki links in there. But again, very good.UberCryxic 03:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Yes, I will expand the aftermath by writing more about the battle. Basically, the next article will hold the same quality as this one. I will start working on this in the next two days. :) --Candide, or Optimism 05:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very good article! The major thing remaining is stylistic copyediting; aside from that, the "References" section needs to be sorted alphabetically, and you should write at least a stub about the Moldavian-Ottoman Wars (which are now linked in the infobox). —Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that the "References" section needed to be in alphabetic order. What should be in Alpha... order: the name of the author or the name of the book? I will create the Moldavian-Ottoman Wars article today. Thx :) --Candide, or Optimism 05:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be by the author, I think. —Kirill Lokshin 12:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova[edit]

This is clearly FA quality. You should be proud. The bibliography is missing publication data. Normally this would include the publisher and year of publication, usually the location of publication as well. ISBN numbers are optional but nice to have. Would you be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Middle Ages task force? Durova 03:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have included five books, three of which have ISBN numbers. The other two are too old, but I guess I could add the year and location of the publication. I will soon update that article and a few other things. I'm not sure what the Middle Ages task force does, but sure, I could join it. It sounds interesting. What do I need to do? --Candide, or Optimism 07:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)[edit]

This article has vastly and clearly improved from just another mediocre battle article, to one which is clearly FA status. It was a joy to watch it grow and help it along, in some small way. And it will be my pleasure to SUPPORT it when the time comes--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

La Grande Armée[edit]

This article is a true team effort. The legendary User:Adam Bishop and User:Angela were notable early contributors. I found and expanded it and have recently had the pleasure of working with User:Ansbachdragoner, who has greatly improved its quality and depth. User:ALoan and User:UberCryxic have also put considerable work into it. Together over an extended period, we have built an article on one of history's greatest military forces which, though not perfect, we feel is worthy of feature consideration. In preparation for this, we invite your input.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Vedexent[edit]

My initial reaction is "Wow!". This is an amazing article.

Pros
  • I am not knowledgeable about the history of the time, so I can't speak to it's accuracy (other readers will have to address that), but I can say that as an "ignorant but interested reader" I found that the article really explained things clearly and in an interesting fashion.
  • Good use of illustrations. While plentiful, they are interesting, well laid out, and don't overwhelm the text.
  • Well organized.
  • Well written prose. I'm not sure how, but the "tone" of the text manages to elicit the grandeur and ceremony one would associate with an army of this period.
Cons

Not being "up to speed" on the history, I'm afraid my quibbles are all about structure, but I think they're usually minor and easily corrected quibbles, and may simply be a matter of taste (in which case you can just ignore them :->).

1.

First of all, the intro is a little "shuffled" and in one spot goes a little more detailed than needs be for an intro.
I'm of the school of Wikipedians which believe that the text before the TOC should be a brief, organizatinally simple, summary of the entire article, but have minimal detail, allowing casual readers to read 3-4 paragraphs and decide if they want/need more detail (although some people read only that section).
The intro meanders back and forth between description and history. If the last part of the second paragraph was the first half of the last pargraph it would be nice clean intro->description->history.
Additionally, the detailed breakdown by nationality list in the intro might be better later on in the article; the causual reader may not know if they want to delve in deeper yet (hopefully they do), and so isn't looking for information quite that detailed in the intro.

2.

I hate to say it, because I looked at your bibliography, but I think you need to footnote your text to the sources. While not required for the casual reader, "inline references" seem to be a "big deal" for FAC reviews. I realize that with an article this complex, with that large a bibliography that will be a big task, but it is almost a requirement for FAC, and I think this article is good enough to warrent Feature Article status once every i is dotted and t is crossed.

3.

A really minor aesthetic suggestion: the TOC is quite long, leaving a large chunk of "whitespace" to the right. I know that some people collapse, or have TOCs toggled off, but for the majority of people who see the TOC, perhaps one or more illustrations could be included at that point to break up the whitespace? It is also possible that the "Unit Box" will be expanded in the future, as it seems to be mostly empty, extending somewhat into this space.
General
  • One oddity that I've noticed is your use of "bullet points" in place of "headers" for the lowest level of organization. I realize that without doing that, the TOC would be even longer than it is, but it does look a little odd for a Wikipedia article in that respect.
  • I don't know if it is possible to fix - it may simply be a fact of Media Wiki right now, but your bullet points do get "thrown out of kilter" in places, right next to images it seems.
Overall

Overall, this is an extremely well written article that is informative, entertaining, easy to read, and well organized. I think that the FAC process will require more extensive inline footnotes, but other than that, any other "problems" are minor, or aesthetic, in my opinion.

