Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/2009

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

Contents

Robert Peverell Hichens[edit]

An interesting guy who did not have his own article until today. A pre war motor racer, yachtsman and rower who competed in the Henley Regatta, off shore racing events such as the Fasnet race and the 24 hour race at Le Mans. He joined the Navy during the Second World War becoming the most highly decorated member of the RNVR with two DSO's, three DSC's and three MID, and was recommended for the Victoria Cross after being killed in action in April 1943.

I would like to progress the article but one concern I have is its based very much on his Biography, written by his son. he is mentioned in other books etc which I am attempting to obtain. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Not a bad article at all, Jim. As you say though, it does rely on a source that has potential COI issues (not that I'm saying that it does, it just might be seen as such at a higher level review), so I recommend not pursuing GA or higher until you can add in more "independent" sources. I've done some copy edit work and I have a few other comments:

  • In the References section, the headings should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS;
Done
  • Also in the References section, the title of the Hichens book uses irregular capitalisation for acronyms (Dso, Dsc, Rnvr - these should be DSO, DSC, RNVR). Frequently if one cuts and pastes the details of titles from Google books the capitalisation comes out a bit funky, so that might be what happened here;
Yes copy and paste now changed
  • is E Boat the correct capitalisation? Most references I've seen uses "E boat" or "E-boat". I might be wrong, though;
Our article has E boat so changed
  • there is some overlinking and overmentioning of the awards in the lead;
  • I think the lead should be rewritten with the first sentence focusing on what Hichens is most notable for, i.e. being the most decorated RNVR officer of the war. As it currently reads, he is notable for being a lieutenant commander in the RNVR during the Second World War, which is not his claim to fame.
Reworked
  • ranks should be in lower case unless used as a title, e.g. "Lieutenant Rupert became geographically embarrased on the nav ex", or "Rupert was a lieutenant, who became geographically embarrased on the nav ex"
changed to lower case
  • the alt text could be improved a little, particularly on the image of the subject as it needs to be more discriptive of what the image is portraying, rather than who it is portraying. It is difficult, though, I know and to be honest I am not good at alt text myself;
  • check the years of service in the infobox (you currently have 1936-43), however, in the text it indicates that Hichens was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the TA in 1929 but transferred to the RNVR in 1930, so shouldn't his years of service be 1929-43?
Changed box details
  • citations # 15 and 16 could be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS as they appear the same.
changed thought I had caught all these.

Anyway, these are just some comments to get you started. Good effort so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the copy edit - Alt text is a bummer how do the desc a head and shoulders portrait shot ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Polygon Wood[edit]

I don't know where I'd like to take this article, but I'd appreciate any suggestions. edMarkViolinistDrop me a line 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101[edit]

A few pointers.

  • This battle did not happen in a vacumn and a reader should be able to come to it and broadly understand what is going on without reference to other articles. I am pretty knowledgeable about this period, and even I struggled to properly contextualise it. You have to have some form of background section explaining why this battle was necessary in the context of the Passchendaele campaign and the wider war as a whole, why it was fought at this location and what the attackers ambitions were. At the moment this is patchy and unclear.
  • More on the German side of things. The infobox particularly is pretty bare: don't we even know which units the attack was aimed at?
  • At the moment the battle describes things in broad sweeps: with five divisions attacking together there must have been more detailed battle plans than simply advancing. Likewise there should be more information on specific targets and defensive positions, and on the activity of the various attacking units: presumably some fared better than others?
  • You need a source for the feature of the Plummer battles comment. In any case, this really should be in another section, looking at the historiographical aspects of the battle.
  • No where does it explain what the consequences of the battle were: what effect did it have on the strategic situation within the battle of Passchendaele?

Just a few thoughts on how to expand this article, good luck.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Hi, not a bad start. These are my suggestions:

  • The article uses the term 'Australian Royal Flying Corps', please check this for accuracy. I've never heard it before, usually it is just Australian Flying Corps, I think;
  • endashs are used where you should just use normal hyphens, e.g. stretcher-bearers, not stretcher–bearers.
  • The images are creating a large amount of whitespace in the notes section, could they be re-arranged or put in a gallery?
  • The first paragraph of the Battle section is confusing, "Australian Fifth Divisions' 3rd and 59th Division" sounds like the 3rd and 59th Division was part of the 5th, but that can't be right, surely?
  • Per WP:MOS dates shouldn't be linked.
  • Date ranges should have endashes, and either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes should be used where hyphens are used like parentheses, e.g. in the Aftermath section "all their objectives - woods, blockhouses and trenches - and suffered 1,717", the hyphens in that sentece should be either spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes.
  • The Battle and Aftermath sections need to be expanded to include more detail if possible.
  • The References section should be sorted alphabetically by author's surname.
  • There is some confusion of style in terms of divisional designations, in one instance the article spell's the numerical designation of a unit, and then later uses a number, for instance Fourth Division and 4th Division. Consistancy is the key. I think they should all use the number as that appears to be more common, although I admit that many sources from the time also have a lack of consistancy in this regard.

Anyway, that is it for the moment. Hope these help. Thanks for your contribution and good luck with future development of the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Yes, good start and useful selection of images. Jacky and Rupert have covered a fair bit, but some other things:

  • Following up on Rupert's initial comment, it must be either Australian Flying Corps or Royal Flying Corps but not a mixture (that said, and just to confuse, AFC squadrons carried RFC numbers as well until 1918, e.g. No. 1 Squadron AFC was No. 67 Squadron RFC to the British, but just check your source and hopefully it will be clear).
  • Following up on one of Jacky's comments, can we at least determine the general makeup of German forces, and the number of German casualties, for the infobox?
  • The intro suggests that until Plumer started his 'bite and hold' tactics, the general rule of attack had been major frontal assaults, but the latter assertion isn't really extrapolated and cited in the main body of the article.
  • Before the Great War, Polygon Wood was by the Belgian Army... It was what by the Belgian Army - owned, utilised, etc?
  • Unless the Aftermath and Memorial sections were to be expanded I think I'd combine them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few comments:

  • Dates should be delinked, and preferably presented in the Australian/British format of day month year.
  • Endashes are required in date ranges used in the article and page ranges used in citations.
  • I would recommend mentioning the Victoria Cross recipients of Polygon Wood in the "Aftermath" section.
  • I noticed that you have included Bean's volume of the Australian Official History on Ploygon Wood in this. Just to note, the Australian War Memorial website contains digital copies of the Official Histories online here.
  • Same with photos. The Australian War Memorial Internet Explorer&bos=Win32 online collections include PD photographs relating to Polygon Wood, so there is no point uploading images under fair use when free ones are available. :)
  • Images require alt text.
  • I would recommend you consult some German sources for their perspective on the battle.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh! How I Hate to Get Up in the Morning[edit]

A bit offbeat for MILHIST, but fun. In 1918 Irving Berlin got drafted and wrote this song about a universal sentiment shared by everyone who's ever served in the military. The song became the biggest hit of a fundraising benefit for Camp Upton during World War I and saw a revival during World War II (because in terms of years, if not hours, the message is timeless). Already a featured sound and a GA. Seeking input toward possible FAC. Durova355 19:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo[edit]

Its hard to fault your sourcing, but I'm a rat, so lets go.
Some of your presses are obscure, consider universally adding press locations.
No cites from before 1984? Most citations with links to online editions? Consider trying a library / the extent of your Full Text On Net bias? Are there any sources you haven't used due to age? Any major bios of Irving pre 1984?
Reception: any major newspaper reviews from the time it occurred. Yes, this is effectively asking for primary sources, but we could enjoy newspaper column reviews. For ease of access a number of major US newspapers have long catalogues online now.
Reception over time within US armed forces by servicemen and women?
Non US reception?
Subversive receptions / filking / obscene parodies?
Consider taking to Featured Article Candidates? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Good questions. Have rooted through the city and county libraries as well as the interlibrary loan circuit. Out here the municipal libraries tend to sell old biographies. Might have a few more nuggets to glean from the local UC campus, but archival newspaper reports about 90-year-old theatrical revues in New York City is a bit hard to glean from San Diego. :) There may be more about the WWII shows and possibly information about a late recording. Thank you for the intriguing and tough review. :) Durova357 01:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried The New York Times' archive search? :-) —Ed (talkcontribs) 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ooh! Dig, dig Durova357 04:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This peer review discussion has been closed.


Siege of Jerusalem (637)[edit]

Need suggestions to improve the article. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo[edit]

I'm addressing my comments primarily to Sourcing and Referencing / Citation formats.

WP:MILMOS#SOURCES is your friend. You will want to pick a citation style and stick to it.
  • Centuryone is not an RS
  • Elliott Horowitz ""The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their Avarice": Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614" Jewish Social Studies 4 (2) [no date supplied in online version] is incorrectly cited. Locate the original. It is a High Quality RS (peer reviewed).
  • Hunt footnotes from Gil, Moshe (February 1997). A History of Palestine, 634-1099. Cambridge University Press. pp. 70–71. and use them
  • Antiochus Strategos, [The Capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 AD] "Antiokh Strateg, Playnenie Jerusalima Persami [Manuscript, Georgian]" trans. F.C. CONYBEARE, English Historical Review 25 1910: 502-517. is miscited. Its also a primary source. Anything you take from it should either be used as an illustrative photograph (ie: quoted). Instead you're using it for Original Research, a big no no, "The True Cross was captured and taken to Ctesiphon as a battle-captured holy relic." is not sustainable from a corrupt Georgian MS. Even then you'd need to say, According to Antiokh Strateg's transmitted account... and that would still be OR.
  • Waqidi: Fatuh al sham vol: 1 page. 162, full cite required
  • Isfahani: Vol. 15, pp. 12, 56. full cite required
  • islamicperspectives.com is not RS
  • The Norman Golb interview is not RS
  • "Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies" 's briefing paper is not an RS
  • Edward Gibbon is grossly miscited, and links to a summary website
How to move forward. Find scholarly press histories of the city of Jerusalem. Raid their bibliography for footnotes. Acquire the secondary sources from scholarly presses / journals from the footnotes. Read them, raid their bibliography. Unfortunately the literature on Jerusalem's history is... corrupted... by religious and political people of all kinds publishing in popular presses. Stick to academic presses. Is there an Osprey? Get the Osprey, raid the Osprey. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Laurinavicius[edit]

Well, the biggest problem that I see, other than the problems with the references and citations (which Fifelfoo has already pointed out), is that, overall, the article's grammar is quite poor. Simply, there are quite a few grammatical errors. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to give some specific examples, seeing as it's pretty late right now where I live and I'm about to go to bed, but, if you want me too, I'll be able to compile them tomorrow afternoon/evening (for me, that is about 19:30 UTC - 1:00). However, a good ol' copyedit should correct all of these problems, which I'll get to work on doing tomorrow. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

Did Al Aqsa and the Sepulchre look roughly like that in the old days, or have lots of extra bits been added. If the latter, an old painting is probably a more accurate representation YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch[edit]

I'm taking a slightly different approach to this article than Fifelfoo did. First, while the previous capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 is relevant, you get too involved in the details of that capture (many of which are still disputed by experts) to remember to explain why it is relevant: the holiest city in Christiandom had been captured by a (gasp!) non-Christian. Although Heraclitus had recovered the city within a few years, to lose it again might cause another blow to Christian morale. That would explain why (1) Umar selected it as a target over Caesarea, & (2) its garrison held out for so long.

I see no problem referring to primary sources where the content is not controversial, it is a vital source for the historical event, or it is well-written. But in this case, there is really no point in using it to state that the True Cross was taken as loot to Ctesiphon -- especially since you fail to mention it again. (Was it back in Jerusalem when the Muslim army started their siege?) This is only one of many details of the earlier capture which are controversial -- & really unnecessary here.

On the other hand, you have very little about what happened during the siege. Was it a close siege -- or a loose one, which allowed the inhabitants to resupply themselves? Were they prepared? What condition were the walls of the city in? And did the Muslims have the ability to take Jerusalem by assault? Maybe they had the technology, but decided not to do so because an assault would have been more costly than a siege. These are all questions which need answers -- or at least an explanation that no one knows the answer.

Lastly, there is the passage about Sophronius inviting the Caliph to pray in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There are some questions here which this article should not attempt to answer (e.g. did Sophronius actually think Umar was a Christian, even if a heretical one?), but if you are going to use Edward Gibbon here you should quote him -- or find another source to cite. (Sophronius mentions this incident, & cites a perfectly RS for it -- Runciman's A History of the Crusades, vol. 1.)

Hope this helps. -- llywrch (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

    • User:Llywrch your advices are really constructive and many thanks for them i will shortly work on them. also user Fifelfoo and user Laurinaviciusput forward some really interesting issues i will work on them too. as for the question of user yellowmonkey, so yes thats a nice question indeed probably the images on article need a bit details to clarify the past and present status of the building.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

      • I have made some changes to the article as advised in the review, please check it again for further suggestions if any.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiger II[edit]

Now, after improving the article to B and GA, I'd like to progress it further; to A and perhaps even FA. I'd like some advice from more experienced editors on how to achieve this. Hohum (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few minor MoS points, though the article looks pretty good.

  • The lead is meant to be a summary of the contents of the article, so does not require cites.
I'm confused, that entry specifically says "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate..." Hohum (talk)
WP:LEADCITE states that, basically, if everything in the lead is covered and cited in the body (as it should be), than cites in the lead are redundant unless it is a quote or rather contentious point. Also, cites in the lead are generally discourage by most editors. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've dealt with these in various ways. some changed to more appropriate en dashes, rewording, semicolons, etc. Hohum (talk)
  • Internet-based cites require access dates.
Done. Hohum (talk)
  • Words should be in full form and not contractions. For example, "did not" instead of "don't".
Done. Hohum (talk)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine[edit]

  • A solid effort overall, but the intro needs tweaking as per above comments. Also, I question the following under the section on Reliability and mobility it states: Also, notwithstanding its reliability problems, the Tiger II was remarkably agile for such a heavy vehicle. Contemporary German records indicate that its mobility was as good or better than most German or Allied tanks. This was true for its on road performance, however its performance cross country left a lot to be desired. Over difficult terrain it often slowed to a crawl and its engines overheated under the strain. This is where the majority of its mechanical failures took place. As a result it was frequently used in a defensive role as a moving pill box, instead of the Sturmpanzer it was intended to be.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Doyle and Jentz specifically take the line given, so I am giving a single sentence reflecting it. The rest of the article has many examples of the reliability problems, so I think the overall balance is correct. Is that OK? Hohum (talk)
That's ok by me...however I am a bit of a gearhead when it comes to tanks. The general reader might get lost in a sea of technical details. Without a clear explanation they will see only a big, evil looking panzer which they will assume must have been world beating, when this was not the case.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This is a very solid article. While I know little about tanks, it appears comprehensive and well cited and is well illustrated. My suggestions for further improvements are:

  • The lead should cover the tank's combat performance given that this is part of the article
  • The rationale for dividing material between the 'Development' and 'design' sections seems unclear. Also, one of these sections should state whether or not this tank was developed from the Tiger I or was a new design. An explanation of why Germany thought the tank was worth developing and its intended role would also be useful.
I've used "Development" to contain the initial, competing projects - while "Design" is what actually got produced. I'm open to suggestions for better section names. Hohum (talk)
  • Do we know why 1,500 tanks were ordered or their unit cost?
  • The 'Operational history' section is focused almost entirely on tank vs tank battles. How did the Tiger II fare against aircraft and infantry?
  • A discussion of the relative cost and benefits of the Tiger II would be useful; Germany's high-tech weapons are often criticised for using resources that could have been used to produce larger numbers of other weapons (eg, would the resources used to develop, build and field the Tiger II have been better used on Panthers, etc?)
I'd prefer just to cite expense (money, man hours, resources) rather than get in to the argument on how it could be better spent - that seems beyond the scope of the article, and is also a sure way to attract a lot of contentious edits. Hohum (talk)
  • Some material in the 'Surviving vehicles' section needs to be cited. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, useful insights, I will work on each of these. Hohum (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966[edit]

  • The German abbreviation Ausf. stands for Ausführung (English: variant) and should be explained.
Rather than clutter the lead with explanations, I have added a note. Hohum (talk)
  • Something is wrong with the table below "Armor layout: (all angles from horizontal)". The line above the table is cut in half. I can only see see the upper half of that line.
It looks fine to me in FF3.5 and IE8. What browser are you using? Hohum (talk)
Edit. Ok, I see the problem, I think it is now fixed.Hohum (talk)
  • You write: Units which used the Tiger II were as follows.
Heer: (S.H.Pz.Abt) 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511
SS: (s.SS Pz.Abt) 501, 502, 503
Somewhere else you write "Turret number 121 from SS s.PzAbt. 101", shouldn't the PzAbt. 101 be listed too?
SS s.PzAbt. 101 was renamed SS s.PzAbt. 501 when it got the Tiger II. I'll adjust this for consistency. Hohum (talk)
  • S.H.Pz.Abt I think that this should be s.H.Pz.Abt
I have made the abbreviations consistent now. Hohum (talk)
  • Pzgr/PzGr stands for Panzergranate and SpGr for Sprenggranate, maybe worth expanding.