I think this is an article that really should be "polished up" the last 2% required by the FAC process, because I think it will make one heck of a good FAC article once passed.

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

  • First, a few general comments:
    • Inline citations! Even if they're not really needed, a lack of them (particularly in an article of this size) will cause the FA nomination to go over like the proverbial lead balloon. Given the high quality of references used, though, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a dozen or two key facts that can be cited.
    • Image placement is a problem at some points; the pictures should ideally be spaced on both margins, and the galleries spread out into the text. Some of the images need better captions as well.
    • The article still needs a few rounds of stylistic copyediting to eliminate some of the choppier sentence structure.
    • The bullet-point layout should be removed in favor of proper subsections (with {{details}} at the beginning of each as necessary).
    • Wikification! Many things deserving of their own articles (regiments, weapons, etc.) aren't linked. You may need to create a few stubs after you do this, though, to prevent the article from having too many redlinks.
  • Now for a few more specific points:
    • The infobox could use some expansion; moving the size breakdown into it might be an easy way to do that. And what exactly is the top image?
    • "Organization": perhaps outline it somewhat further down, at least to regiment level?
    • "Imperial Guard": no mention of the Guard artillery? It's referred to in the "Artillery" section, but a more complete breakdown might be in order. Alternately, it may be worthwhile to trim the material in these sections somewhat and refer more prominently to the actual Imperial Guard article.
    • "Ranks of the Grande Armée": with the large table and the gallery, this isn't really a good prose section. The table also seems to give British rather than French modern ranks.
    • "Formations and tactics": any chance of getting some diagrams for these? Chandler has some pretty decent ones, if there's anyone with enough drawing ability to work from them.
    • "History": the raw lists of battles are unnecessary, as the important ones are already linked in the text. If you must have them, though, replace them with the appropriate campaignboxes instead.
Throughout, though, it's an outstanding article; it just needs some cleanup before moving on to FAC.

Durova[edit]

While Napoleon isn't my area of specialty, I know a few things about French history. The specifics of his army organization are too in-depth for me to critique. Overall, however, this is an impressive article that reflects a great deal of research and hard work. You should be proud.

I agree with both of the above comments about line citations. When I was preparing Joan of Arc for FAC candidacy I surveyed existing FA articles as models. This was a mistake: standards have grown increasingly stringent and a significant portion of older FAs wouldn't pass candidacy today. Some of them are even getting de-listed.

Try moving the discussion of the 1812 campaign to a conclusion section at the end of the article. It's out of place in the introduction. Also there was a recent edit war at Battle of Borodino where some Russian editors contested a description that called this a French victory. Their reasons had some some merit. I suggest characterizing this as a marginal French victory.

What I would like to see in the introduction is a brief comparison to earlier French military structures. How was Napoleon's army different and in what respects was he most innovative? Which innovations were most successful?

Some of the text could use a copyedit. I know how hard it is to look at the same words for the umpteenth time and retain a fresh perspective. Here are two sentences where I got bogged: "After a month in Moscow, the army was forced to march back the way it had come, into the teeth of the harsh Russian winter. Constantly harassed by Cossacks and Russian irregulars, cold, starvation and disease, the Grande Armée was utterly destroyed as a fighting force." The commas in the first sentence are gratuitious. My eye lingered at the second one because of its lack of parallel structure. It seems to suggest that cold, starvation, and disease were extensions of the Russian army.

It will be tedious to add footnotes, but the other changes should be relatively simple to implement. When the time comes I think you'll have smooth sailing at FAC. Durova 03:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)[edit]

First, thanks for your comments, suggestions and especially PRAISE :). Now on to try and address the former two so it may be more worthy of the latter. Kirill:

  • Inline cites have been added. More are on the way. But I really don't see where we need to cite every paragraph or section. Especially when it is clear where much of the information came from by glancing at the reference section. This not a Doctorial Dissertation or research paper. But if it fails for this reason, oh well. We can always cite the hell out of it and resubmit. I think most readers simply want a well written, informative and well referenced article. On this level, I believe we are nearly there. In his memoirs the Duke Rovigo often gave his only references as "This was told to me by officers and gentlemen of indisputable charachter.", which should be good enough:).
  • No mention of the Guard artillery? I knew someone would catch that:) Yes, this was a deliberate decision on my part. The section on the guard is already a bit long, the one on artillery was waaay too short, so the only real solution was to combine them. Besides, there really is'nt THAT much one can say about the Guard's guns which doesnt also apply to line batteries.
  • "Organization": perhaps outline it somewhat further down, at least to regiment level? Done..err will do!
  • "Ranks of the Grande Armée" section. Is needed, I feel, to further illustrate Napoleonic command structure and how it differed from the Ancien regime, its enemies and modern armies. I will add a column of modern French ranks also, if you REALLY insist. But except for spellings (Capitaine, Général etc), they differ little from Anglo-American ones. The gallery, I felt, was a cool way to lead the reader to key biographies of the Marshals, instead of just giving another dull list or a bunch of "See Also's". I've thought about moving the section up, next to Organiztion. What thinkest thou?
  • The article still needs a few rounds of stylistic copyediting to eliminate some of the choppier sentence structure.-Agreed! I have a terrible habit of creating long, compound sentences sometimes. I've found a few and broke them down into bite-sized portions, but there are still too many out there, contorting and confounding the poor readers' eyes and brains:)
  • The bullet-point layout should be removed in favor of proper subsections (with {{details}} at the beginning of each as necessary). How do we do this and avoid turning an already long ToC (as per Vedexent) into THE TOC FROM HELL? Besides, I personally, don't mind bullet points, afterall "those are only bullets, not turds" as Colonel Lepic said:). I dont think this will be a major issue.
  • "The infobox could use some expansion; moving the size breakdown into it might be an easy way to do that. And what exactly is the top image?" Excellent suggestion! The infobox needs some fleshing out. The top image was created by Jfreyre especially for this article. He did a great job and I told him so.
  • ""Formations and tactics": any chance of getting some diagrams for these? Chandler has some pretty decent ones, if there's anyone with enough drawing ability to work from them." Ohhh if only!...this is at the top of my personal "Wish List" for this article! I was even thinking about using the map editor from Rise Of Nations or Imperial Glory, to create some illustrations based on Chandler's work since I have no artistic inclinations whatsoever. I was going to do the same thing using Rome:Totalwar for the Roman tactics article PhilX and I were working on. In a way, this section suffers from the opposite problem of the one on Ranks. So in a weird way it sort of balances out, with the shortcomings of one somewhat compensated for by the strengths of the other. This is also one reason why I'm reluctant to move the Ranks section to the top.
  • "Image placement is a problem at some points; the pictures should ideally be spaced on both margins, and the galleries spread out into the text. Some of the images need better captions as well." Image placement is as much art as science. And it one of the biggest pains I've had in this one. You've probably caught my discussions with Leithp on this matter. The galleries for the infantry of the guard and cavalry of the line, were the best solution I could devise for keeping the images from clogging the texts in those sections. It is less than ideal, but it works. Now that the text is far more fleshed out, I will try moving some of the other images around the margins as you suggest, for a more dynamic display. Maybe expand some of the captions too And I would still like to find a better Hussar pic, preferably of an actual French hussar of the proper era.
  • "Wikification! Many things deserving of their own articles (regiments, weapons, etc.) aren't linked. You may need to create a few stubs after you do this, though, to prevent the article from having too many redlinks." Point taken. But I've noticed a recent trend against over-wikification especially with regard to dates. I agree with you, red links, while unpretty, are important calls for more information. But not everyone sees it thusly. To them, they are unneeded eyesores and dead ends. So I've mainly linked those items which have existing artys/stubbs. It is more of a stylistic rather than editorial decision, and one I make only to try and get our Armee through FAC safely without sucumbing to Gerard's law. We have enough work to do on this without creating more, unless it is truly necessary. And yes, Iam basically a lazy bastard:)
  • ""History": the raw lists of battles are unnecessary, as the important ones are already linked in the text." Consider them gone. They are an artifact left over from that section's evolution.

Vedexent:

  • "First of all, the intro is a little "shuffled" and in one spot goes a little more detailed than needs be for an intro". The intro is often the oldest and most neglected part of an article. Yet it is, argueabely, the most important. For an FA it IS what appears on the mainpage! The last FA I worked on I had to flesh out the intro because it was too short. This time it's the opposite. Moving the nationality breakdown to the infobox, as Kirill suggested, would certainly help.