Dhatfield[edit]

  • The article is well done, technically comprehensive and well cited, but it lacks flavour or interest, partly because it is so safe. For example "The design followed the same concept as the Tiger I, but was intended to be even more formidable." It was more formidable. It would also help to be explicit about what that (flawed) design concept was: a heavy tank capable of achieving total battlefield supremacy.
  • R.D.H. notes that the general reader may get lost in the details: this is a real problem. To me, a punchy summary is worth a thousand unit designations.
  • Nick-D correctly identifies that German tank production was cripplingly expensive and slow. Consider the mobility-firepower-protection trade-offs made on the Tiger II in trying to achieve a design for a flawed and ultimately discarded concept: the heavy tank.
  • Please mention the vulnerability of these tanks to close air support figher-bombers like the Hawker Typhoon.
  • Consider adding mention of the psychological effect of the Tiger II on allied crews and infantry - not sure if this is documneted, but it certainly was significant.
  • Using a report of an engagement as an example can be an excellent way to highlight the combat strenghts and weaknesses of the weapon while injecting some much needed excitement into the article.
  • Again, brilliant work, but needs to go 'above and beyond' to get to FA. I love this tank (who doesn't love this ridiculously overpowered beast?): best of luck. Dhatfield (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, very helpful. I'm currently gathering additional sources so I can add a bit more flavour - so currently I'm just tinkering rather than making substantive edits - this should change fairly shortly (and since the sources overlap with Tiger I, and heavy tank battalions in general, I'll work on those articles too). Regarding vulnerability to aircraft, I think some recent research has shown it to have been somewhat exaggerated, but I'll need good sources for that too. Breakdowns, immobilisation while withdrawing (making them unrecoverable), and running out of fuel seems to have been the overwhelming causes of loss. Hohum (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Walls of Dubrovnik[edit]

New article (B-class) - just interested in opinions of more experienced editors on how the quality and standard of the article can be improved. --Kebeta (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Laurinavicius[edit]

As you and I have already discussed, Kebeta, there are numerous grammatical errors, odd word phrasings, re-directs, capitalization, year links, picture locations, etc. that needed fixing. That's probably the biggest thing, in my opinion, that needs correction. Also, most of the sections and sub-sections are quite small, so these certainly should be either expanded or merged together, though I personally prefer. Another thing is that the measurements and distances given are, generally, in the metric system, and, as such, should be converted into English units (the United States Customary System) for American readers. Lastly, in my opinion, all quotes, statistics, and facts likely to be challenged should be cited. I've noted that in several cases there are stats that are unreferenced, which should be. I'll get to work on improving these point, with particular emphasis on the first one, as soon as possible (which means tomorrow afternoon). But other than these four things, the article is, for the most part, very good. Great work with it! My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you said, we have already discussed. Laurinavicius will help with prose and grammatical errors.
  • Sub-sections which are quite small, should be merged together until somebody can expand them. I expended some small sub-sections. Some small sub-sections about the gates in walls should't be merged, because gates and forts are main parts of the city walls.  Done
  • Measurements are mainly in metric system. Some of them also have English units, those which have not, will be added.  Done
  • Please, tell me which stats are unreferenced, so I can referenced them. --Kebeta (talk) 19:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is the list of information that should be cited but isn't, starting from the beginning of the article and continuing downard:  Done
  • Walls were reinforced by 3 circular and 14 quadrangular towers, five bastions (bulwarks), two angular fortifications and a large St. John Fortress.
  • The city first spread towards the uninhabited eastern part of the islet. That is why the current name for the southeast part of the city, next to the St. John Fortress is called Pustijerna. The name comes from the Latin statement "post terra", which means outside the town. In the 9th and 10th century, the defensive wall enclosed the eastern portion of the city.
  • The present shape of the walls was defined in the 14th century after the city was finally liberated from Venetian rule, but the peak of its construction falls from the beginning of the 15th century till the second half of the 16th century.
  • largest stimulus for continued development and emergency repairs and works of the Dubrovnik fortresses came with the unexpected danger of attack by Turkish military forces, after they took over Constantinople in 1453.
  • The irregular parallelogram, which surrounds Dubrovnik, has four strong fortresses at its most significant points. To the north is the strong circular Minčeta Tower, to the east side of the city port is the Revelin Fortress, and the large and complex of St. John Fortress is located on the southeast side of the city. The western entrance to the city is protected by the strong and nicely shaped Fort Bokar.
  • The main wall on the landside is 4 to 6 meters thick, and at certain locations, the walls reach up to 25 meters in height.
  • The town had four city gates: two that led to the harbor and two (with draw bridges) that led to the mainland.
  • Communication with the outside world on the landside was maintained with the city through two main well-protected city gates, one placed on the western side of the city and the other placed on the eastern side.
  • At the entrance gate to the Old Town, on the western side of the land walls there is a stone bridge within two Gothic arches, designed by Paskoje Miličević (1471).
  • Outer Gate of Ploča is built by Miho Hranjac in 1628, while wooden drawbridge and twin-spanned stone bridge (15th C) by Paskoje Miličević are similar to those at Pile Gate.
  • The main wall on the sea side is 1,5 to 5 meters thick.
  • In the city port area, one of the most significant areas of the maritime trade city, there were two entrances: Gate of Ponte (port) and the Fishmarket Gate. The city port was protected from strong waves and surprise invasion by the Kase jetty.
  • Constructed in 1476, the Gate of Ponte is situated westwards from the Large Arsenal.
  • The Fishmarket Gate, built in 1381, stands eastward from the Great Arsenal. The three arches of the 15th century Small Arsenal, where small boats were repaired, are situated a bit further.
  • As the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was a clear sign to the cautious citizen of Dubrovnik to quickly take ample defensive measures, the first and one of the most important tasks was to strengthen its hey points. The fall of Bosnia, which followed soon in 1463, only hastened the works. The Republic invited a famous architect, Michelozzo di Bartolomeo of Florence.
  • Minčeta Tower is the most prominent point in the defense system toward the land. Tower's name derives from the name of the Menčetić family, who owned the ground the tower was built upon.
  • In the middle of the 15th century, around the earlier quadrilateral fort, Michelozzo built a new round tower adapted to the new technique of warfare and joined it to the new system of low scarp walls. The walls of the new tower were full 6 meters thick and had a series of protected gun ports. The famous architect and sculptor Giorgio da Sebenico from Zadar, continued the work on the Minčeta. He designed and built the high narrow round tower, while the battlements are a later addition. The tower was completed in 1464, and is the symbol of the unconquerable city of Dubrovnik.
  • The Fort Bokar, often called Zvjezdan, is among the most beautiful instances of harmonious and functional fortification architecture. It was built by Michelozzo, while the city walls were reconstructed (from 1461 to 1463). This tower was conceived as the key point in the defense of the Pile Gate, the western fortified entrance of the city. Together with Minčeta this tower is the second key point in the defense of the western land approach to the city.
  • The St. John Fortress, often called Mulo Tower, is a complex monumental building on the southeastern side of the old city port, controlling and protecting its entrance. The first fort was built in mid 14th century, but it was modified on several occasions in the course of the 15th and 16th centuries, which can be seen in the triptych made by the painter Nikola Božidarević in the Dominican monastery.
  • In the period of unmistakable Turkish danger and the fall of Bosnia under Turkish rule, the Revelin Fortress was built to the east of the city in 1462, a detached fortress providing additional protection to the land approach to the eastern Ploče Gate.
  • Danger of Venetian assault suddenly increased in the times of the First Holy League, and it was necessary to strengthen this vulnerable point of the city fortifications. The Senate hired Antonio Ferramolino, an experienced builder of fortresses in the service of the Spanish admiral Doria, a trusted friend of the Republic. In 1538 the Senate approved his drawings of the new, much stronger Revelin.
  • The new Revelin became the strongest city fortress, safeguarding the eastern land approach to the city. It is an irregular quadrilateral, with one of its sides descending towards the sea, and protected by a deep ditch on the other side. One bridge crossing the protective ditch connects it to the Ploče Gate, and another connects it to the eastern suburb. The construction work was executed perfectly so that the devastating earthquake of 1667 did not damage Revelin.
  • The fortress has a quadrilateral court with mighty arches. As the height is uneven, it has 3 terraces with powerful parapets, the broadest looking south towards the sea. Lovrijenac was defended with 10 large cannons, the largest and most famous being “Lizard”. The walls exposed to enemy fire are almost 12 meters thick, but the large wall surface facing the city does not exceed 60 centimeters.
  • According to old scripts it was built in only three months.
  • Despite its small size, the Republic of Dubrovnik was well protected by massive city walls and used Pelješac to build another line of defense.
  • The Fortress is placed at Ponta Oštro, at the very end of Prevlaka peninsula. It was built in the mid 19th century (1856-1862), as a part of the fortification system of Bay of Kotor at the time of Austro-Hungarian Empire.
  • With the weakening of Byzantium, Venice began to see Ragusa as a rival who needed to be brought under her control, but the attempt to conquer the city in 948 failed.
  • Ragusa was forced to pay a tribute and became a source of supplies for Venice, thus saved itself from being sacked like Zadar, in Siege of Zara.
  • Around the year 1800, the Republic had a highly organized network of consulates and consular offices in more than eighty cities and ports around the world. In 1806, the Republic surrendered to forces of the Empire of France to end a months-long siege by the Russian and Montenegrian fleet (during which 3,000 cannonballs fell on the city). The French lifted the siege and saved Ragusa
  • Dubrovnik was besieged and attacked by Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) forces in late 1991, with the major fighting ending in early 1992 and the Croatian counterattack finally lifting the siege and liberating the area in mid-1992.
  • Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments, in conjunction with UNESCO, found that of the 824 buildings in the Old Town, 563 (or 68.33 %) had been hit by projectiles in 1991 and 1992. Nine buildings were completely destroyed by fire. In 1993, the Institute for the Rehabilitation of Dubrovnik and UNESCO estimated the total cost for restoring public and private buildings; religious buildings; streets, squares, and fountains; and ramparts, gates, and bridges at US$9,657,578.
My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the reference should be after every single sentence. I meant that if two sentences are from the same source, that reference should go after second sentence, not after both of them? --Kebeta (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that references should be after every single sentence, but most sentences have some sort of quote, statistic, or fact likely to be challenged, and, as such, needs a citation. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Start fixing things. --Kebeta (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Laurinavicius analisis/opinion.  Done --Kebeta (talk) 22:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

If you are thinking of GA and higher, people will question you about your sources and why some random or amateur websites like Croatia gay is reliable. Also there will be questions about whether you checked serious history textbooks, as information maybe forthcoming from accounts of the use of the walls in battle, rather than just tourism. Books also need page numbers YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of GA class.
  • I agree, some sources are not of best quality. But, most of the good sources which I found are barely touching the subject, enough to verify the truth of article, but not enough to be cited. I just didn't found a book which is about the Walls of Dubrovnik, only books about history. Some books that I found are in Croatian.
  • Walls of Dubrovnik didn't have much of the classical medieval battles, that is why the are almost intact. --Kebeta (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed sources the best I could. I hope it is good enough for GA class. Thanks for advice. --Kebeta (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I can fetch you someone who can translate Croatian(just call me in case of need and list the material). If you want to write about the walls of Dubrovnik you must use Croatian sources. History and archaeology get published in the native languages in Europe and that makes it difficult. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Wandalstouring, but I can translate Croatian to English. Anyway, it passed as a GA class. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

USS Constitution[edit]

  • Previous peer review when the article was sub-B-class is here

Been almost a year since passing to FA. I'm quite confident this article still meets FA requirements. I've maintained the article with updating and adding alt text, reverting silliness etc. Since going FA I have removed two large chunks of information and moved them to the main original six frigate article. I also went through and removed some of the more trivial things that were awkward and difficult to place in prose correctly. Therefore I'm hoping to get feedback on the flow and prose of the article. Is it still understandable to the average reader? Did moving the information leave some things unexplained? I have never been totally thrilled with the prose and flow of the article so copy edits are welcome. It's also hard to believe a year has passed! --Brad (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo[edit]

Cite nitpicks
Full stops at the end of all cites?
No date, volume, edition, pages (other magazine cites in the same boat where you've referenced an online version): Cuticchia, Rosalie A. "Celebrating The History Of The U.S.S. Constitution". Marblehead Magazine.
Citation date consistency: Hendrix, Steve (16 November 2003) but yet Jennings 1966
Add to bibliography, repeatedly cited: DANFS.
Spacing: Jennings 1966, p.70
fn114. DANFS wikilinked for no apparent reason.
fn150: No author supplied, article from the 1970s, expectation of attribution in the 1970s Other news articles lack authors. Consider implementing [Staff Writer] for unnamed newsarticles from the 20th century onwards. Colon breaks your newspaper citation style consistency (see fn98). There are other floating colons in newscites, pick one way, stick. ""Happy 200th party for U. S.". Chicago Tribune: p. C12. 30 December 1976."
fn148 American Forests not ital? Publisher? Magazine? Unclear with your citation style.
fn157 contains location data on a book. Not all books have location data. Standardise one way or the other, or the middle way (no location when location obvious from University Publisher).
Well done in keeping the article's references that well for over a year! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

RNLB Mary Stanford[edit]

I request a peer review of this article, I want to raise awareness of the only lifeboat to be awarded a gold medal (boat as distinct from the crew) being left to rot. I waited until now until I received a just published book. ClemMcGann (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had to go abroad 5Nov - 18Nov and will have limited access to the internet (just internet cafes) and no access to books - therefore I have to put any responses on hold until then - thanks ClemMcGann (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Brad101[edit]

I hadn't noticed you posted for a formal review. What I said on my talk page I'll repeat here just for kicks. The next step would be a good article review if it meets the good article criteria. The lead section should be expanded and make sure there are inline citations on every paragraph in the article. In its current condition the article does need some work to make GA but not a substantial amount of work. --Brad (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Pity I cannot add add this postage stamp image -- ClemMcGann (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

HMS Graph (P715)[edit]

Article for the captured U-boat U-570 (HMS Graph). It's clearly no longer a start class article as most substantial facts about its career have now been covered. But I'm sure it still needs work to smooth out unnoticed mistakes. Catsmeat (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Brad101[edit]

What exactly are your goals for this article? If I were going to rate the article this minute, it wouldn't meet B-class as the lead section is too short. There are also missing citations on several paragraphs. If those two issues are dealt with then it will pass B-class. --Brad (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess my objective is to take it to B, then see how it goes. To be honest, I think there are bits that need expanding if it's to be taken further. In particular, the boat's combat career with the Royal Navy. I came across some forum posting that claimed she was used to patrol the Bay of Biscay as a kind of decoy, to attack U-boats going out on, and returning from, North Atlantic patrols. Though I've found no reference that confirms this.
Regarding references, I've been lax in places and put in one refernce tag for paragraphs that mentions several facts, all orriginating from the same publication and page. I'll look to dealing with that. Catsmeat (talk) 12:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
My motto is never be afraid to go to the library for books if you can find any for this subject. If your local library has online access for newspaper archives then it's a good idea to look there too. --Brad (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

David Underdown[edit]

I've done a bit of copy-editing, mostly removing a couple of stray Americanisms, sorting out dahses (as best I understand them), and moving references to after punctuation as per the normal practice. I've also tweaked a few references to make them link to useful things, and reflect the fact the Public Record Office became The National Archives back in 2003. David Underdown (talk) 10:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966[edit]

  • I suggest to clean up the citations. Currently it looks very messy. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the naming convention for ships? Example: USS Ringgold (DD-500) was transferred to West Germany and later to Greece. Nevertheless the article is named after its first operator. Following this reasoning the article should be named German submarine U-570 and not HMS Graph (P715). MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Here are the naming conventions: WP:NC-SHIPS -MBK004 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The convention sensibly is "An article about a ship that changed name or nationality should be placed at the best-known name, with a redirect from the other name". I'd be fine with changing the article name, except I genuinely can't say which is the better known and/or most commonly used. If there is a convention in the sources I've seen, it is to use her German name when referring to her brief, pre-capture history and the British name for her post-capture history. Can you give specific examples of the citations that need tidied up? Catsmeat (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I really don't care as long as we apply similar naming conventions. You also point to the article HMS Seal (N37) which was captured by the Germans during World War II. Either way I think something needs to change since the stories sound similar only reversed. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Seal had a reasonable RN operational history before being captured, and was never made operational by the Germans. U-570/Graph was captured on her first operational outing, and was brought fully into RN service, so the naming of each seems reasonable enough to me. David Underdown (talk) 11:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Example: citation 28: Blair, page 347 and citation 37: Blair, Clay (1999). Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunted 1942-45. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. p. 68. ISBN 0297840770. Make them consistent. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Those are referrences to different volumes in Blair's two-volume work. My bad - I'll fix it. Catsmeat (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

pber26[edit]

  • Added external link to excellent webpage : U570 at submariners.co.uk, Submariners Association, Barrow in Furness Branch.

That site names two books. Citation : "The famed U-boat has also been the topic of at least two books - HM U-boat by John Drummond and The Golden Horseshoe by Terrence Robertson."

  • Found details about first referenced book "HM U BOAT by John Drummond ; Published by WH Allen in 1958, second printing ; Illustrated". (external link : http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=216510089)
  • Having in my hands the french translation (by Roland Mehl) of that in-8° paperback edition, "U-570 contre Kriegsmarine", John Drummond, 1961, Calman-Lévy, Paris, n°8965, 244 pages (8 to 236).

13:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Triangle Hill[edit]

Previous reviews here and here

After working on this for another period, I just want to see where this article stands right now and is there anything left to do before I attempt another formal review.

Two points that were brought up by the previous reviews are Chinese sources and copyediting, and I want to clarify those two points before repeating the old discussions again.

  • Chinese source: The source I used for the Chinese side of the story is based on the recommendations from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, which is considered high quality source in Chinese academia circle. The only places where I used Chinese sources are about Chinese command decisions, troop deployments, troop strength and casualties, which there are no reliable Western source coverage. Most of the facts (aside from footnote #6) from the Chinese source are verified by equivalent Western sources.
  • Copyediting: I have been trying to enlist people to copyedit this article given my rather poor copyediting skills, but it seems no one is interested in the topic. I would like to use this review to bring in some interested editors on helping me to improve this article.

Anyway, please drop feedbacks here. Jim101 (talk) 04:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Anotherclown[edit]

A few quick points:

  • Dates need to be delinked
  • Use endashes for date ranges
  • The 'See also' tags at the top of the page unduly dominate the lead, IMO. They could probably be reduced somewhat in size.
Remove the one about the Iraq War...not that well known anyway.
  • Some of the paragraphs are very short. For instance just two sentences long, this makes some of the prose a little abrupt.
I have been trying to clean up the text for a while, looks like I'm over doing it.
  • Needs a copy edit for some minor typos etc.
  • The infobox looks cluttered and untidy - maybe it has too much information?
Trimmed.
  • All images have ALT text, there are no dab links, although there may be some issues with a few of the external links (I'm a newbie with the Feature Article tools but check it out at: Wikipedia:Featured article tools and see what you think.
I can access all links, but the tools complained.

Anyway I hope this helps. Anotherclown (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Jim101 (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo[edit]

Citation nitpick:

Full cite in bibliography please, editor of the Rev. Ed. at least and trans.? Korean Institute of Military History (2001). The Korean War. Volume III. University of Nebraska Press.
Interesting point...I never found the author of the book, the copyright page didn't say anything useful.
Try the publisher, Volume 1 seems to have information for all three vols. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the find, fixed. Jim101 (talk) 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Zhou 2000 is extensively cited. Please supply § and ¶ identifiers for the claims. If ordered using a non-Western system, please supply Chinese academic system claim position identifiers (line no?).
I broke down the citations to chapter, section and paragraph format according to the structure of the Chinese source. Although I have to point out that Chinese academic writing system is a mess in comparison to here.
Its beautiful, and verifiable. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Consider adding locations for non academic presses (ie presses with non-obvious locations)
Add all locations except one case (China-Defence.com) where location cannot be found.
Inconsistent formatting of date position within citation "Zhou 2000" but "Korean War. (2009)" Brackets for all or brackets for none
Fixed
Miscite of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Allan R. Millett is the signed author. Citation (a) is obvious, and should be cited from a Survey history instead of a generalist encyclopedia. I'll give you (b) use of Millett only because he's a final career grade milhist specialist. I am very much dog doesn't eat dog about citing EB.
Fixed
Notes 4 and 5 cite Zhou 2000 inline... are you using inline or footnoting?.. I'll let it pass, but remove the brackets. If these are notes acting as footnotes as well, then Zhou shouldn't be bracketted.
Bracket removed
fn31b "the Koreans failed to recapture the hill due to the rainy weather and the lack of air support" I don't think TIME can support this claim of a counterfactual military science assessment
Removed
fn21 Martin is meant to support "the 1st and 3rd US battalions still suffered ninety-six fatalities, with an additional three hundred thirty seven men wounded in the first attack — the heaviest casualties the 31st Infantry Regiment had suffered in a single battle in the course of the war." as a result of oral history? This is so Original Research that it hurts. Even if Martin was part of the command team as an officer, its really quite iffy. The cite sounds like a report / transcript of the interview, not an oral history analysis of the interview by a specialist historian.
Replaced with citation #7.
Dates inconsistent, "Jan/Feb 2009" but "Retrieved February 04, 2009." but "Retrieved 2009-02-05.". Pick one. Stick to it. Even within a single ref "The New York Times. 1997-02-10. Retrieved 5 February 2009."
Fixed
Full stops at the end of cites. Some have it. Some don't. Pick and consistent?
Fixed
Pretty good. Look forward to the FAC. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Jim101 (talk) 06:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Nile[edit]

For anyone who grew up with Spike Milligan's unique perspective on "The boy stood on the burning deck" this article is essential. For everyone else, I apologise for the length - I just didn't know how to fit it all in (in fact I didn't and an article on the overall campaign is in the works). This has been at the back of my mind for a while and I hope to take it at least to GA, although I'm aware that without working in Oliver Warner and Brian Laverty's seminal texts I might have difficulty at FA. The Nile really was one of the most astonishing achievements of Nelson's ridiculously over-achieving life. He attacked a marginally stronger French fleet in an ostensibly strong defensive position, with nightfall approaching in an enemy harbour for which he had no charts and with the nearest support more than two thousand miles to the west. Not only did he defeat the French, he annhilated them, destroying or capturing 11 out of 13 battleships and trapping the cream of the French Army on the wrong side of the Mediterranean. The battle is full of examples of just how tough these guys were: the French admiral refused to leave his post even after a cannonball chopped him in half, while one of his captains responded to losing both legs and an arm by having his men prop him up in a bucket of grain so he could continue to command his ship. Any comments welcome, particularly on prose and images, and thankyou to those that get through the whole thing!--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few quick, general, comments:

  • Referencing and presentation appear to be of a high order, and alt text is present.
  • The presentation of the date in the infobox is that of a US date format, while the rest of the article is in the British format.
  • There is inconsistency in the presentation of access dates in the citations.

I think that is all I could spot on a quick run through. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Solved both issues, thanks very much for the comments--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ranger Steve[edit]

I think it's brilliant Jackyd, a fantastic expansion and brilliant detail. I've made minor change to clarify the Nile Clumps, it's not clear exactly who planted them or when, but it's believed they were planted by Baron Douglas after Trafalger. The only other thing that struck me as I read through was the Aboukir Bay section; the second para describes the geography, the fleet's disposition and a flaw (in the disposition). The 3rd para opens with a another flaw and then a few more problems, before going onto non disposition problems (food). Any chance of having seperate paragraphs for geography/disposition/flaws, or geography/disposition/disposition flaws/other problems for example? (Hope this makes sense) Ranger Steve (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It does make sense, thankyou. I've gone with roughly geography/disposition/disposition flaws/other problems, which I think makes it clearer.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War II[edit]

This is a huge subject area and there must be lots missing, inaccurate etc but I would like to take this onto A Class so as always any and all comments gratefully received. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87[edit]

  • Well, from an initial look-through, there's work to be done, but it's in a reasonably good condition.
  • The 'Armies' section made my eyes go funny after a few seconds; although they're needed, the descriptions are rather same-y and certainly need to be reworked into a more flowing format.
Subsections now added so hopefully it will prevent more damage to your eyes.
  • The same goes for the 'Commanders' section. In fact, perhaps it might be more beneficial to get rid of thjose two sections and introduce the various commanders and formations as they appear through the article. It would certainly help the article flow better, and make more sense chronilogically.
Section now deleted and commanders added to the text where they enter (in fact apart from Ironsides they were already in)
  • The 'Campaigns 1940' etc titles are technically accurate, but seem a tad bland and might benefit from a rethink - even just the addition of an 'of' might help things out.
I have changed this with Campaigns as the main headings with subsection headings 1940,1941 etc.
I have made this comment on the talk page but might as well bring it up here too, i feel that the wording and the subsections are a tad misleading. To me they give the impression that there was several campaigns fought, each named after their particular year. Is there not another word we can use to replace the word campaign?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I realize this might not be the most helpful of details, so sorry. But all of the campaigns need a lot more detail; to see the entire Battle of France summed up in a small paragraph, for example, is much less than is needed.
Point taken I was trying to avoid writing the Battle of France article again, will revist this.
  • There will also be a need for a great deal of analysis throughout the article, especially in terms of the Army's performance in France in 1940, North Africa and North-West Europe. Your 'bible' for this, so to speak, should be David French's Raising Churchill's Army. It is an exhaustive and rigorous academic text on the Army during the conflict, giving a chronological analysis as well as examining and critiquing weapons, officers and other ranks, battle tactics and so forth. It's a recommended text for all military history courses dealing with the British Army during that period at my old university, and deservedly so. French's other work on the British Army during the period should also be looked at, as should texts by Paddy Griffith. Skinny87 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review - I think there was a copy of Raising Churchill's Army in the Library --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Buckshot06[edit]

  • An accessible timeline in some sort of infobox is key, to link this article with the rest of the British army history articles. Buckshot06(prof) 03:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
There is the History of the British Army and Timeline of the British Army as part of the British Army template. Or do you mean something like this ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Timeline of
the United Kingdom during World War I
1914 | 1915 |1916 | 1917 | 1918
That's almost exactly what I mean. A box with the 'British Army in the 1600s,' 'British Army in the 1700s,' 'British Army in the 1800s,' 'British Army in World War I,' and 'British Army in the Cold War,' articles, or what exists in their place at the moment. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 06:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There must be article I can add to the template then - will have a search later today --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok here my attempt at the time line --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of
the British Army
1700–1799 | 1800–1899 |1900–1999 | 2000–Present


Think you also need to check whether 2 NZ Division was really available for Operation Compass - you list one New Zealand brigade (the 4th, I think) as part of O'Connor's force. No other source I've seen includes the New Zealanders as part of the WDF and I believe they were acclimatising back in Egypt under control of HQ British Troops Egypt. Buckshot06(prof) 07:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Reworded and clarified in theatre but not involvd inCompass --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought as well. I think that the NZ troops and (7th Australian Division) were acclimatising/training and providing garrison forces. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you confirm when 7th Australian arrived I have conflicting dates ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
On the time line, that's not what I meant. There is a British Army during the Napoleonic Wars, British Army during the Victorian Era, and British Army during World War I. Missing are the 1600s and 1700s. The small timeline articles all cover data in the main History of the British Army article and can be safely deleted (I can do it myself if you wish.) Buckshot06(prof) 05:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
History of
the British Army
British Army 1660–1790 | British Army during the Napoleonic Era |British Army during the Eighteenth Century | British Army during World War I | British Army in the Interwar Period | British Army during World War II | British Army during the Cold War | British Army since 1990
This above is what I meant. Buckshot06(prof) 05:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This article is indeed in pretty good shape. It's very comprehensive, well referenced and well written - great work. My suggestions for further development are:

  • The article would benefit from more images. Diagrams of the key organisational structures would be invaluable.
I have asked Noclador to assist with unit line diagrams. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The section on the Army's organisational changes is fascinating, but may be over-long. I'd suggest that you split this (or at least the section on armoured units) into a separate article
Yes see where your coming from here - there also seems to be a bit of an edit war going on between two users so I will wait until that has been resolved. Interestedly their input has the makings of a decent stand alone article on British WWII Armoured Divisions. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It was only really a conflict over wording and not content, which we have both backed down from - but i still disagree with the parentheses within the section.
What are we looking to trim from this section so it is more streamlined? Most of the first two paragraphs and the last one? Although i would argue that the comments from French etc have to remain to provide historial anyalsis within the article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Much more coverage is needed of the recruitment and increasing integration of women into the Army during the war
  • The 'Comparison of equipment' section is a bit simplistic and contains some mistakes. For instance, it's not the case that "German panzer and light divisions were equipped with the Panzer III and Panzer IV, which could out gun all British tanks." - Panzer IIs were a core part of the German armoured force until after the Battle of France and British tanks performed reasonably well in the western desert. The section also ignores the importance of logistics.
Added some text to try and make this clearer. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The Australian 6th Division is missing from the list of forces under O'Connor's command in 1941 (it replaced the 4th Indian Division when that was withdrawn after the start of his offensive)  Done
  • The article struggles a bit with the integrated nature of the Commonwealth force; I don't think that it's correct to refer to the forces sent to Greece and Crete as being 'British' given that Australian and NZ troops made up a high proportion of their strength and actually commanded the combat forces (the Australian I Corps - renamed the ANZAC Corps - was the field command in Greece and Crete was under the command of the NZ Division). I'd suggest that the term 'Commonwealth' be used to describe such mixed forces. Stating that the non-British units in Hong Kong (which made up the majority of the force there) only 'assisted' the two British battalions also seems wrong.  Done
    • I disagree. We should use the terms in use at the time, which were 'British,' while potentially explicitly noting that that may be a bit misleading, and saying why. Let's not create wiki-inventions, but stick to historical usages. Buckshot06(prof) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    To be honest i think this is the wrong approach to take; its not a-historical to note that the force sent to Greece was Commonwealth or Allied etc because to use the term "British" would be historically inaccurate. Writing in the modern era we are not tied to wording of the past and i have seen few historians write in modern works; there are plenty of examples where this idea would be found to be rather offensive.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The coverage of the campaigns of 1944, which were the Army's largest (and arguably most important) of the war seems a bit short compared to the coverage of earlier years.
  • The article doesn't cover the British involvement in Greece in 1944/45, which included a fairly large Army force
  • There's also no coverage of the Army's deployments and campaigns in the months after the war. These included a corps-level amphibious operation in Malaya (which had been scheduled to take place in September anyway had the Japanese not surrendered), fighting in Indonesia and Vietnam, formation of occupation forces for Germany and Japan, etc. Coverage of the Army's demobilisation might also be interesting.
  • More coverage of the Army's manpower problems in the last years of the war might be warranted; this imposed a significant limitation on how combat units could be used and contributed greatly to Britain's declining influence. The associated war weariness of many formations might also be worth noting - the 7th Armoured Division's mixed performance in Normandy is often attributed to it's men feeling that they'd done their part, and the men of the 8th and 14th Armies were pretty sour about being ignored in 1944/45 (some sources argue that this played an important role in the Labour Party's victory in the 1945 general election).
  • It would be interesting if there was coverage of how British doctrine changed over the war. While the article discusses the poor state of the Army in 1939, the massive improvements which had been made by 1945 are never really explicitly covered. The emphasis on cooperation with the other services was particularly important in explaining the Army's greatly improved performance in the later years of the war, but isn't really covered here. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
WOW - Thanks for the review this will give me some work to do --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101[edit]

I'm not certain if these comments have been mentioned above, but I think there are a number of areas that could improve with attention.

  • The armies and army groups would be better on a sub-page and the information summarised, probably under "Organisation".
  • Take care with selection of images. There are a lot available, so only go for those that are good quality and clearly illustrate or highlight a point. At the moment they look like they've been added as an afterthought and get a bit messy.
  • Far more required on casualties - by campaign, prisoners of war, number and treatment of wounded.
    I believe i have the figures for the NW Europe and the Italian campaign however the others i.e. East and North Africa, the Middle East and Asia may be very hard to come by. However i will add in the stuff i have.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Something is needed on support services - logistical, engineering and medical support was absolutely essential during the war but there is nothing specific on any of them that I can see in this article.

Just a few quick thoughts, but these seem like important areas for expansion. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I would like to take this list to FLC in the near future. I would particularly like to know what further information other editors feel should be included in the lead to make the introduction of the subject complete. Other comments on general FLC-type issues would also be appreciated.

Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: As the original author of the article I welcome someone trying to get it up to FLC. I had to work pretty hard to get it to B, (adding in the London Gazette citations took quite while to locate and then link) so I got tired and moved on. Anyway, one suggestion I have is that perhaps an image of the recipients could be added to the table. I've seen this done before with some of the Medal of Honor and Knights/Iron Cross lists. Many of the Gurkha recipient articles have images already, and others could be sourced from the IWM, I think. Just a suggestion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Another suggestion I have is to try to get rid of those red links, as they cut down on visual appeal of the article. I don't know whether its a requirement or not, but if you could create some stubs or find appropriate pipes that made them blue it wouldn't draw the eye off the content so much. — AustralianRupert (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added a comment on the Military history project talk page, directing any interested parties to the peer review, so hopefully some more comments will come soon. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! I didn't realize you were still interested in the article (I checked the history and there hadn't been any edits for quite a while), so I would love any help you are willing to give on this - I'm not trying to steal your thunder or anything :) The photos sound like a good idea, I'll work on adding those, and fixing the red links is also something that needs to be done, although there are only a few of them and they probably won't take away from the FLC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I've taken another look at these two issues, and upon further review I've changed my answers a bit. On the images, none of the other VC featured lists have images, and I think it would be a good idea to keep them consistent. I've tried to find information to create some of the red links, but I honestly haven't been able to find even enough to create stubs. These same red links are present in other FLs, so I don't think they would be a big deal on this nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would recommend that you have a good look at the other Victoria Cross related lists that User:Woody has raised to FL level, and see if you can extract some ideas from them. Also, it might be a good idea to contact Woody and see if he would comment on the article as he is a great source for knowledge and experience on lists in general, but especially on those pertaining to the Victoria Cross. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I've taken a look at some of the VC FLs that Woody has written, and can't seen anything major that this article leaves out, although I'm wondering if it might not be best to combined the lead and the first section. I've dropped a note to Woody, though, asking him to comment here on the issues raised (photos, completeness, article naming), so hopefully he'll stop by! Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Would it not be more appropriate to name this article "List of Brigade of Gurkha recipients of the Victoria Cross", given that several of the recipients are not actually Gurkhas but served with the regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, I see your point. Possibly, but I'd like to see what others have to say on the subject, especially AustralianRupert. Dana boomer (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Not sure about this myself. I can see where you're coming from as the terminology here is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure that even then the term would be correct, as I don't believe that the Brigade of Gurkhas existed until after the Second World War (I might be wrong, not sure on this point). If I'm correct, however, then it would really only be a list of one, as there has been only one post Second World War Gurkha VC. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair point, although the lede section might need to clarify that in this list then, as it currently implies the Brigade of Gurkas has been around since 1815. I do really think the name needs to be better worded though. The link to Gurka tells the reader that a Gurka is someone of Nepalese or Northern Indian descent, and that apparently comes from the International Journal of Human Genetics. A fair portion of the men in this list aren't, and while they have every right to be there, I'd have thought calling the list "Gurka recipients" would be pretty misleading. to about List of Gurkha Regiment recipients of the Victoria Cross? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Or List of Gurka regiments recipients of the Victoria Cross to avoid suggesting a particular regiment? Ranger Steve (talk) 11:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • (outdent) Hmm, I appear to have walked into a minefield in naming this article in the first instance. As a combat engineer, I'm frankly quite embarrased! ;-) Anyway, I will have to do an IMAP on this one and get back to you. (Only sort of joking, as I will have to have a think about this). I do agree with your point about the name as it is confusing, but I'm just not sure of the correct solution just yet. Two up, one back is the template solution, of course, but I'm not sure it applies here...;-) — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Why not just take out all the non Gurkhas, all the others are included in the other lists and the Gurkhas are also included in the Indian Army list. I would also then suggest the list is moved to the nationality area in the template. Also the entrys for Allmand and Pun needs to be changed to 6th Gurkha Rifles they were not names Queen Elizabeths at the time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that Gurkha is actually a nationality is it? Also, to my mind, duplicating recipients in two different nationality lists seems a bigger problem (see this chat). I prefer the armed force categories personally, and I think serving with a Gurkha regiment would make one eligible to be in this list, but the title should reflect the contents. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm, the minefield had more depth than I realised...I'm with Ranger Steve on this one, but of course if concensus is against it I'll go with that. Any list I've seen of "Gurkha" VC recipients has included the British/Indian Army Officers attached to the various Gurkha regiments. I compiled this list based on those in Parker and on the British Army website that listed Gurkha VCs. In this case the term Gurkha is being used not as a nationality but as a branch of service descriptor. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Oh I don't know about a minefield as such, I prefer to think of us as sweeping for leftover mines! Anyway, I guess what concerns me about the title is that it currently uses a racial distinguisher (Gurkha) to describe a 'military unit' defined list. The situation would probably be worse if we used a racial factor to define a nationality defined list! Ranger Steve (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Title: I agree with the majority above, this list should go down the "unit" route so List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients would probably be best. Perhaps a RM should be opened and we can get more opinions?