Regardless, some rewriting and reordering is in order.

  • "I hate to say it, because I looked at your bibliography, but I think you need to footnote your text to the sources." As I told Kirill, I think we can pull it off without citing every sentence. A dozen or so, strategically placed footers should do nicely. And if it fails due to this, well we can always add more and resubmit. There are a lot of cranks who use lack of inlines as an excuse to oppose because they have no other good reason. But doing it just to please them, at least initially, will be more trouble than it's worth.
  • "A really minor aesthetic suggestion: the TOC is quite long, leaving a large chunk of "whitespace" to the right." I'm playing around now to try and alleviate this. I moved the big Imperial "Cuckoo" up and switched it around with the small banner. This seems to have helped somewhat. Yes, a minor aesthetic detail, but these things can add up. It is a big, article, though, so a big ToC is the unavoidable result I'm afraid.

Durova:

  • "Try moving the discussion of the 1812 campaign to a conclusion section at the end of the article. It's out of place in the introduction." Agreed. Perhaps replace it with a shorter summary.
  • "What I would like to see in the introduction is a brief comparison to earlier French military structures. How was Napoleon's army different and in what respects was he most innovative? Which innovations were most successful?" I can do that, sure. The obvious ones, such as introduction of perminent Corps, brigades and improvements in command, control and communications, logistics, support services and tactical innovations are all discussed in the article. Again, it would seem the introduction is the section most in need of work.
  • "Some of the text could use a copyedit. I know how hard it is to look at the same words for the umpteenth time and retain a fresh perspective." The section you refer to was recently added by UberCryxic. Overall he did a very good job. I did some edits on it, but it obviously still needs more. There are also some passages which seem borderline PoV to me. After the intro, it is the section in most need of attention. The devil's indeed in the details, more specifically the wording.

Thank you again, Gents, your help and encouragement is appreciated.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Corinthian War[edit]

This is probably the most difficult article I've ever written, since Xenophon apparently wrote Book 4 of the Hellenica while hitting himself in the head with a brick. I think I've gotten it into pretty good shape, though, and I'm looking to get it featured. What do people think it needs? Thanks, RobthTalk 15:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

Very good article. A few suggestions:

  • Some of the sub-sections of "Later war"—the first two in particular—are quite short; if there's no material with which to expand them, you may want to merge them together as needed.
  • A variety of minor cleanup needs to be done: eliminate the redundant "See also" section; fix any section headings that don't follow the Manual of Style ("The" should generally be omitted); fix up the campaignbox (there are some red-linked battles in the article that aren't listed there); add any needed categories (a century one at least; I'm not sure if there are any other appropriate ones).

Other than that, this will probably be quite successful as a FAC. Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've gone through and done much of the cleanup, although haven't figured out how to deal with the small sections just yet. I definitely need to work on/create about a dozen related articles before putting this up on FAC. RobthTalk 18:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

gala.martin[edit]

Very good article. I reckon it was hard to write down.

  • Maybe some comments are needed about the situation after 394 BC. (Who had the upper hand on land warfare and sea warfare, and what strategies the two enemies where planning to carry out).
  • The sentence The allies lost 2800 men, the Spartans and their allies 1100. does not sound very good to me.
  • The map in the article is quite poor. I think that one or two detailed maps would really increase the value of the article. For instance, a map in which the main cities and main battles are pointed (that would be great). Also, a picture about the moves of the armies in one important battle (say Nemea) would help. I reckon open maps are hard to find, and I assume you looked for this kind of maps, of course. You can try to find something here

gala.martin (what?) 16:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not find any map about Corinthian War in the link I posted above. Sorry. gala.martin (what?) 20:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I looked around for better maps too, but didn't see much. The battles are tricky, since for the most part you'd need complex multi-stage diagrams. I considered trying one myself (I seem to have developed something of a tradition of putting ugly do-it-yourself MS paint battle diagrams in my featured articles) but I decided it would be too tough to convey what was going on. I suppose there could be one of the war as a whole, but there would be a lot of little arrows around Corinth and Argos, and not a whole lot else. Thanks for the link to the military academy site, though--I think I can definitely use some of those for some other articles.
I've implemented both the other suggestions. RobthTalk 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Austerlitz[edit]

I've worked hard on this article for the past few days and have taken it from a relatively average piece of work to at least a quality worthy of a good article, and hopefully worthy of FA after peer review. Let me know what you all think.UberCryxic 03:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A very good article! There are several areas where some further improvement might be possible, though:

  • Maps! The USMA has some excellent situation maps of the battle that I'll try to upload tomorrow; the current ones are far too small.
  • The writing style is slightly hagiographic in parts (e.g. "The ensuing melee deservedly earned a reputation for being one of the greatest cavalry fights in all of history and revealed the superiority of French cavalry over their Allied equivalents" or "In a brilliant double-pronged assault, St. Hilaire’s division and part of Davout’s III Corps smashed through the enemy at Sokolnitz and persuaded the commanders of the first two columns, generals Kienmayer and Langeron, to flee as fast as they could"); adjectives like "greatest" or "brilliant" should be used sparingly, if at all.
  • There's no mention of the battle's role in fiction; I'm not entirely sure of how extensive this is, but large portions of War and Peace do take place there.
  • The "Battlefield legends" section seems somewhat irrelevant. Almost all battles have associated legends; unless these are notable in some way, there's no need to list them.
  • I would move the "Battlefield" and dispositions sections to "Prelude" and limit the "Battle" section to the blow-by-blow account itself.
  • Some of the single-paragraph sections should either be expanded or merged with the surrounding ones.
  • Double footnotes (e.g. 43/44) are bad; both references should be listed under a single note number.

Mostly looks good, though; all of these are more stylistic and cleanup issues than content ones. Kirill Lokshin 04:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


Kirill, thanks very much for your review. Yeah I badly badly need good maps; if you can get any I'd be very glad and eternally grateful. Just put a link my talk page or something. I'll definitely change some of those awkward phrases; maybe later I'll do a copyedit. The War and Peace idea is awesome; totally forgot about that. But I think I'm going to put the fiction in the Mythology section; so like a "Mythology and Fiction" section; what do you think about that? Now, while I did want to be unique as much as I could, I did stick to tradition mostly and based this off other FA battles. I relied heavily on the Battle of Badr, which was made FA a few weeks ago. That article, for example, has the plans and the movements preceding the battle under the "Battle" section. So that's why I put them there too. The FA Battle of Warsaw has two very short paragraph sections ("Bolshevik Plan" and "Breaking of Soviet Ciphers"), but I'll think about expanding them nonetheless. Will definitely take care of the double footnotes.UberCryxic 05:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova[edit]

A fine piece of work! I recommend a copyedit before putting this up for featured candidacy. You'll get fewer comments or objections if a sentence such as (from the introduction) "Despite difficult fighting in many sectors, the battle is often regarded as a tactical masterpiece in military history" loses its last three words. Better still, quote a later general who admired its tactics. I agree with the above that some adjectives are hard to get through FAC. I had to remove "brilliant" from Joan of Arc even though the context was supported by multiple citations. This last suggestion is purely optional, but what other artistic works have portrayed the battle? Some film adaptations of War and Peace probably did (at least the interminably long Russian version) and probably some other period fiction in novels and film. Probably some modern war games used it too. I can't see any significant obstacle to FA. Durova 02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Military history of France[edit]

I decided to expand and improve this article because I’m interested in the subject and I felt it was very under-covered in its initial version. Pictures were added, information referenced, sources increased, categorization improved, grammatical and spelling errors fixed, the number of battles and wars greatly expanded, visual quality got better, and descriptions also became more detailed. I greatly appreciate any and all input. I also just want to clarify a few things (these will become clearer after you’ve read/reviewed the article, so please do that first):

1. The article is somewhat long, but this is out of necessity, not oversight. I can’t change the fact that French military history was long, but I did try to be as economical as I could.

2. On the other hand, someone could claim that the article is short. For example, one could object to the fact that some wars (Revolutionary and Napoleonic) are covered as separate categories while whole periods of centuries received a category. This is because some periods, like the ones mentioned, witnessed profound change in warfare, and the literature also reflects this division. One of the books I used (it was on general world military history), for example, devotes one chapter of about 20 pages on 1,000 years of Medieval warfare while giving one chapter of the same length to 23 years of Revolutionary and Napoleonic warfare.

3. Because the article may be judged as (probably) long, I have included many pictures for variety and “visual entertainment,” but I would more than concur should anyone suggest some need to be taken away. However, the very reason why I put so many up was to provide some balance.