List: In terms of the actual list, I think it looks very good.

  • To keep it consistent with the others, you don't really need the "Eligibility" header, it can just merge into the lead and then align the Gurkhas image to the left.
  • The image should be probably be changed to the one without the medal bar. No Gurkha has been awarded the VC and bar. (We only recently amended the image so we probably need to do it across a number of articles.  Done
  • I fixed the sorting for you.
  • Other than that, as I said above, it all looks very good and once the title is sorted I would take it to FLC. Best regards, Woody (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments (and thanks to everyone else too!). I would also support a change to "List of Brigade of Gurkhas...", as this seems like the best descriptor for the contents of the list. I will work on the formatting and image changes that have been listed above my multiple editors soon, probably starting tonight. Thanks again. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
List of Brigade of Gurkhas would be my first choice, if it is accurate for the length of time. On that note, this external link from the Brigade of Gurkhas page does make it seem ok, but I bow to anyone with more expert knowledge! Ranger Steve (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Although not married to the idea as per my above comment, I could live with it being moved to List of Brigade of Gurkhas Victoria Cross recipients. I've made a couple of tweaks as per the above comments (i.e. designation of the 6th Gurkhas and the image). — AustralianRupert (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Off the topic of the title, in the prose perhaps just a line separating the first award to a native from the first award to a non native? Just a thought. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Title - It seems that a consensus is developing above to move the list to List of Brigade of Gurkhas recipients of the Victoria Cross". I'm going to wait 24 hours or so to see if any major dissenters pop up, and then move the article. Please let me know if this is something I shouldn't do! Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Are there any other comments that need to be resolved before the article goes to FLC? Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there don't seem to be any further comments, I am going to close this peer review, read through the list one more time, and then nominate for FLC. Thanks everyone for your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Osan[edit]

Looking to promote this GAN upwards. Looking for any and all advice. —Ed!(talk) 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this Peer Review because I believe it is no longer necessary; I am now preparing to submit the article for A-class review instead. —Ed!(talk) 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Convoy PQ 17[edit]

I have made a major rewrite of this article, and I wanted some tips from the community as to how the overall quality and standard of the article can be improved.

Thanks for your help,

reuv T 15:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87[edit]

You know, a lot of the articles that come to PR are in quite a rough state, but this is really good. I can't see much that would stop it going to GA at the very least, maybe even ACR. From the top of my head come a few points:

  • The excerpts of messages from the Admiralty to the convoy are nice, but the box they're in is squashing up the text and makes it look odd; moving it to the bottom of the page might be better, as there's also a sentence sticking out kinda randomly.
  • Can you expand on the post-war criticism that came from American writers and the Soviet government? It would be interesting to hear what they were, if you know.
  • The 'Definite Axis Victory' sounds a bit odd, like you're defending the conclusion. Just 'Axis Victory' would be sufficient, I think.
  • Picture of the Wainright needs to be pulled up to the top of its section, as it's cutting into the next one.
  • Slight concern over the sources; quite a heavy reliance on Churchill in places, and he could be a tad biased and cut information down at times. Are there any more recent books on the convoy? Skinny87 (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The message excerpts were edited. I removed the small-caps template to admiralty signal box; I guess that was really contributing to the squashiness. I also removed the 'Definite' from the battlebox result, as you rightly pointed out, there is no need to defend the result. I edited the criticism parts, changing it from Soviet government and American writers into 'Soviet and American sources'. I also added a number of sentences on this criticism. The image of the Wainright was moved to the top of section. As to the sources, I admit that I relied on Churchill - but only because he in turn had access to primary sources. For example, when adding the criticism parts I could have referenced them to the pages in Churchill's book that quoted the Soviet telegrams to him as Prime-Minister. With reference to your misgivings, I chose to quote three other books instead. I must really admit that I did rely on Churchill mostly for official quotes and Admiralty strategy - but only because primary sources on this subject are confused. E.g. Half of the books insist the convoy was directed to Murmansk, when Churchill states explicitly that Murmansk was completely bombed in that week. The same applies to the despicable effect of David Irving - his published research has literally polluted this topic with a flood of unverifiable statements. Thanks a lot for your help, I really appreciate it. reuv T 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Everything looks great now, except for one thing, sorry :) The criticism you've added doesn't really seem like criticism; the Soviet sentence just seems like a statement of fact, and not a criticism (maybe even tacit support, accepting that it wasn't the Allies fault it didn't turn up) and the American criticism seems like something that should be earlier in the article. Skinny87 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A comment within the Peer-review was left here by User:Trekphiler at 23:31 & 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC). Thanks. reuv T 12:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

I agree with all of Skinny's comments, and particularly the opening comment that the article is in good shape. My suggestions for further improvements are:

  • The contents of the lead paras probably don't need to be cited
  • The word 'enemy' isn't suitable for Wikipedia articles as it isn't neutral
  • I'm not comfortable with the heavy use of Churchill's book - he isn't neutral and the book is now very old and dated, especially for the purposes of this article. I personally don't think that it even counts as a reliable source after reading David Reynolds' excellent and well regarded book In Command of History
  • Have you seen that the relevant volume of the British official history is now online? It would make a great source.
  • The article seems to be mainly written from the Allied point of view - more could be added on the German preparations for battle and experiences during the battle. Clay Blair's Hitler's U-Boat War may be useful for the undersea part of the battle.
  • The 'Convoy is to scatter' section is a bit short given that this was the critical moment of the entire battle. Did intelligence gained from decoding German signals play any role in this decision?
  • I'm surprised that there's no coverage of the Tirpitz group's return to port.
  • The debate over Allied actions in the battle (and particularly whether the order to scatter was justified) could be covered in more detail
  • The article's final sentence ("Some considered it the result of "the fact that in 1942, Anglo-american (ocean) communications were destroyed") seems an overstatement and it's unfortunate that the article ends on such a dubious point. Even if this was the view of Soviet historians, its not necessarily the view of western historians, and ignores the significant amounts of aid which reached the USSR via ports in Iran and Siberia. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

I agree this article's in good shape prose/presentation-wise, while Skinny and Nick have raised useful points re. content/sourcing. Some other things:

  • To amplify Nick's comment re. the lead, there's no need to cite info there provided it's all cited in the main body of the article.
  • You can afford to increase the size of the images as appropriate to aid in comprehension, particularly the map; settling for the default thumb size is not required.
  • Re. Pound, one (general WWII) source I've seen suggests his decision-making may have been affected by the brain tumour he was suffering from, however I don't know if more specialised references count that as a factor - if so it could be mentioned.
  • Agree the last sentence sort of just hangs there. Another similar one for me is where King "hesitated to conduct further joint operations under British command". Anyone can hesitate, what actual effect did it have on joint operations?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Castle[edit]

After a massive expansion, the intention is to take this article to FAC. There's some feedback on the article's talk page that is being addressed, but the more angles the better. Depending on how serious the comments here are, I intend to nominate at FAC sometime next week, so comment now! Thanks for your time, Nev1 (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just had a quick browse through the article, and it all looks pretty good MoS and presentation-wise. The only thing I noticed was that the dashes used in the prose should be unspaced emdashes. For example: "Keep was not a term used in the medieval period – the term was applied from the 16th century onwards – and donjon was used to refer to great towers" --> "Keep was not a term used in the medieval period—the term was applied from the 16th century onwards—and donjon was used to refer to great towers" Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Per MOS:DASH, spaced endashes are "a stylistic alternative to em dashes". It doesn't really matter which is used, but I think spaced endashes look neater and it's easier to keep it like it is sice it's allowed by MOS. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, that must be a new addition as I do not remember seeing it before. I must admit, I much prefer emdashes in such cases, though it is up to you. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Indian Army during World War I[edit]

This article started as the List of Indian Army Divisions in World War I, after a suggestion by User:Vinay84 it has been expanded to try and include details of where the Indian Army served, their formations etc. Not being well read on the Indian Army I believe I have taken this as far as I can for now and call upon other editors in the project to suggest where it can be improved via a peer review. As ever any and all suggestions are welcome! Thanks in advance. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Good work so far. Looking pretty good, I think. I've not had a thorough look, but here are a few observations:

  • Is there a more World War I specific banner that could be used? (The flag in this one wouldn't be correct for the time, I think); If you mean the one top right it comes with the Indian Army template I agree it would not be the one used at the time but the article comes under Indian Army history.
  • Could a background section be added, that discusses very briefly India's involvement in the war (how, when, where, why etc)?
  • In the References section, some of the book headings are not capitalised correctly/consistently. Done
  • The images could have alt text added to them per WP:ALT

Anyway, that is it so far. Hope this helps, and hopefully some others with more specific knowledge of the subject will also add their opinions. Sorry for the drive-by nature of the review, but I'm a bit busy in real life at the moment. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Farawayman[edit]

Some comments which could be of value:

Lead[edit]

Text reads "....He instituted the large–scale reforms, including merging the three armies of the Presidencies into a unified force and forming higher level formations, ten army divisions." The section titled Kitchener’s Reform make reference to nine Divisions.

Yes nine in Indian and the Burma Division its in the section --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Kitchener's reforms[edit]

I made some text modifications – refer article history. No change to facts.

Organisation[edit]
  • I made some text modifications – refer article history. No change to facts.
  • 2nd paragraph opens with a reference to Divisions but the sentence continues to discuss Brigades. Maybe some text adjustment is needed here.
Brigades were a part of the divisions
  • Last paragraph: 62,000 died. Later you state a total of 74,187 were to die in WWI. Why not stick to the 74,187 throughout – same applies in the Lead?
62,000 died overseas but 74,187 died in total during the war - does this need to be clearer ?
Home Service[edit]
  • I made some text modifications – refer article history. No change to facts.
  • You explain the source of conflict on the NW Frontier, but there is no indication of what caused the need for punitive military actions against the Kachins on the NE Frontier. One sentence on that subject will suffice.
Independent Brigades[edit]
  • In the section titled Kitchener’s Reforms you say that "…and these nine divisions together with three independent infantry brigades would serve in India. The Indian Army was also responsible for supplying a division in Burma and a brigade in Aden." i.e. there were FOUR independent brigades. In the Independent Brigades section the text says that the independent brigades were: (1.) Aden Brigade (2) Bannu Brigade (3) Derajat Brigade (4) Kohat Brigade (5) South Persia Brigade. I think the issue is timing – that there were 4 Ind Bde’s in 1914 and 5 in 1915. Maybe adjust the Kitchener’s Reforms text on this subject.
There were 3 brigades in India - Aden and Persia are different countries so did not serve in India.
  • I made some text modifications – refer article history. No change to facts.
Indian Expeditionary Force A[edit]

Although this article is about the Army over the full duration of the war, the Indian Cavalry have become renowned for their mounted charge in the attack on High Wood in July 1916. Possibly this could be listed.

Indian Expeditionary Force B and C[edit]

Text changes made, refer article history. No facts changed.

Indian Expeditionary Force D[edit]
  • The text reads that the Mesopotamian Campaign was delivered a setback at the Battle of Ctesiphon in November 1915 due to Logistical constraints. Maybe add some more details as to what these "logistical constraints" were and how they bedevilled the campaign.
  • End of 1st para: Siege of Kut – state who was besieging Townshend and the Indian forces - Turks.
  • The Turks had declared a Jihad against the invading infidel and this had a marked impact on many Indian soldiers, many of them being Muslim. This was another reason for low morale and in fact many desertions took place because of religious opposition to fighting fellow Muslims. Possibly some reference to this could be added.
Indian Expeditionary Force E and F[edit]

Compared to the solid descriptions for the composition and actions of the other task forces, these possibly need some re-work. Add what the Task Force was tasked to do, and what the results were.

Indian Expeditionary Force G to end[edit]
  • I made text changes, refer history. No factual changes.
  • Siege of Tsingtao: The article states that: (i.) the port was contolled by Germans; (ii.) The British sent a contingent of 1,500 men to the port; (iii.) The Japanese laid siege to the port. A bit confusing, perhaps the paragraph is too brief and needs more details clarifying what each force did.
  • I did not review the VC section, as I have limited knowlege on those matters.
Concluding Remarks[edit]
  • This is a huge subject, and you have done exceptionally well in limited space!
  • Many of the sections are taken up describing the composition of the formations involved, this could be circumvented by adding an Order of Battle and leaving the sections to discuss events and the progress of the war, rather than the unit structures;
  • For FA or A-Class I would recommend the addition of sections on (i.) Why India joined the war? (ii.) Indian General Staff / Commanders, (iii.) Integration (or the failure of integration) between Indian and British forces; (iv) Section on some of the notable units: Ghurkhas, Punjabis, Sikhs etc.
  • I have tried to limit this review to factual content, and paid no attention to style etc.

Well Done! Farawayman (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a template at the bottom of the article that list the oob as such for each expeditionary force.

Thanks for the review have been busy with the Indian Army during World War II so missed this for a few days. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pearl Corkhill[edit]

Just classed at B following expansion, was hoping for some tips on how to get to GA level. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Looks pretty good so far. Just a few general comments for the moment, though:

  • I would wikilink National Library of Australia in the lead.
  • Endashes are required in all date ranges in the article, and page ranges in citations.
  • The access dates in citations are inconsistent, with some capitalised and others not. I think this is due to differing cite templates. In order to remedy this, I would recommend the use of Template:Cite web for internet sources (stick with the London Gazette temp for that though), and Template:Cite book for book sources listed in "References" section. Also, it is best that the place of publishment be added to the book sources.
  • If you are aiming to progress further up the quality scale with the article, then I would recommend you add alt text to the images.
  • Although I don't think it is a requirement, it is preferred that consecutive cites go in numerical order. For instance: "She was discharged on 22 June 1919.[3][2]". In this case, it is preferred that the [2] goes before the [3].

This is all for the moment, but hopefully I will be back soon to go through the prose. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai[edit]

Good start, but there are some problems.

  • Early life and Later life sections and Later service subsection need to be either expanded or merged, especially the former. Short sections, especially the Early life, won't be able to stand on their own for higher quality articles.
    • Personally as the article stands you could do this is just 2 sections - Military life with a subsection on her award and non-military life. There is not enough info for either early or late life to stand on their own.
      • I disagree. Although there is only a limited amount of information in two of the sections, the article flows logically and has a sophisticated structure. If these were to be cut out, I believe the structure would be rather confusing and poorly presented. Just my thoughts, and it is up to Backslash Forwardslash. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm sure trying to scrape everything I can on the early life and later life sections, as without it the article would be incoherent. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I think s/he means the actual subheadings, rather than the information itself. ;-) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Indeed. Don't remove the info. However it should be structured better.Jinnai 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Are any of the other 6 women known? They should be linked to or put in a footnote after the note about them if you have the information.
  • add {{persondata}} to the article
  • The article needs to conform with WP:DATE. Stuff like 1st of September should be redone to formatting for the rest of the article.Jinnai 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I couldn't find any "st of" in the article. Where did you see it? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I found two, but one was a quote. Fixed the other, though. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Looks like it was fixed.Jinnai 03:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Good to see such an article - well done. In addition to points raised above, my thoughts:

  • The first thing needed for any future assessment was a copyedit to fix typos, improve phrasing and add some clarity, which I've had a go at.
  • I find the level of detail a bit light for GA myself; although that assessment is designed for shorter articles, I myself wouldn't submit one of mine for GAR without a bit more meat on it. If you can't find any more sources, you could still exploit her ADB entry for further detail (e.g. early life, which would help negate Jinnai's concerns re. having a separate section for that) and perhaps some others.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

102nd Intelligence Wing[edit]

After a rather quick FAR that failed, I figured that this would be the good way to go. Any suggestions that could help improve this to FA-class would be marvelous. Thank you in advance for any help that you may bring! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It was a FAC that failed. (Could someone post the link? Wikipedia is slow for me today, and I'm headed out to the Fort Bragg museums). I didn't look closely, but most of the concerns raised there seemed valid to me. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Buckshot06[edit]

The link is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/102nd_Intelligence_Wing/archive1. Kevin, as I said last time, you've got a whole long list of recommended changes in the several reviews this article has had. Have you carefully incorporated all the changes that were suggested? If so, this should be a relatively easy process; if not, you need to consider withdrawing this review, making the changes, and then resubmitting. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I actually did with the exception of a few, and I noted why I didn't at that time. Unless I am missing something pretty blatent, I have done all that I can think of but apparently others are finding stuff as we speak so I want to be more careful before submitting it again. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, I've just reexamined the lead paragraph, and found a repeating sentence about starting operations at Logan AP. I fear that a number of such other errors may reoccur in the text. Tell me, have you ever printed out the text section only, taken it away from the computer, sat down, and read it throughly? Right now I fear that we'll all say just go back to the last review, if I've found three major copyedit errors in the first five paragraphs. I'm sorry to be this blunt, but I believe that such a print-out-and-read approach might help you to be able to improve your own writing. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
No, but I will try at some point in the next day or so. The only problem with that idea I fear is that I am so ultra familiar with the text that I won't notice anything wrong with it. I am much better at being an outside reviewer on other pages as it doesn't have me literally all over it. I know that my writing isn't the greatest, but I really want others to look it over for me because I fear that otherwise I will not catch things since I am used to myself. Also, please don't fear being blunt as I would rather have that over lies or sugarcoating of the truth. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean to a certain extent. Also, I thought I fixed the text issues in the emblem section but apparently that edit didn't save and I didn't notice until now. I'll tackle these issues later on today then. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
MAke sure you print out and read the entire text, would be my advice. Ignore the pics, tables, refs etc, concentrate on the text. Make some changes in longhand - stay away from the computer - and fiddle with it until it reads well. You can upload a draft of the text-only to any user draft page later and I'll take a look if you like. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get to it in the next few days. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
So I just finished tweaking and redoing some things. I now see why you wanted me to go through it because there were a lot of mistakes. It should be good now, but it just needs a copyedit from someone else because I will only re-write it into my own way of writing, which is incidentally what is there right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Dank[edit]