4. Below the descriptions for each era of warfare are the major conflicts (organized into wars and battles) that occurred in that era. However, you’ll notice that not every war or battle featured in the tables at the end is included in the descriptions; this is because those descriptions are meant to give a feel for what happened and why it happened. They are not meant to regurgitate every war or battle that French military history covers (that in itself is impossible, anyway). Furthermore, there is sporadic analysis of society and politics and how they shape war. This just follows from modern military theory that war has many different aspects besides what happens on the battlefield.

5. There are some online footnotes (six), which I more than realize is a weakness. However, they do not in themselves represent important claims, and because of that I thought it would be more convenient if I used online sources. One was a copy of part of the Versailles Treaty (primary source). One is a Britannica article on the “Grand Empire,” which does little more than give a casual description of that term (and I wanted nothing but that, so I thought it would suffice). One is a link to another wiki page on the Demographics of France, and if I must find another source for that then I will. One is a site on French colonization that I used for the size of the French colonial empire; a book might have been more reliable here, but I went back myself and added the number of squared miles of France at the time in question and found the number to be correct. The last is a site that talks about the controversy regarding the date of a battle, and the issue at stake is between several different historical authorities claiming different things (you’ll see in the site).

6. Articles in wikipedia look different depending on the text size or screen size in which you are viewing them. The way in which I expanded this article means that for optimal visual quality you should use the “Larger” text size. To do this (in Internet Explorer), go to “View,” then “Text Size,” and select “Larger.” If you don’t do this, the spatial relation between the words and the pictures will look disjointed. This can sometimes be a big problem in wikipedia, and someone needs to find a way to fix it. Also, a desktop would be ideal because of the large screen size.

I am hoping for some comments and help with the sources, prose (does the article read well), visual quality, and extensiveness of coverage (did I leave something out that should've been in? and so on). Thank you in advance for your suggestions (I also put this on the regular Peer Review page, so if you want to talk about there, go ahead).UberCryxic 01:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

It's not all that long, actually (merely 68K; note the review below, where the article is nearly 85K), and quite well-written. Some more specific comments, in no particular order:

  • The stub-list sections at the bottom should probably be removed. If these people aren't prominent enough to link in the main text, they're not worth mentioning. The same might be said for the lists of battles in every section; given that the selection seems rather arbitrary, I would favor getting rid of the tables and adding a paragraph or two of extra prose to each section instead.
  • The images are laid out very well, except for the first one; due to a quirk of MediaWiki, it and the table of contents will overlap on smaller resolutions.
  • The introduction should probably be split into more paragraphs.
  • The "See also" links at the end of every section are usually linked in the text (or should be, for most of those topics). If they're redundant, they should be removed.
  • "Franks" and "Pre-Charlemagne ..." sections could probably be merged; as it is, the first of those is quite short.
  • "Ancien Régime": I'm probably a little biased here, but I would have expected a somewhat longer treatment of the Italian Wars and the Wars of Religion, given that we're talking about a century of continuous warfare.
  • Why is the Rafale photo at the end of the modern section, and not down with the air force? Maybe an image of modern French troops would be more appropriate there.

All things considered, a very good article; but it still needs some more work (primarily playing with the layout and trimming some of the extra lists). —Kirill Lokshin 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Kirill, thank you very much for your comments. I actually debated whether I should keep the war and battle lists, and even now I'm not sure. One good reason why I think they should be there is for some people who might simply want chronological referencing; that is, the military diehards who want to know what battles happened in say the Nine Years War rather than just read that the Nine Years War ended in a stalemate. In that context, the lists are a place of convenience; here's the war, and here are some of the prominent battles. One good reason why they should probably not be there is for lack of importance, as you mentioned. To be honest, however, at this point I am leaning towards keeping them in there, simply because I think they just provide more resources and outlets for those interested in the topic (same with the lists at the end; they add variety to the coverage). Furthermore, although in the Gallic, Frankish, and Carolingian categories all the battles at the end are mentioned in the description, this is not true at all for the other categories, where most are left out. But we'll see.

Yeah that first image is so annoying. I played around with it night and day trying it to get it ABOVE the History of France box, but notta. However, I am encouraged that the Military history of Canada, which is a FAC, has a picture at the same relative location. So I don't think this is a weakness. Moreover, it's a very evocative painting (that's why I put it up top), and I really don't want to take it away.