Normally, I just do copyediting, but it's not ready for copyediting yet, the problems (at least at the A-class level) go deeper. The bibliography has just two books, and I'm not sure, but judging from their names and the way you used them, they seem like primary sources to me. The other references are online, and of varying quality. My overall impression is: you've done good work, but this isn't really what we're looking for at A-class (despite the fact that it's passed A-class ... so I could be wrong). We'd like to see a variety of authoritative, secondary sources supporting the article. Also, the tone of 102nd Intelligence Wing#Emblem is rather POV-ish (the quoted material includes "excellence required of Air Force personnel" and "the unit has consistently excelled"), and we don't generally use large block quotes unless the reader needs to get special insight into the quoted material. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I might be able to use my offical EFOIA information, but that would require digging for information in my house. Those two books, as I have said on other reviews, are holdovers from the creation of the page (in fact they are probably the only thing that hasn't changed in terms of text). Virtually every Air National Guard wing page probably has them listed somewhere. If you want, I can re-write that emblem section and I am actually more than willing to do such a thing. Is there anything else that you want me to do? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Re-writing the emblem section and finding respected secondary sources is all I'm looking for, but other reviewers will probably have more specific requests. I'm mainly a copyeditor. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I can do that sometime in the next day or so. I also added a bunch of books which are viewable on Google Books in the bibliography so you are more than welcome to comment on those. Thanks again for everything! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I just re-wrote the emblem section. If you could review that and tell me what you think, that would be rather swell. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
102nd_Intelligence_Wing#Description describes exactly what we see in the image. I don't personally deal with alt text, but alt text is for describing images for people who are listening to a screen reader or recording of the page. Someone who can see the image doesn't need to be told what's in it. Just mention the parts that you need to mention in the symbolism section. - Dank (push to talk) 12:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, all fixed! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Okay, we don't seem to be getting a lot of reviewers dropping by our peer review these days, and I don't think the process is very helpful unless you get different reviewers handling different issues. I think I'll stop participating here and stick to A-class and FAC. I'm not sure where you go from here, because I'd still like to see this article getting some reviews before we try FAC again; I'll ask over at WT:MOS whether a review of the A-class status is the way to go. - Dank (push to talk) 15:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops ... I meant WT:MHC not MOS, and I dropped the ball on this one, I'll go ask now. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Kevin, unless you've used the books that you've found in the article, do not place them in a bibliography. Split the setup into references and all the ones you haven't used go into Further Reading. This is the way the MOS dictates. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just put them there so a user could look over them. I think they all can be used since they all have facts that back up something but I'll get around to that soon. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

I have the following observations/suggestions for improvement. Please note, I did not read the whole article word for word, I just had a general look (it is quite late here now):

  • the first paragraph in the History/Origins section needs a citation;
  • in the Cold War section, this sentence needs a citation: "The 67th Wing was assigned to Air Defense Command";
  • in the Cold War section, there is a contraction: "Although the Massachusetts Air National Guard wasn't federalized for the Korean War". I suggest changing to "was not" - sounds more formal;
  • in the Berlin Wall Crisis, this sentence needs a citation: "Starting on December 5, 1961 the 102nd began deploying to Wheelus Air Base, Libya for gunnery training";
  • in the Berlin Wall Crisis, the third paragraph is uncited and should have a citation at least placed at the end of the paragraph;
  • in the Local defense subsection, the caption of the image is incorrectly punctuated. "F-15's From Otis" should be "F-15s from Otis" (no apostrophe and lower case);
  • in the Local defense subsection, this is not grammatically correct "at a distance of 10-mile (16 km)", nor is "the distance decreased to 5-mile (8.0 km)". It should be "at a distance of 10 miles (16 kms)" and "the distance decreased to 5 miles (8.0 kms)";
  • in the 9/11 terrorist attacks subsection, "Knowing that they couldn't await" - I suggest expanding the contraction;
  • in the 9/11 terrorist attacks subsection, this needs a citation: "Unsure of their target, they were directed to a holding pattern in military-controlled airspace Whiskey 105 off of Long Island to avoid New York area air traffic. At 9:03 am, United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower as the fighters were progressing to their holding position. The Northeast Air Defense Sector was not advised of this hijacked aircraft until 9:03";
  • as I stated in the last ACR, I believe that the level of detail in the 9/11 terrorist attacks subsection is too great and possibly consistutes undue weight;
  • in the BRAC 2005 and New mission subsections there are a couple of very small paragraphs which could probably be merged together to form larger paragraphs;
  • paired commas are required in a couple of places. For instance: "April 6, 2008 and was planned" (there should be a comma after "2008");
  • in the Bibliography section, the titles should be capitalised per WP:MOSCAPS#Composition titles. For instance, "US Air Force designations since 1978" should be "US Air Force Designations Since 1978";
  • the Bibliography probably should be sorted alphabetically by the authors' surnames;
  • per recent advice from the FAC process, the portal box/links should be placed at the top of the Notes section, not in the External links section. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll get on this next week. Thanks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Dunnichen[edit]

This article has been nominated for GA, but it looks like it will take a while for this to be initiated. I'd like to ensure it's of the best possible quality by that time. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Apologies for the delay in review, but I have a few general pointers:

  • Dates should be delinked.
  • As this is a British article, I would recommend the date format to be that of the British variant as opposed to the United States variant that is in place.
  • Endashes are required between date ranges used in the article, and page ranges used in citations rather than general dashes.
  • Images require alt text.
  • Why is "Battle" capitalised in the "Account of the Battle" section heading?
  • I think some further information and description is required on the battle, if possible.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Hi, just a quick one I'm afraid as I've not got much time:

  • Citations: not all paragraphs are covered by an inline citation. The general rule for B class in the project is (I believe) that each paragraph should be covered by one in line citation as a bare minimum. The Account of the Battle section needs a few more citations in this regard. The second paragraph in the Aftermath section also needs a citation;
  • Length: I think that as the article's title is the Battle of Dunnichen, you need to expand the Account of the Battle section as currently it is smaller than the Background and Location sections;
  • As per Bryce's comment, the capitalisation of Account of the Battle section is not correct, it should be "Account of the battle" per WP:MOSHEAD
  • The use of three quote boxes in a row impacts upon the look of the article in my opinion (although it is only a personal thing). Is there a way that you could incorporate the quotes into the text rather than using those boxes?

Anyway, hope this helps. Good luck with the GAR. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Battle off Texel[edit]

I am putting this article up for peer review because it has failed an A-class review and would like to know people's thoughts on what further revisions must be done so that it meets A-class standards.XavierGreen (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirk[edit]

  • I'd like to see a few more references in an A-class article and there's quite a few statements missing a reference, for example, the first sentence in the Battle section.
I added an additional source, replaced another with a better one, and added a few more citations from some other sources already used.XavierGreen (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The prose only has 7 paragraphs - seems too short to me. For example, I would recommend expanding the Battle section to have subsections/paragraphs for meeting the enemy, the flight of the german forces, the split of the british into two groups, and the endgame (sinking, rescue).
  • It would be nice if the text matched the lettering in the diagram, and its not a very good diagram because its hand written and not to scale - I bet you could find a better one somewhere.(I'll look too).
  • The significance of this action is the early victory for the British and the annihilation of the Germany naval force. There probably was some kind of minor public relations push to highlight this victory, which you allude to in the text as a 'morale boost' but doesn't have its own section. Also, as you mentioned the German Navy decided their large numbers of torpedo boats weren't going to be very useful and changed their strategy, but there's probably more to this than one sentence. You could infer this was a influence on their use of submarines instead of torpedo boats, for example.
There was a lot of news paper articles about the battle, and a rediculously fictionalized and nationalistic account of the battle was included in a dime novel from 1915. Ive included it in the text. After Texel the german high command wanted nothing to do with the Flanders coast. They refused to send submarines or torpedo boats there for fear of another Texel, and the local commander had to lobby months before anything was sent at all, and even then the Flanders Flottilla had to produce their own torpedo boats until they were found to be practically worthless in combat when the German Navy finally decided to send some large ones as reinforcements.XavierGreen (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Kirk (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crimp[edit]

I am nominating this article for peer review as I'm abit concerned that it may have an undue weight issue and be a bit too Australian focussed. I welcome any suggestions and of course any assistance with editing the article. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

Firstly, Cu chi has diacritics and the other stuff don't. There has to be consistency there YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries, can do. I'm no expert on the lingo though - can you please provide a list of which words need it and how they should be written and I'll make the required changes? Or do you recommend getting rid of the diacritics altogether? Thanks again. Anotherclown (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well it's your choice, but I think it's easier without, especially as for me, I don't have a Vietnamese keyboard and have to got to Vietnamese Wikipedia or other articles to cut and paste the character+diacritic. The vast majority of words have diacrticis YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Understood - yeah sounds painful. I will remove them then. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Delville Wood[edit]

I have now completed writing this article - I started working on it after visiting Delville Wood in the summer. Submitted for peer review because I believe that it is no longer a "start class" article. Also, as part of the WWI drive I thought it needed a lot more information, particularly on the German forces involved (as do some other battles ofthe Somme). Farawayman (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Redmarkviolinist[edit]

Looks quite good reading through it. This would make a great A-class article, possibly a Featured Article. Face-wink.svg Thanks

  • The Prose is well written, but if you could break it into a few different paragraphs that would be nice.  Done Where feasable and appropriate.
  • Make sure you capitalize all the words in the titles that need it.  Done
  • Footnotes should go after punctuation marks. Done
  • Watch out for contractions. Done
  • Some of the pictures (mainly the ones in the middle of the article on the left) would be more helpful if they were expanded. Done
  • All your facts are well referenced.Face-wink.svg Thanks

Very well written! Cheers, edMarkViolinistDrop me a line 18:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

More MoS pointers than anything:

  • Dates should be delinked. Done
  • Headings should not begin with "The", and only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalised in headings. Done
  • Endashes are required between date ranges used in the prose, and page ranges used in citations. For example: "14 July - 15 September 1916" --> "14 July – 15 September 1916"  Done
  • Dashes used in the prose should be emdashes. For example: "The Allied objective was no longer to try to break the German Front in a sudden, surprise attack – as the depth of German defences had proven this to be impossible." --> "The Allied objective was no longer to try to break the German Front in a sudden, surprise attack—as the depth of German defences had proven this to be impossible."  Done
  • Images should not be aligned to the left directly under level three headings. For example, the images of the commanders under "The Plan" heading. Done

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done and Face-wink.svg Thanks insertions by Farawayman (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


Anotherclown[edit]

Top effort. Only one (minor) point:

  • the images could have alt text added to them per WP:ALT  DoneFarawayman (talk) 20:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Hi, Farawayman. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort on this. Well done. I have made a couple of edits, only minor and relating to spaces and dashes etc. I only have two points (only very minor):

  • I believe that you are accidentally using the endash incorrectly in some places where you should really be using a normal hyphen. The endash is for page ranges, date ranges and to indicate a relationship between places, values etc. So in the case of Major-General, it should just be a hyphen, not an endash. WP:DASH is the policy link.  Done....where I assumed the need applied to revert to hyphens. Farawayman (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Map 5 is still missing alt text, although all the others have them.  DoneFarawayman (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it. Great effort, by the way. I think that this could be an A class article. I have updated the assessment from Start to B, but it would need to go through the ACR to be rated an A (obviously). Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Winter War[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because I’m hoping to get the article the FA status for 30 November 2009, the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Currently the article has been a GA candidate for two week, but the line seems to move very slowly and the D-Day is closing... Suggestions and bold edits are welcomed! Peltimikko (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • As far as the ALT text goes, blind people can't see teh image, so if you just say that it is a map showing the positions, they can't see what they are. So to be useful, it has to explain the symbols on the diagrams and where/what they are. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I added more descriptions to ALTs. Peltimikko (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Firstly I want to say that this article is looking very good. I have only a few comments:

  • According to the Featured article tools there are a few disambig links that you need to sort through. These are: Civic Guard, Koivisto, Log, Minesweeper, Motti, Rearmament. Please change the link to the more correct one.
 Done Peltimikko (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, the link checker tool (part of the Featured article tools) indicates that there is a dead external link. Can you please investigate? It may need to be removed unfortunately.
 Done Thank you for the tip. Peltimikko (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Finally a few paragraphs probably need an in line citation as they have the appearance of being uncited (although the level of citations throughout the article as a whole is impressive):
    • Last sentence of the Soviet military plan subsection of Soviet advance to the Mannerheim Line;
    • First paragaph in the Coastal artillery subection of Naval warfare section; and
    • Second last paragraph in Franco-British plans for intervention.
 Done Peltimikko (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, that is it so far for my review. I'd take a crack at the GA review myself but I don't do them anymore, as too many people don't appreciate the effort put into them and either (when failed) whinge about being failed, or (when passed) other people complain about me marking too easily. Basically, I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, so end result: retirement from that part of wiki. Anyway, I digress massively...Good work and good luck with your goal. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This is a great article - all the work which has gone into it really shows. The article is very clearly written and well structured and the maps are excellent. I think that it's just about ready for an A class review, but have the following comments you may wish to consider:

  • As Germany invaded Poland on 1 September, the invasion of Finland on 30 November was just short of four months later, not three
September, October, November... I think it is three. Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'First Soviet offensive' sub-section seems a bit out of place in the 'background' section. I'd suggest that it be moved into the next section
Though there is a mention of Soviet assault, the section handles more political attack. I changed the heading "Soviet military and political attack" Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that you need to explain what a 'mottis' is
It is explained once, but I added link to next word of "motti". Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Some material isn't covered by citations
I added some links. Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the see also links are already in the body of the article and, if possible, the rest should be integrated into the text
It is possible. However, some links are "Winter War slang" such Molotov Coctail and Motti. So, this is good place to highlight them. Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Under WP:SEEALSO links already in the article shouldn't be repeated - this will probably come up when the article goes to a FAC Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest un-fixing the size of the photos; there's a lot of them and they made the article look rather cluttered on my 24" monitor Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean removing "250px" ? Peltimikko (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, except for the maps. Nick-D (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Peltimikko (talk) 06:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Tower of St. Olav[edit]

The author of the article (not me) would like to have this article peer reviewed and edited, as he does not feel his competence in English was high enough to produce the article of acceptable quality. Any help with bringing this article up to standards would be greatly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:10, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

The article obviously needs some heavy copyediting to smooth out the language; I'll try to pitch in a bit if I have some free time, but this could just as easily be done by any editor—most of the article can be cleaned up without having any knowledge of the topic.

More generally, I'm wondering if it makes sense to keep this as a separate article from Vyborg Castle. Looking at the Russian articles for both topics, I don't get the sense that there's a lot of material on the castle that doesn't touch upon the tower, and vice versa. I would therefore lean towards merging the two articles; we are better served with one very good article than with two decent ones, I think. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiltshire Regiment[edit]

I would like to get this article peer reviewed. First unit article I have done (well expanded, I did not start it from scratch). Want to see where I need improvements. --HistorianBell 11:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This article is off to a good start. My suggestions for further improvements are:

  • The small sections should probably be combined together so they're at least two or three paras in length
Fixed most of those. Will make another pass through.--HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The article needs more references so that all text is covered by a reference
Getting more cites together to cover. (Why do I return library books?) --HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There seem to be some missing years in the regiment's history (eg, 1849 to 1854). More generally, there seems to be lots of scope to expand upon the Regiment's history.
Fixed that, then realized that I need to put in something about the Boer War (yes, somehow I missed a rather large one there.)--HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Are there any pictures you could include?
Added a few, looking for more. (Damnable copyright laws!-only half joking)--HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There should be some text explaining the 99th Duke of Edinburgh's (Lanarkshire) Regiment of Foot's relationship with this regiment. A 'family tree' type diagram tracing the regiment's lineage would be excellent if you have the data to create one (it's a shame that regiments.org is no longer active). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Added "family tree" for the regiment. Their relationship was all due to Mr. Cardwell. Looking to see fi there is more to it.--HistorianBell 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Just a couple of things at the moment as I'm a bit short of time:

  • The headings should not be capitalised the way the are. "Post-War and Amalgamation" should be "Post-war and amalgamation";
Changed--HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Every paragraph requires an in-line citation for a B class rating, more if multiple sources are used or challengable assertions are made (e.g. quantities, values or dates, etc);
Think I have it all cited. Don't think I have any challengeable assertions going. --HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of the images could be aligned to the left;
Move them about a bit. --HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The battle honours section could be formatted so that it is a bit more visually appealing. At the moment it just looks a bit bland. Maybe some bullet points and bolding could help? Also, you could wikilink the battles;
Linked as many as I could. (British battle honours and wiki articles do not match up as conveniently as they should. Bad War Office, bad!)--HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Alt text could be added to the images per WP:ALT;
Added--HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyway that is it so far. Hopes this helps. Good work so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. --HistorianBell 21:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS[edit]

Previous review

I am asking for a second review of the list. I now consider the article close to ready and thanks to Jim Sweeney the article may soon qualify for A-class and maybe even for FAC. My concern is the footnotes section which is quite lengthy. Please let me know where the article can be improved. I also would like to know how the alt= parameter of the images is to be handled. I assume this is required for every image but I see limited value when every image describes more or less the same thing. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth55[edit]

wouldn't those pictures be more manageable in gallery format after the charts, or, even better, inserted into the chart, such as is done here? Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I second Auntieruth's comment about a gallery after the appropriate table. That will reduce the amount of empty space. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
looks much better. It's still cumbersome, but at least manageable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you translating schwer verwundet=heavily wounded? If so, you have the proper grammar (heavily is constructed correctly, as is wounded), but the wrong adverb. We would say badly wounded (or seriously wounded), and I think (not certain) this is universal throughout the US/Commonwealth/Britain etc. Other various: tödlich verwundet=fatally wounded, gefährlich verletzt = seriously wounded or badly wounded.
severe is the better choice, thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
another question: several of these men show up on more than one chart (i.e., Sepp Dietrich). Is it worth pulling the multiple lists out? Or is it possible to alphabetize the whole sheebang?
I realize it's been a HUGE job, and cudos for doing it. Just pondering manageability. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Some men show up in multiple sub-lists because of the nature of the Knight's Cross. The KC had 5 different grades, and recipients could receive a higher grade if they continued to distinguish themselves in combat. I tried explaining this in the lead section. I therefore feel that a list of Waffen-SS KC recipients should point this out. However I do see the point that this article has become somewhat of a monster. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Midshipman[edit]

(2008 review here here, not particularly relevant.)

I'm submitting this article for Peer review prior to resubmitting it as a FA candidate. I've made quite a few changes since the first FAC review in June, and it was copy edited last week, which was the main complaint in the FAC comments. Thanks for your assistance!

Kirk (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the dashes for you. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

This looks excellent, overall. A few minor suggestions:

  • The various navigation templates should use standard military history styling (e.g. {{military navigation}}) where possible; if that's not feasible, then manually changing the color scheme to match would be a good idea.
  • The "Other Commonwealth nations" section has some image alignment problems at large resolutions, since the sections are so small. One easy way to fix this would be to stagger the images there to the left and right margins.
  • I'd try to eliminate the "See also" section before going to FAC; it shouldn't be difficult to work the links into the article text somewhere, and doing so will make the article look more "finished".

Keep up the great work! Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Inner German border[edit]

Over the last few months I've been carrying out a sort of one-man Wikiproject on the end of the Cold War - next month is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the opening of the border between the two Germanies. As well as carrying out a great deal of research, I went to Germany and cycled nearly the full length of the former border, taking a large number of photographs and doing a lot of on-the-ground research over the course of several weeks. I've rewritten and greatly expanded the inner German border article and will be creating and expanding various other related articles in the coming weeks. I'm aiming to get the article up to Featured Article standard, but as a first step I'd appreciate it if it could be peer reviewed and reassessed. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466[edit]

  • Comment As I said on the talk page, it looks outstanding. I've fixed what disambig links there were, and inserted non-breaking spaces after numbers in dates etc. throughout (except in citation templates). I'll do some work on the alt texts as well.
  • As far as I am concerned, this looks pretty much like FA quality right now – you've done an amazing amount of research – and it would be cool to have this on the main page on November 9, marking 20 years since the Berlin Wall fell.
  • Queries:
    1. We say that the "death strip" was informally known as "Pieck Strasse". It's sourced to Rottman p. 17, but I am perturbed by the fact that I can't find a single reference to that being the control strip's nickname elsewhere. Could you double-check? --JN466 22:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      It's referred to as "Pieck-Allee" by some other sources. Shears calls it by that name in his book (p. 71) and it's also mentioned on p. 178 of Wilfred Ahrens, Hilferufe von drüben: die DDR vertreibt ihre Kinder: authentische Berichte. "Straße" might be an equivalent alternative name or a mistake by Rottman; it's hard to say. But it's clear that it was nicknamed "Pieck-something", whether "Straße" or "Allee". -- ChrisO (talk) 23:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      It seems to have been "Allee":
      GDR humour had a certain something ... --JN466 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      just GDR humor? Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      Adversity gave it a particular edge (although Berlin humour in particular always had that edge). An "Allee" in German is a tree-lined avenue, so it really fits well. --JN466 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      OK, I'll change it to match those sources. (If you're after GDR jokes try the following: two Stasi agents are talking one day. One of them asks the other, "What are you thinking?" The other replies, "Oh, same as you." The first retorts: "Then you are under arrest!") -- ChrisO (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
       :) I note we have an article on this: East German jokes. Many of them lose something in translation though ... --JN466 14:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      I also read somewhere that EG was called the "Banana-less Republic" a spoof on the Banana Republic idea. I'll try to find that source, but you might keep your eyes open for it too. Perhaps in Harsch, I might find it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      in his introduction to Banana cultures: agriculture, consumption, and environmental change in Honduras and the United States (2005). By John Soluri. He refers to it in the intro, linking places of production and consumption. Basically, his point is that Bananas are a "staple" only in a consumer-oriented society; furthermore, the consumption of bananas (the ability to transport, buy, etc.) weighs heavily on the backs of laborers in the third world economies, the quintessential exploited proletariat. Probably you'd need to cite pp 1-18. University of Texas Press. ISBN: 978-0-292-71256-0 Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      I've seen that too. It's referred to on page 5 of John Rodden, Repainting the little red schoolhouse: a history of Eastern German education: "Jubilant East Germans sported bumper stickers featuring two bananas forming the letter "D" (for Deutschland) or hung Dollar Bananas on the windshields of their little two-cylinder Trabant cars, under the words: "German Banana Republic, R.I.P."" Apparently even now east(ern) Germans eat 20% more bananas than their western counterparts. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    2. I've done all (or at least most) of the n-dashes, but we still have some non-compliance with the WP:HYPHEN section of WP:MOS. For example, "a 500 metres (1,600 ft) wide strip" should be "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) strip" or "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) -wide strip" according to WP:HYPHEN. Where the convert template is used, the hyphen can be added by using the adj=on parameter. Personally, I find "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) -long strip" well-nigh intolerable; suggest we use "a 500-metre (1,600 ft) strip" instead (i.e. convert template with adj=on, and dropping the word "wide"). What should we do in cases where we give both height and width and "high" and "wide" can't simply be dropped? --JN466 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      J, slow down! You'll soon have as many edits as Chris. Let him do the hyphens and such. He's an experienced editor. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      Just to let you guys know, I just knocked off nearly a hundred n-dashes in compliance with WP:HYPHEN and with the advice of Cameltrader's Advisor (which greatly speeds up the repetitive task of combing over the article's dashes to see that they comply with WP:HYPHEN). Happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      Ruth is right, Chris. You've produced 25,000 words of prose with (apparently) just a few dozen edits in the page history, and I've produced a few dozen dashes and non-breaking spaces with almost as many edits. It won't look right if I end up having more edits than you, without having contributed any substance to the article, so I'll slow down a bit. --JN466 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      Appearances are deceptive! I wrote most of it offline and much of it on the ground in the course of visiting the places described in the article. I don't mind in the least if you continue fixing technical issues. In fact, I'd be very grateful if you could continue (as fast as you like!) as it frees me up to resolve the more substantive content issues that have been raised. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      Sounds like a fun holiday!! (Okay then, but I'll avoid making lots of small edits.) --JN466 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    3. There are two works by Childs cited. References such as "Childs, p. 30" are therefore ambiguous. It would probably make sense to include both works in the References section. --JN466 14:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      Thanks for pointing that out, I'll fix it. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      Resolved, hopefully. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    4. The slogan Wir steht hier! said to have been used by protesters can't be right. Please check the source. --JN466 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      An IP has changed this now to Wir bleiben hier, and that seems to be how it was phrased at the time: [1]. Looks okay. --JN466 18:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    5. A few references are hyperlinked, e.g. <ref>[[#Jarausch|Jarausch]] ... or <ref>[[#Cramer|Cramer]] ... but most are not. Reviewers at FAC are likely to ask for one consistent style. --JN466 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    6. Is the Herleshausen image dated correctly? It looks as though one could just drive through; that would not have been possible in 1985. JN466 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      There were two sets of border facilities at each crossing point, one on the east side and one on the west side. What you're looking at in that image is the West German border facility. The view is looking west into West Germany - the vantage point is just to the western side of the border. The East German border facility point is further east, behind the vantage point (note that the border line isn't visible). You can see here where the West German border facility (now demolished, of course) once stood. I'll tweak the caption to make this clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      Sounds good. --JN466 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    7. The Inner_German_border#Watchtowers_and_bunkers section has a few unsourced paragraphs (the first two, and also some of the detailed measurements and other info on the various types of tower). When you go to FAC, people may want you to add sources; it's probably best to add them now.
      Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    8. The Inner_German_border#The_fall_of_the_border section is also very thin on references, especially the first half. Much of it is arguably common knowledge, but reviewers might want a ref for things like East Germans not being allowed to travel to Poland.
      Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    9. Otherwise, I'd encourage you to take the article to FAC now; you seem to have done all the remaining alt texts, and the last tweaks if any were needed can still be worked out while it's sitting at FAC. Good luck. JN466 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      I'll fix as many of those remaining issues as I can and take it to FAC in a couple of hours' time, hopefully. Thanks very much for all your help - it's been invaluable. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(OD) the FA folks will quibble over the use of "the" and similar types of words in the headings. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll fix that. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Auntieruth[edit]

This is a fantastic article. I've was impressed when I read it for assessment at the WP Germany, and am still favorably impressed with it now. It's undergone some tweaking, and its in better wiki-shape. I will be very pleased to support it for featured article as well. As far as the prose goes, it's in great shape. Your sources are sufficient, maybe a bit heavy on the East German perspective in some areas, but balanced with the Wessie/Weissie perspective in others. Good Job. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Shimgray[edit]

I'm impressed by this article, I have to say! Long and comprehensive and interesting.

One issue that leaps out at me - there's a lot of East German government-produced images here. One or two (eg/ the film screenshot showing the DDR's view of the border) are tagged as non-free, but almost all of them are tagged as PD-GermanGov on Commons. This template says:

"This image is in the public domain according to German copyright law because it is part of a statute, ordinance, official decree or judgment (official work) issued by a German federal or state authority or court (§ 5 Abs.1 UrhG)."

As far as I can tell, though, this seems to be a fairly restricted provision applying to certain specified sets of official documents - laws, rulings, etc - rather than a general government-works-are-free. Do these images really qualify? Even if they do, that law may still be problematic - s.5 refers to the "Änderungsverbot" of s.62, which seems to prohibit making derivatives (but this may be a translation error). Thoughts? Shimgray | talk | 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The images were produced by the Stasi and are from the BtSU, the German government agency responsible for managing the Stasi's files. They were published in a series of museum exhibits and handouts as well as being available directly from the BtSU. If they don't fall under PD-GermanGov, perhaps they can be used as fair use? If someone with more experience of German government copyrights could comment, that would be very helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Laurinavicius[edit]

To put it simply, this article is suberb! There are no glaring problems and the biggest issue I've seen was the minor detail of n-dashes, which has been fixed. I have no qualms about this article and would be glad to support it for featured article status. Great job! Laurinavicius (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Operation Teardrop[edit]

This is the first of a series of articles I'm thinking of working on covering notable actions of the World War II Battle of the Atlantic and I would appreciate other editors' thoughts on how it could be developed to A and possibly FA class. It's also the first major military history article I've worked on which covers a topic with no relationship at all to Australia, so I'd also appreciate it if any antipodean mistakes I've made could be highlighted! Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Interesting article! Did a quick pass for date formatting, plus other minor tweaks...

  • You've adopted (generally, should be consistent now) what I understand is std US date formatting, i.e. month-day-year. However in that form I believe there's always a comma separating day and year, which I've added to the full dates. Now, I also gather that US (or U.S.!) military date format is the same as Commonwealth, i.e. day-month-year, however so long as you consistently use the general US format I would have thought that's fine.
  • Made "U.S." consistent throughout, which is what you started with in the lead (though we seem to get away with just "US" more these days as well - again, so long as it's consistent).
  • You seem to be correctly using "z" in "realized" and stuff like that...

May get round to more later but that's the style points from me... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Many thanks for all those changes Ian. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I notice we seem to be back to a mixture of US and Commonwealth English spelling, with "centrepiece" in place of "centerpiece" and a few "ises" instead of "izes" - I think you've made the decision to go with US English and US date format so you might want to double-check that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks Ian, I'll run this through a copy of Word with US English turned on. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I (hopefully) Americanized the spelling yesterday. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

As above I agree an interesting article..

  • The specialists were held in solitary confinement and subjected to "shock interrogation" techniques, exhausting physical exercise and beatings. On April 30, Kapitänleutnant Just provided brief information on Gruppe Seewolf's composition and mission following a second interview in which he collapsed unconscious - If this had been carried out by the Gestapo it would have been called a war crime, is there any evidence that the perpetrators were prosecuted
    • They were 'investigated' by the Navy after doing pretty much the same thing to Kapitänleutnant Fritz Stienhoff in his interrogation after the war. None of my sources mentions any prosecutions though. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
      • This is getting close to OR, but the documents at www.uboatarchive.net state that the US Navy ordered that the interrogators were to be punished for their treatment of Stienhoff and various other behavior relating to the U-boats which surrendered at the end of the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Collins class submarine[edit]

This article recently underwent a major expansion in order to solve multiple issues; content was poorly organised, some sections were filled with peacock terms and/or copied directly from the source, and there were a lack of sources for large sections of the article.

With these problems (hopefully) solved, I would like to see the article make the run towards the higher ratings (A, GA, FA), and am requesting a peer review with the intention of bringing this to pass. I acknowledge that there are some areas already identified where the article needs improvement (i.e. some assorted citation/clarification tags in the text, and the poor state of the "Appearances in media and fiction" section), and assistance or suggestions to solve these and other problems with the article would be greatly appreciated. -- saberwyn 08:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: As it has been over a month since someone has commented on the article, should this peer review be closed? Any further suggestions or comments can always be made at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

MBK004[edit]

  • For the "Appearances in media and fiction" section, that needs to follow WP:MILPOP explicitly, and integrate the operational aspects into the actual service history of the vessels instead of lumping them all together in a section that is a magnet for every insignificant appearance of the vessels.
  • As for the rest of the article, when I get a chance I'll leave a more thorough review. -MBK004 19:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The content regarding the documentary and coffee table book is already replicated and integrated in the operational history section of Rankin, the relevent submarine. I'm not sure how major the "7 Wonders of the Australian Engineering World" appearance is... the claim was in the article when I started, and I have not yet found any sources independant of the work commenting on it. The fictional sub in "Y: The Last Man" is a major factor across multiple issues, with the submarine 'hosting' the main characters in their travels during volumes 6 and 7 of the 10-volume series, and one of the officers joining the main characters for the rest of the series. However, again, I haven't yet found reliable published commentary on this. The easiest solution would probably be to scrub the section entirely. -- saberwyn 01:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Update: I've scrubbed it. Let me know if you think anything should be put back in. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

Congratulations on your fantastic work expanding this article - it really is very impressive. My comments are

  • The second sentence in the 3rd para of the lead is rather long and complex
    • Trimmed that sentance down a bit. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The background section could include a description of how the RAN's views on submarines changed as a result of the emphatic success of the Oberon class (which were purchased mainly to be used to support ASW training but ended up being outstanding front line assets)
    • The article is fairly long and complex as it is, and I think this information would be more relevant in the article for the Oberon class or the RAN submarine service. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You could expand upon the decision to build the boats in Australia; this was a very big decision for Cabinet to make given the poor state of the Australian shipbuilding industry at the time and several ministers later said that they didn't realise what they'd gotten the Government into.
    • Will get back to you on this one, need to find sources to back this up. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I think I read this in Yule and Woolner's book Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • There's a two-page history of Australian shipbuilding in the book, but I haven't yet found anything connecting the state of the industry to the decision (or the wisdom thereof) to build some or all of the boats down under. I'll keep digging, though. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Update: I can't find anything substantial on the decision beyond whats already in the article in Yule/Woolner or any of the other sources. If I come across anything in new sources in the future, I'll use it, but no guarantees on me being able to find anything. -- saberwyn 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's probably an over-statement to say that building the subs in Queensland would have been "political suicide for the project" - 'politically unacceptable' perhaps?
    • Toned down. "Politically unacceptable" sounds like it was a Canberra decision, not a company decision, so I've used "politically unwise". -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Am I right in thinking that the combat system which was eventually installed on the subs was the same as that used for the USN's Virginia class?
    • My understanding is that they were based on the same platform, with some modifications made to the combat system for each class covering features not required for the other class. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the cite clarifying this. -- saberwyn 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that the SH-2G Super Seasprite program/fiasco is a good comparison to draw on in a section which basically argues that cost increases weren't that bad - is there an average rate which can be used as a comparison instead? (the Seasprites are often considered the least successful recent Defence acquisition program, so just about everything is better then it was)
    • Seasprite was the example used in the source (which was written back when that acquisition was still kinda viable). No average rate was given, but your point is made. If I can find someting giving the average overrrun, I'll add it back in, but for now I've removed the comparison. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'Sensors and systems' section should be converted to prose. The subs ESM system should also be identified as this is a key part of their capabilities.
    • The sensors and systems was left in list form to avoid a lot of single sentance-fragment paragraphs. The sources I've accessed so far have been fairly light on information about these systems (as opposed to simply "The Collins class is fited with:...") and as more I find more information I'll add it in and expand it to prose. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I've tried converting it to paragraphs. How does it look now? -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'characteristics' section should mention that the boats' design includes the ability to land special forces teams and that Collins was specially fitted with large hatches to support their operations during her recent major refit (according to Jane's Fighting Ships). I think that some or all of the other boats will also be fitted with the larger hatches.
    • According to MILHIST Logisitcs, you have access to Jane's Fighting Ships. If you could add the information in with a specific cite, that would be brilliant. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll look it up next time I'm near a copy (which should be in the next week). There are also some mentions of this on the ASC website, but Jane's is obviously the better source. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Saberwyn, the 99-00 edition of Jane's Fighting Ships is on my shelf. Is that up to date enough for the question you want answered - not clear what exactly it is from this thread. Update: there's nothing in my edition about Special Forces hatches. Buckshot06(prof) 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I think that Collins was modified to better support SF in about 2005 Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • According to The Age, Waller was the boat which supported INTERFET in 1999
    • Thanks. Added. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'operational history' section should mention that the boats are routinely deployed on operations in peacetime to keep an eye on Australia's neigbours
    • If I can find a source that makes this claim, I'll add it in. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'll also try to find where I saw this. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • This press release states that the subs are "a surveillance and intelligence gathering-platform during peace time". Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I've drummed up a bit of content in the first paragraph of the "Operational History" ("The submarines' primary missions are..."). I didn't use the abovementioned source, but I've instead pulled a couple of facts from the 7:30 Report transcript you used to cite the special forces capability. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The coverage of the poor working conditions on the submarines and what's being done about this should be expanded. The report on this released late last year is on the Defence website and got a lot of media attention. The report found that only SAS teams in Afghanistan had worse working conditions than submariners on an operational deployment!
    • Was this the Submarine Workforce Sustainability Review? I'll look for more sources covering this. -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Yep, that's the report. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Added a line to the relevant part of the "Ship's company" section re: lowest morale and job satisfaction in the RAN. I'll keep an eye out for some more content to bulk that up a bit. -- saberwyn 12:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Found some other sources that go into a little more detail than those previously used, so I've traded them in and bulked up the paragraph a little. -- saberwyn 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The 'Public perception' section repeats quite a bit of material mentioned earlier in the article. The statements that the RAN was slow to realise that the Collins class required a high degree of support and development also seems a bit out of place here. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Any suggestions on what could be eliminated or moved elsewhere? -- saberwyn 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The first para could be integrated with the 'development and design' section (as it seems to be about specialists' views and political maneuvering), the second para could be split between the 'development and design' and 'Problems during construction and trials' sections, the third para could be integrated with the 'Problems during construction and trials' section, the fourth seems to fit in with the 'McIntosh-Prescott Report and Fast Track program' sub-section and the final para with the 'Operational history' section. Those are just suggestions though. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I've removed the section and placed it at User:Saberwyn/Collins class#Public perception scrapyard. From there, I've merged some of the content back into the rest of the article, and eliminated some of the duplication, but I'm not sure how to work the rest in at the moment. -- saberwyn 06:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Update: I think I have most of it intefrated back in now. -- saberwyn 06:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Roman salute[edit]