Agreed on the introduction; I'm just trying to figure out how to do it. Also agreed on the Franks and Charlemagne; however, when I tried to merge them into one category, a bad gap emerged between two of the paragraphs that I couldn't get rid of. As of now, they're still separate, but I will make the Franks slightly longer.

Questions on coverage are really difficult, and I am really uncertain how much to give to what. For example, you probably noticed I gave a lot to the Revolutionary and the Napoleonic Wars. I tried to be fair and reflect the literature as closely as I could. But I'll think about this some more.

Anything else? I'm really worried about the sources and the quality of the writing; from previous experience with FAC judges, they care a lot about those two things. Once again, thanks for your help.UberCryxic 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The sources should be fine; this is meant to be an overview article, after all, so there's no real need to cite highly specific works (which would be more appropriate to articles about the wars themselves). The writing style seems good as well (although I only read the article once); listing it on FAC should get it the attention of a number of very skilled copyeditors in any case.
  • As far as the lists of battles are concerned, my main quibble was that they were quite incomplete, and thus presented a rather arbitrary selection of links. Whether or not you want to avoid this is something for you to consider; one option would be to use a selection of appropriate campaignboxes instead.
  • Finally, the lead image would be fine in its present position if it were a bit smaller. Alternately, it can be moved above the template easily enough. —Kirill Lokshin 04:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, how do I get the picture above the history box? I've tried a ton of things and in the end it always looks weird. The best that I can do is to get that picture to the right of the box, but I can never get the damn thing (excuse language, but it is frustrating) above. Don't even tell me how to do it, just do it for me please! Haha.....

About the battles, I'll probably wait and see what they say on FAC. I agree that it is arbitrary, but I was also restricted by what battles wikipedia has or doesn't have. For example, in the French Wars of Religion, I also wanted to include Coutras, a very famous battle in 1587 that for some reason no one in wikipedia has chosen to describe.

One more thing, I took your advice and deleted the Fortifications category; that was kind of pointless. It was boring and wouldn't enrich anyone's experience with the subject.UberCryxic 06:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the image Kirill. All-right, I fiddled around with the introduction a little. It's still three paragraphs, but I deleted some sentences and this time the paragraphs are about the same size. Tell me what you think now.

I also deleted some of the "see alsos" and....I've been looking for pictures of modern French troops to replace the Rafale photo in the modern secction, but they're nearly all in news sites, and then I'd have copyright problems. Don't know what to do about that.UberCryxic 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Juppiter[edit]

You have done a lot of work, and this article is impressive. I don't think you should worry at all about the citation/source thing. You have listed plenty of sources at the end of the article, and that should be enough. Don't feel the need to go out and find links to websites with the same information you researched already.

My only problem with the article is the incredibly long introduction. The reader gets bogged down with a bunch of superfluous language before he/she gets to the article's beef. Some of that can definitely be removed. Remember, the user is there for historical facts, of which there are enough in this article that it doesn't need the extra fluff.

Drop me a line on my talk page when you go for FAC and I'll give you a support vote. Juppiter 05:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Juppiter. I'm probably going to wait a few days, iron out some of the details that we've been talking about here, then I'll go for it. The introduction is definitely a problem, and here I need help. I encourage people to go ahead and change the introduction in any way that will make it more fluid and readable; honestly, I need some outside help with it. Whoever wants to make a change, make it, I'll see it, and we'll discuss from there.UberCryxic 06:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well now I re-read the introduction and I changed my mind. I think that information should be retained. Perhaps it could be made into a bulleted list, kind of like a timeline? I definitely liked it better on the second read but I think it'd be easier for the casual reader as a bulleted list. Juppiter 20:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well what I took out was just the part about the geography (ie. the places that French military history encompasses). You think it's that important? Or were you talking about something else? Also, are you talking about the wars being bulleted or the introduction in general? I'm all for you going and making any stylistic changes you see fit so I can get a better idea of how it should look.UberCryxic 21:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed the introduction again. This time I left the last two paragraphs practically unchanged, but I shortened the first and I included what I think you were asking for Juppiter (the geography). I took out the part about why French military history should start with the Gauls since it's probably superfluous. I'm liking this version of the introduction (a bit long, but appropriately long, considering the subject), but tell me what you think.UberCryxic 00:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I like what you did with the intro, it's a smooter read now. Forget what I said about doing a bulleted list, it's fine the way it is. Anyway, I wouldn't feel right editing your article, one time I lost a featured article candidate because somebody changed what I did (for the worse.)

Juppiter 04:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)