I've made extensive edits in the last 10 days, added material as well as references with citations. Hoping to get it least to at least GA--Work permit (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

Can you get pages for the book in footnote 1, instead, of just citing the whole book generally 25+ times YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Do you mean create 25 separate footnotes? I used the {{rp}} template to indicate which page number I was using. When I didn't use {{rp}}, it was meant to indicate that I was using the previous page last referenced. Is {{rp}} considered acceptable? Would it be acceptable to use {{rp}} 25 times? If {{rp}} is not acceptable, is it acceptable to "mix and match" the use of shortened footnotes, for example only use shortened footnotes for references (like Winkler) that are cited more then once? --Work permit (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I made the changes you suggested. I did it for all the references. How does it look now?--Work permit (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Es Sinn[edit]

I was hoping to get this peer reviewed. This is the first peer review request for this article (and my first one from scratch). Please review. --HistorianBell 01:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • Firstly there is a lack of context in some of the article contents. The lead doesn't state anything about this being part of WWI, and the background doesn't explain why or how the Indian Army ended up in the Middle East in the first place
    • That has been changed by myself and others. --HistorianBell 11:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Secondly there seem to quite a few references to an autobiography? by the British general involved in this action, who is not an impartial source, and the presence of many primary sources, simply taking soldier testimonies to be true.
    • There are, but then there is not a great amount published about this campaign in general and the battles in particular. I use, in addition to Townshend's autobiography (very self serving) Barker's book on Mesopotamian Campaign (pretty much the standard for the subject until recently. The new book came out recently and I have not managed to snag a copy. Then there is Mobberly's official history, Paul Davis' book - though that is mostly about the relief effort-, and Wilson's book on the campaign (though that is also a bit self serving because of what happens to him after the war). Other books refer to it, but few give it more than a passing mention with no real details. As there is really one good book from the Turkish perspective in English (Erickson's, unless I've missed something else), I'll need to wait for a Turkish speaker to fill in more of the blanks from that POV (I really wish I could give more but the translations of the German officers don't deal with this period since it was before von der Goltz arrives to take over with his team). If anyone can point me to anything I've missed that would be a good source, I'm more than happy to incorporate it. --HistorianBell 11:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Some paragraphs are not cited at all, and the article needs categories YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • In the process of fixing that. Most are now referenced and someone else kindly corrected my error of not putting categories in. I've also listed a number of sources for the article. Also, sorry if some of my response comes back as snippy or defensive, Not trying to be. Just trying to explain a little of why I went to the sources I went with. --HistorianBell 11:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just some general points, primarily regarding MoS:

  • Per the Manual of Style, "The" should not be used to start level headings.
    • changes made --HistorianBell 06:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Only proper nouns or the first word in level headings should be capitalised.
    • changes made --HistorianBell 06:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Endashes should be utilised in date ranges in the article, and page ranges used in citations.
    • changes made (think I caught them all) --HistorianBell 06:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The tables in the "Orders of Battle" section seriously need some fixing up.
    • fixed (unless there is a suggestion of doing it a different way)--HistorianBell 06:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

John Kourkouas[edit]

I have expanded this article using all the sources I could find, and believe that it is complete in terms of content. Before nominating it for GA or A class however, I'd like the opinions of fellow-editors on style & clarity of prose, comprehensiveness of content or whatever else hits your eye. Any suggestions are welcome! Thanks in advance, Constantine 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ryan4314[edit]

Wow looks good, am just wondering though, can the 1st paragraph of the lead be that short, anyone? Ryan4314 (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirk[edit]

  • The images are all on the right - you should alternate them so some are on the left.
  • Its common to have something other than prose in the lead for GA/A, such as an info box or image. (Maybe the coin?) Kirk (talk) 11:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Good points, I'll see to it. Thanks, Constantine 06:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

This period is not my area of expertise but generally it looks good - well done. A few points:

  • An infobox should be used.
  • The first (short) paragraph is okay, I think - main thing is that the lead as a whole is of decent size (as it is).
  • You should add alt text to the images.
  • "The Rus' raid of 941" section heading shouldn't begin with the definite article, per MOS.
  • "Certainly" in the first sentence of the last section is probably not necessary.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, the opening of the lead section is rather short because otherwise I'd have to go into (IMO) unnecessary detail on the operations. I preferred to leave it at a general resume, albeit somewhat short. Thanks for the suggestions, they will be adopted. Cheers, Constantine 06:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, to be clear ;-), I think the lead section is fine as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, anyone else? Any comments as to the content? Constantine 08:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Joachim von Ribbentrop[edit]

Has been at B class for a while. Article seems complete and stable, and of a major historical figure. Shooting for GA class, would like to know if it qualifies for FA or what it needs to reach FA. -- œ 03:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To all who gave reviews, Thank you so much for the feedback. I will take each suggestion one by one and try to apply it to the article. This is my first attempt at trying to promote an article so it may take me some time but I eventually will implement all of your comments and hopefully get it to GA status. -- œ 18:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few basic comments:

  • Endashes are required between date ranges used in the article, and page ranges used in citations.
  • Emdashes should replace general dashes used in the prose.
  • The lead requires an expansion to a good two or three paragrahs in order to briefly summarise the contents of the article.
  • "See also" sections should only contain links that are highly relevant to the article, but are also not linked to in the prose.
  • I am a little concerned by the high usage of Bloch 1992. Would it be possible to have a little more diversity in the cites?
  • I would recommend adding a military person section to the infobox, such as that used in Harold Alexander, 1st Earl Alexander of Tunis.
  • Images require alt text.
 Done Except the video, I don't think it's doable or even necessary considering there's accompanying audio. -- œ 04:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

  • In addition to Bryce's comments above, try to avoid list cruft. This is particularly noticeable in the Family subsection. You should use prose to mention his children and relations, and then only sparingly unless they are otherwise notable, such as Rudolf.
  • Though obviously a lot of work has gone into referencing, there are still entire paragraphs missing citations, most notably in the Trial and Execution section.
  • You can probably afford to remove the article length tag in Foreign Minister of the Reich, however the next three sections (until Declining Influence) really should be broken up with subsections if they're to retain that level of detail.
  • Are there no other public domain pictures that could break up the sections as well?
  • The preceding comments are for GA as well as FA; if going for FA, you'll certainly need to add alt text to each image. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • Depictions in pop culture needs to be moved into another article and gotten rid off
  • Need to choose between "page" and "p" in the notes

YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

29th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. —Ed!(talk) 02:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few quick comments, many of which I have said in previous reviews:

  • Dashes used in date ranges and in citations should be endashes, not emdashes.
  • There is a section of white space created by the two images in the "Operation Overlord" section.
  • The "Organization" and "Honors" sections are completely without cites.
  • I have placed two cite needed tags in the "Legacy" section; please reference these statements.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Henry Wells (general)[edit]

Article on an Australian lieutenant general, who served as a senior staff officer during the Second World War and was the first person to be appointed Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee; the professional head of the Australian military. I am seeking to take this article toward FAC, but thought I would seek a peer review first, just to cover all bases. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Haven't (re)read every word but overall I can't see why you shouldn't take to FAC: structure, detail, prose, sourcing and illustration all look pretty good. Wouldn't mind seeing a tiny bit more on post-military life but I can imagine you've probably done your best there - my only suggestion for another source would be Who's Whos after 1959 (I can look in the Mitchell over the next week or so if you can't access them). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Ian. I think my major concern was the sources, as a number of them are Australian Government, or Government related. If you wouldn't mind, Ian, that would be excellent. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Who's Whos don't have anything post-retirement I'm afraid. However you could flesh out the last section a tad by including the usual bit about his surviving family, plus the bequeath to Junior Legacy, per ADB. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. I also have a big favour to ask of you Ian. Do you by any chance still have access to the Korean War Official Histories? If so, would it be possible for you to check for any mention of Wells in that? Sorry for being such a pain. Thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Heh, you must've guessed I was in at the Mitchell on my lunch break when I shot you the first message, so your quick reply allowed me to check out the Korean history then and there, and make some hurried notes. Not a lot but will add what I found shortly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, you're a wonder, Ian! Lol, thanks mate. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
You'd do the same... Okay, as well as adding stuff, couldn't resist the usual ce plus some restructuring to keep paras fairly even and related content together where possible. Hope it's not too hard to pick what's changed. Further to this peer review, in the ce I picked up a lot of times the name is used in consecutive sentences, plus areas for trimming, so you might want to go over the prose in the rest and see if the same applies there. Naturally my new content is just as open to copyediting as your original work...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian! It all looks great. Will go over the article soon, and make some tweaks. Once again, I really appreciate your efforts. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Lol, I told myself not to forget to go back in and add the actual refs but clean forgot in my hurry to get along to the 7:10 screening of D-9 - anyway, you got the idea...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Lol! Well, I hope you enjoyed the movie. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

Are there any other sources which can be drawn on? While the article is very good, much of it is about events Wells was involved in rather than him and his role. The only source which appears to be purely about this man is his ADB entry, and it's a bit flat. If you haven't done so, I'd suggest dropping Hawkeye7 a line and asking for any comments he may have given the number of high-quality articles he's prepared on senior Australian officers of World War II. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, bit surprising there's no entry for him in the Oxford Companion - though I often find they pinch chunks from ADB anyway...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hawkeye has added a little to the article previously, but I'll see if he is able to add anything more. Thanks Nick. I, too, was a little surprised there is nothing in the Oxford Companion either. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Battleship[edit]

This article rates as an FA, but hasn't been reviewed in any official capacity in nearly two years and as such is now on the verge of an FAR. I'm loathe to see that happen, so I am taking the initiative to keep the bronze star by offering to do the grunt work. I am interested in anything you guys think needs fixed, improved, expanded upon, trimmed down, cited, recited, corrected, or otherwise addressed. As this article falls within the scope of Operation Majestic Titan you may find others besides me moving to address the issues as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • All images are currently in need of alt text. One external link is reported as suspicious, please check and advise. Two disambig links need to be located and if at all possible fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • You might expand on the definition of an armored frigate so that readers will understand how a steam battleship can be cut down, armored and called a frigate.
  • You might clarify that the definition of a "dreadnought" was limited to "all big guns". Some people have tried to expand that definition so that the South Carolina's aren't called dreadnoughts because of their triple-expansion engines.
  • Provide a link to super-fire so that readers can see exactly what is meant by that term.
  • Don't forget that the Italians modernized their battleships as well during the Thirties.
  • Guilio Cesare wasn't sunk by a mine in the Black Sea.
  • A mention of Stalin's BBs might be in orders, as well as a mention that the Soviet BB's were limited to gunfire support during WW2.
  • There's been no discussion of battlecruisers so why are Goeben/Yavuz, and the Soviet BC's even mentioned when the disposal of BB's is listed?

The External link checker in the tools show a geocities.com source, which isn't likely to be reliable. I'll check back with more items as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Is combinedfleet.com a reliable source? And there are unformatted citation, sample:
    ^ [1] Defence power: developments of the decade
  • Also, check image captions for punctuation, per WP:MOS#Captions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, nobody believes anything I say, and think that I'm rampaging around vandalising and trashing everything (probably people give me these jobs as a poisoned chalice so I can take the blame or whatever as people think I'm a troll, and my opinions were never hidden), but whatever, I'll rant. Sandy went and posted warnings to the talk pages of articles with five different tags on them: Wikipedia:Featured_articles/Cleanup_listing. The number of variety of tags is not a good rank of FA-endangeredness. A lot of the articles high up on that list are well-cited, which is why the odd uncited sentence sticks out and is usually tagged for cites, whereas a lot of heavily citation-lacking articles like Fauna of Australia aren't, because there is no point in tagging almost every sentence. Bodyline has four problems listed, but only four sentences are unaccounted for. Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport and Rail transport in India were removed for having 75%+ home-made or non-independent sources, but neither have any tags. A lot of the weakest articles sent to FAR had little/no tags before they were nominated; I mean most unreferenced start-class articles (and thus FAs), nobody adds [citation needed] everywhere. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly likely to be the first one targeted. Most of the ones at FAR are the least cited ones, with about 30%+ completely uncited paragraphs. There are few who don't go from the worst articles, but most do. And in any case, there are hundreds worse than this, although they haven't been littered with tags. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Brad 101[edit]

This article needs a ton of work to put it lightly. There isn't much to be gained by pointing out things that need fixing. Pretend you're at start class and go from there. The original FAC didn't appear to be an overwhelming vote of confidence for this article and that was two years ago. If I were assessing this article today I would feel guilty giving it a B as there are entire paragraphs and one complete section without cites. --Brad (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Land[edit]

Fundamentally, the article needs to be rewritten, section-by-section, as a summary of Ironclad warship, pre-dreadnought, dreadnought, and treaty battleship. I regret I don't have the time at the moment to do this. The Land (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Arms industry[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article comes with comprehnsive referneces and sources and is not eligible for a start article but atleast an A status. Please review the article.

Thanks, Nefirious (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth[edit]

The biggest problem here is that large chunks of the article have been copied word-for-word from sources. This appears to violate copyright law as explained at WP:COPYVIO. It says in part, "However, material copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder is likely to be a copyright violation. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues."

For example, the Foreign Policy Association says, "Encompassing military aircraft (both land-based and sea-based,) conventional missiles, and satellites, this is the most technologically advanced sector of the market. It is also the least competitive from an economic standpoint, with a handful of companies dominating the entire market. The top clients and major producers are virtually all located in the West, with the United States easily in first place. Prominent aerospace firms include Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and BAE Systems. There are also several multinational consortiums mostly involved in the manufacturing of fighter jets, such as the Eurofighter. The largest military contract in history, signed in October 2001, involved the development of the Joint Strike Fighter."

The article says, "Encompassing military aircraft (both land-based and naval aviation), conventional missiles, and military satellites, this is the most technologically advanced sector of the market. It is also the least competitive from an economic standpoint, with a handful of companies dominating the entire market. The top clients and major producers are virtually all located in the West, with the United States easily in first place. Prominent aerospace firms include Dassault Aviation, EADS,Finmeccanica, Thales Group, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Britain's BAE Systems. There are also several multinational consortia mostly involved in the manufacturing of fighter jets, such as the Eurofighter. The largest military contract in history, signed in October 2001, involved the development of the Joint Strike Fighter."

The whole article needs to be searched for other material that may belong to someone else and may be protected by copyright. Before I noticed the copying, I made a few other suggestions, as follows:

  • Overlinking. Common terms like business, industry, weapons, and manufacturing, all in the first sentence should not be linked. I'd suggest removing all the links to words that most speakers of English are familiar with. WP:OVERLINK has details.
  • Underlinking. It's easy to forget to link technical or special terms that many readers of English might find unfamiliar. Joint Strike Fighter is an example in the lede. It's linked further down in the article but should be linked on first use.
  • WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line:... " Combinations like "$315 billion" need an nbsp.
  • Reference numbers in the text should be snugged up against the ending punctuation. There should be no space between the end punctuation and the ref number.
  • It's customary to spell out abbreviations such as GDP on first reference, thus: gross domestic product (GDP). On subsequent references, you can use GDP by itself, and readers will know what it means.
  • "US$32.9bn to US$14.3bn" - There's no need to add the "US" to these, and "bn" should be written as "billion"; i.e., $32.9 billion to $14.3 billion". These need nbsps as well.

The subject matter is interesting and deserves a good article. I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

  • FYI These pages usually do better when reviewed internal by milhist, next time you may wish to pursue that avenue instead of a general peer review. I've left a note at milhist concerning this peer review, so you may see some of our people here in the next few days to offer opinions and advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme: order of battle[edit]

Review requested because I am certain there are omissions and comments regarding accuracy and improvement would be welcomed. Farawayman (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A few suggestions, mostly related to style and layout:

  • The current form of the title seems rather unwieldy; I'd suggest something along the lines of Order of battle at the Battle of the Somme, which is grammatically correct if nothing else, instead.
  • The explicit "source: []" lines break up the flow considerably. If there's no introductory material to which footnotes can be attached, I'd place them instead on the header line of the table itself. Farawayman (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • By the same token, interspersing blocks of footnotes throughout the list seems overly confusing. It'll be easier to read, I think, if you just have a single, continuously numbered set of footnotes for the entire article. Farawayman (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I would link at least all of the divisions, and probably the regiments, to their appropriate article locations, whether or not the articles already exist; consensus in the past has been that formations at the divisional level or above warrant individual articles in the majority of cases. The same is probably true of most of the divisional commanders as well.
  • The layout of the divisional tables is rather confusing, since it's not clear what cells are nested under others, and what cells stand alone. I'd suggest using the same design as is used for the larger formations; for example:
Guards Division
Major-General G.P.T. Feilding
Guards Division 1st Guards Brigade 2nd Battalion, Grenadier Guards
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Guards
3rd Battalion, Coldstream Guards
1st Battalion, Irish Guards
2nd Guards Brigade 3rd Battalion, Grenadier Guards
1st Battalion, Coldstream Guards
1st Battalion, Scots Guards
2nd Battalion, Irish Guards
3rd Guards Brigade 1st Battalion, Grenadier Guards
4th Battalion, Grenadier Guards
2nd Battalion, Scots Guards
1st Battalion, Welch Guards
Pioneers 4th Battalion, Coldstream Guards
  • In any case, the layout of the tables for each nation's formations should be quite similar, if not identical.
  • The French are mentioned in the introduction, but are missing from the lists. Were there French forces involved here; and, if so, is there any information available on their OOB?

Keep up the good work! Kirill [talk] [pf] 01:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This is a really interesting and well presented OOB. As well as agreeing with all the points raised by Kirill, my comments are:

  • Would it be possible to identify the Army and Corps-level units? (artillery, engineers, signals units, etc)
  • A lot of the brigades, battalions, etc, could be wiki-linked (for instance, I think that there are now articles on all the Australian infantry battalions of World War One). This would be tedious, but would add a lot of depth.
  • Why do the divisional OOBs only include their infantry component? It would be great if the artillery and other 'supporting' elements were also included. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett[edit]

I concur with Kirill on some of the points.

  • table layout of the Divisions, at the moment the brigade composition run down and the pioneer battalions run across.
  • Your expository notes within the article (as opposed to pure reference notes) would be better grouped as a Notes section at end of the article so you get "Notes" "Citations" and "References" in that sequence. You are already using the reference group code so its not a great step to moving it to the bottom. Farawayman (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • the great swathe of Allied divisions could do with breaking up into shorter sections, eg by role: Infantry/Cavalry or origin: British/Dominion or someother that makes it easier to move from the TOC to the readers point of interest.GraemeLeggett  Farawayman (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)(talk) 11:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

Just a couple of points from me:

  • Expand the lede. What happened during the Somme? Who was leading each side? How many troops in total fought per side? Who won? Doesn't have to be too long, but it would be nice to have some context.
  • Wiki-link all units and the countries in the lede. Farawayman (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Sources in tables would look better embedded into the text as opposed to being separate.  Refer above. Farawayman (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Titles for the tables are redundant to the section headers, and the date can be moved up to the header.  Farawayman (talk) 11:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)--Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Labattblueboy[edit]

Firstly, you deserve to be commended for getting this list together. Assembling a full order of battle can be an exhausting process. It’s certainly not an easy task especially when it comes to the German material. I certainly found so when assembling the Battle of Vimy Ridge order of battle.

  • For the German side, if you are able to get your hands on it, I would suggest incorporating data assembled in The German Army on the Somme 1914-1916 by Jack Sheldon. It would we nice to see greater detail on the German side, with the possible incorporation of German formations in the Formations per Battle section.
  • The German and British data should be presented in the same format. It would help in identifying where details could be expanded, such as the names of German divisional commanders.
  • I see no details regarding artillery or engineering units or formations on either the British or German side. To have a complete order of battle that would need to be incorporated.

--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Pedestal[edit]

Note, not transcluded until 3 August 2009, Woody (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I had done a lot of work over this article a lot of time ago, and I wanted some opinions as to how it can be improved. I really would like some ideas for it! Reuv (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd really like to see more details on the air battles. Some references for that would be Malta: The Spitfire Years by Christopher Shores and an similar book by Brian Cull. There's also Courage Alone by Christopher Dunning which covers the Italian Air Force in some detail. Also I don't recall seeing how the Italian surface ships were either damaged or sunk; that might be expanded as well. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Doesn't look too bad at all, in fact I think you've done quite well with it. But it is not really an area of which I have much knowledge, so I can't really help with content. Sorry. Anyway, I have a couple of comments:

  • check that your dashes and hyphens conform with WP:DASH, seems like there is some confusion in the infobox with the use of an emdash where an endash should be used, also in the lead there is a hyphen where an unspaced emdash or a spaced endash should be used (yes, I know its a nitpick);
  • per the WP:MOS headings shouldn't being with 'the' (you have one);
  • you refer to Great Britain and the United Kingdom throughout the article, please be consistent in terminology. I think (I could be wrong and am probably risking the wrath of the Gods) that United Kingdom is the preferred term in the project;
  • is there a need to include post nominals in text when mentioning the commanders, these would be included on their own entries and their inclusion takes the eye off the important stuff—the text;
  • referencing is generally very good, but there are a couple of paragraphs where you have a citation in the first part, and none in the second, giving the impression that the second part of the paragraph is uncited (an example is in the Planning section, second paragraph). If you added a cite to the last sentence of the paragraph it would help improve the referencing (or at least allay any concerns about where they info came from);
  • some of the images could be left aligned;
  • check the way that you deal with numbers in text, generally numbers greater than ten should be depicted with numbers per the WP:MOS, although consistency is more the focus, so if you choose to spell in some cases, you should spell in all cases greater than ten;
  • in The Forces section, some of the bracketted information has been italicised when I don't think it should be as italics are generally reserved just for the ships names.

Hope this helps. Keep up the good work. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

  • No mention of any aircraft losses in the inf box under Casualties and losses
  • Also we have 784 Axis aircraft recorded but nothing for the British, with four carriers and transported spits there must be some data available for how many they had.
  • Dates in the inf box you have used August 9 while in the text the format is reversed 9 August for consistency you should pick one format and use it throughout.
  • The first paragraph of the planning section is uncited.
  • There is only one cite for the second para at the end of the first sentence this also need more cites.
  • De link dates - this is ever changing but the preference is for them not to be linked.
  • The notes also all need cites
  • Overall it looks good but a lot more cites are required in all sections. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This is a very detailed and well illustrated article on an interesting battle - well done. I've got the following suggestions for how it could be further developed:

  • The first para in the lead reads awkwardly, and jumps from topic to topic
  • The citation given for the claim that this was "one of the most important British strategic victories of the Second World War" doesn't seem to support this and may not be a reliable source
  • The 'background' section is a bit brief
  • As this is about a British-dominated operation, British English spelling should be used - words like 'recognized' should be replaced with 'recognised', etc.
  • I don't think that 'Force X' and 'Force Z' should be in italics
  • More citations are needed so that all material is clearly covered by a cite
  • The article appears to tell the story from primarily the British perspective. More material on Axis operations would be great.
  • Did the Axis know that the convoy was coming? They had observation posts in Spain which kept an eye on all traffic passing through the Strait of Gibraltar, and the decision to not maintain radio silence would have allowed them to use radio direction finding to track the force
  • 'the enemy's' and similar terms shouldn't be used as they're not neutral
  • A map showing the convoy's route and where major events took place would be fantastic
  • The sections on August 14 and 15 are rather brief. Did the attacks on the surviving ships abate once they reached the range of Malta's Spitfires?
  • The introduction states that Malta wasn't "an effective offensive base for much of 1942" but the 'Aftermath' section states that it was a base for very effective attacks once the convoy arrived. This is a bit confusing, and I think that more details on the forces based at Malta in August 1942 would be useful.
  • Rommel didn't assault the Allies on 23 October 1942 - this was when the Allies went on the offensive. It's also not correct to state that the mindset of the Axis forces before this battle was 'How many days to Cairo' - Rommel had been seeking permission to withdraw to a more defensible position for weeks before the battle and knew that he couldn't defeat an Allied attack, much less go on the offensive.
  • Did Ultra intercepts play any part in planning the convoy and during the battle?
  • 'The Forces' section should include the Axis air units which played such a key role in this battle. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil[edit]

Hello, everyone! I´ve written this article but unfortunately I am not able to write very well in English. I´d like to know if you could help me out on fixing all grammar and spelling errors in the article, and also anything else that can allow it to be reviewed to an A+. Thank you very much! - --Lecen (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

Per the Platine War article, the identical references needed to be merged. Also, ndashes are needed instead of hyphens with numbers. I've done some examples. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Good effort so far. I have the following comments:

  • There is some inconsistency in the way you treat numbers greater than 10 and above, i.e. in some places you spell them and in other places you use numbers. I think that the Manual of Style prefers that numbers below 10 are spelt while using numbers for 10 and above; Done
  • As per YellowMonkey there are still some hyphens that need to be converted into endashs or emdashes; Done
  • In the citations where you have a page range it should be denoted with a 'pp.' instead of a just p. which would denote a single page, e.g Janotti pp. 101–102; Done
  • In the Organisation section you slip into slightly informal language, e.g. "we would call it Anglo-American", I feel that this should be reworded to be less conversational; Done
  • The lead could possibly be expanded. If you are wanting to take it to a GA review it can be up to four paragraphs.
  • I'd suggest tweaking the copyrights of some of the photos. You use the PD tag which justifies use as copyright expired - "life of author plus 70 years". If you can provide the date of the author's death it might make their PD claim beyond doubt. As it is it is probably okay, but as some of the photos were taken in the late 1800s it is possible (although unlikely) that it is not quite copyright expired and could be questioned. I will elaborate. For example the photo of Dom Pedro II was taken in 1870. Assuming that the author was 20 when he took (I don't know, just making things up) and say he lived until he was 100 (another guess, it is possible), which would mean he died in 1950. 1950 + 70 (the terms of the copyright) = 2020, hence it is not quite copyright expired. Of course, all of these dates are made up. I am just using them to illustrate that it is not clear cut, although one would assume they are okay. If you know when the author (Joaquim Insley Pacheco) died, I'd suggest putting it in. Simply adding it beside his name in brackets e.g. Joaquim Insley Pacheco (died 1930). That would make it unquestionable.

That is it for now. Just a few thoughts. I just had a quick look. I will try to read over the article again for spelling and punctuation later (1am here). Well done so far, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I´m sorry, but I have to confess that it taks too much time to write the article and do all those "wiki" things on it, such as ndash, wikifying it, etc... I don´t have the time. I can help with stuffs about making sources more clear, but I can´t write the article from scratch up to perfection by myself. I don´t have time now to write the lead now (I´m taking my free time to work on the article about Pedro II). If you know someone who could help, it would be wonderful. About photographers, I´ll fix that, don´t worry. But thank you very much for the insight. And last, but not least, about the "anglo-american", it is a strait citation from a book. - --Lecen (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've got most of the dashes and the page ranges, and consolidated the refs. I will look to see if I can fix some of the other small things for you too. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hchc2009[edit]

  • Purely stylistic, but you could probably lose some of the brackets, in that "new ones with rifling barrels (that had larger reach and better precision)" could just be "new ones with rifled barrels, that had longer reach and better precision" etc.
  • The English needs a little work in places; "a national subscription to congregate capital", "acquired by his own expense", "its old sailing ships gave became forty steamships" etc.
As I said to AustralianRupert, I can´t work on grammar and spelling issues because my English isn´t that good. I can do a pretty much good job on writting the articles with reliable sources. But more than that, like wiki rules and good grammar, I can´t. I´m truly sorry about that.
  • "The long reign of fifty eight years of Dom Pedro II would represent the pinnacle of the Brazilian Navy" - might be worth saying in what sense it was the pinnacle - was this the largest it would ever be? the best organised? the most regionally powerful it would ever become? etc.
It means that that was the point when Brazilian navy reached it´s most powerful moment when compared to other nations.
  • There's a couple of places where you refer to a date that isn't mentioned elsewhere, e.g. "The conflicts in the Platine region did not cease after the war of 1825...", referring to the Argentine-Brazil war of 1825 - but earlier, you don't mention the date of the war, only its name.
  • "The anarchy caused by the despotic Rosas and his desire to subdue Bolívia, Uruguay and Paraguay forced Brazil to intercede." - slightly POV overtones - de Rosa was despotic, but he and the Emperor both wanted regional dominance and sponsored civil wars! Perhaps "The Imperial Armada continued to play a key role in the military rivalry between Buenos Aires and Brazil after the 1825 war, ultimately culminating in the Platine War of 1851." or something like that.
Pedro II never sponsored civil wars. In the Platine War, for example, Brazil aided Argentine rebels as a retaliation for Argentina´s role on Cisplatine´s seccession in 1828 and in Farrapo´s secessionist rebellion (1835-45). Although it´s true that Brazil wanted to make South America its own zone of influence, it preferred to use diplomacy. However, feel free to change the text to make it better.
  • "six fluvial monitors". I've not got a naval background (it may well be an accepted naval term) but this didn't sound quite right to me.
It means that they are monitors ships that are optimized to sail in rivers and not in sea.
  • "navy military" - is this "naval marines", or just "navy"?
Navy marines.
  • "the Militias and Orderlies" - what is an orderly in this context? (a link would be helpful, as per the militia link)
There are no Orderliers article in English Wikipedia. They were pretty much the same as militias, but Portugal loved to create confuse terms for everything. Removing it from the text won´t hurt the article, in my opinion.
  • "aiding the secessionist revolt of the Brazilian province of Cisplatine." POV - The wiki-article on Cisplatina suggests that the province had a very varied history, and according to that article had only been annexed military by Brazil itself 4 years previously; from an Imperial Brazilian perspective, yes it was a secessionist revolt; from a Republican Federal League perspective, it was a war against an Imperial invasion four years previously. Perhaps "aiding the secessionist revolt in the disputed province of Cisplatine" might capture the amibiguity here.
Portugal was the first country to colonize what is today Uruguay from 1680 up to 1777. The Spain took over up to 1815. Then Portugal reconquered it and then Brazil up to 1828. That is, the Portuguese-Brazilians kept the province for 107 years while the Spanish-Argentine for 38 years. To have an idea of the population of Uruguay in 1864, that is, 36 after its independence from Brazil, 33,3% of he population was composed of european immigrants, 33,3% of brazilian-born and the other 33,3% a mix of Portuguese, Brazilian and Spanish descendants. I was planning to write this down in the article about the Uruguayan War but I had no time so far.
  • "The battalions formed by mercenaries..." not sure these get a mention before this. What were they?
Pedro I hired some irish and german mercenaries to fight in the war of 1825-28. Some batallions were kept after its end.
  • "...received Brazilians who had joined spontaneously " Spontaneously or volunteered? (you then talk about conscription, making me suspect that you mean volunteered, but I might be wrong!)
They freely voluntereed. The conscription started at the end of 1866.
  • You mention that “ingenuous” (free children of slaves of ex-slaves) were allowed to join the National Guard, which made me wonder about slaves generally in Brazil at this time. Were they involved in the military (especially the navy, as ex-slaves were involved in the later mutinies over the use of the whip etc.)? Did the armed forces own their own slaves, as some nations did, for military pioneering work (digging etc.)?
30% of Brazilian population 1823 was composed of slaves. The other 70% of free men (whites, browns, blacks, etc...). By 1854, around 25% were slaves. By 1870, around 15%. By 1887, less than 0,5%. Slaves were usually owned by very rich farmers who had up to 50-100 slaves. Most Brazilians who were farmers worked by themselves. Slaves were properties, not "humans" (to them at that time, of course). They were not allowed to enlist themlseves of be enlisted in the Army of Navy. Brazil accepted ex-slaves in the Army in the War of the Triple Alliance (1864-70). The most common example was an slave owner who gave a slave to the Brazilian government to fight in the war. As a rule (because the law demanded), the slave, his wife and children were the freed and the ex-slave was sent to the war, as a citizen, and not slave. 8,000 ex-slaves fought in the war. If you want to know more about it, we can exchange info on my talk page. But thank you for you help in here! - --Lecen (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks as ever for all your work on this, Hchc2009 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MBK004[edit]

Just a one things I noticed during a quick look-through:

  • Ship names are supposed to be italicized per the MOS, and redlinks to them (to use an FA as a naming example per WP:NC-SHIPS: Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes) are perfectly acceptable because military vessels are notable enough for their own articles.-MBK004 02:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War[edit]

This article is currently listed as a B class article with 'Top' importance. I feel it has a number of issues but would like to try to get a group of interested editors involved to try to bring it up to a GA. Any comments and or involvement would be appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few points:

  • I don't think the use of an infobox, particularly the Military Conflict variant, is entirely appropriate for this article. Infoboxes don't really work well in a case such as this, where it is basically just presenting information for one side and is not structured for such use.
  • The lead could do with an expansion, briefly summarising the contents of the article. Done — I think I've improved it now, but it could do with a fresh opinion
  • Dates should be delinked in the prose and citations. Done
  • Per MoS, emdashes should not be spaced. Done
  • There is a little inconsistency in the article regarding the rank Warrant Officer Class II, with it being written as both Warrant Officer Class 2 and Warrant Officer Class Two. Please choose one of the variants and use that throughout. Done
  • "See also" sections should only contain links that are extremely relevant to the article, but are also not linked to in the prose. Done

I hope the above are helpful. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've fixed up some of the points and will work on others as I go. I've only just started work on the article, mainly just MOS and consistency stuff at the moment, so I have not even touched the content yet. Any assistance with content would be greatly appreciated too. I agree with the point about the infobox, but I'd like to get some concensus on the issue before it is removed. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Just give me a shout if you would like assistance with anything, although my sources on the Vietnam War are quite limited. It might be an idea to post on the Australian military history talk page to see if anyone has any further sources on the subject, or would be willing to help. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

Interesting topic. The VN War is not well covered on WP. Hope to see more of this

  • You need to be careful with the Ham book. I read the first section about the background history and there are quite a few factual errors on uncontested things in there. I don't think that is very scholarly.
  • Something needs to be added about Nguyen Cao Ky visiting Aus in 1967 and Calwell insulting him and a few riots. I can pilfer info from Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to Australia for you.
  • I find it a bit odd that there is nothing explained about Nui Dat because the Australians actually built a base there. Before it was a mound of hill.
  • In the timeline, there seem to be emphasis on VCs and the murder of the singer, which in my opinion didn't change the course of the war as much as the actual battles. Also, Australia didn't withdraw instantly when the ALP won so teh timeline needs to be changed. Secondly the Whitlam thing about rejecting ROV refugees needs to be explained more as it caused a bit of a stir, him being pro-communist and all that

YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the work you have put into improving the background section. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have the full details of the Edwards and Jupp works cited? Currently there are a couple of citations to these, but the full bibliographic details are not in the References section. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)  Done

David Fuchs[edit]

As part of the WP:VG-MILHIST peer review collab:

  • I have some issues with the tone, seemingly more informal and looser than I'd expect an article to be. This is compounded by some long sentences which are hard to follow and are littered with redundancies, for example "The origins of the Vietnam War itself are complex and may be traced back long before the engagement itself. In relation to Australia's involvement in the war, however, it may be seen that largely the origins lie in the rise of communism in Southeast Asia following the end of the Second World War and the fear of its spread which developed in Australia during the 1950s and early 1960s.[2]".
  • I think the images need to be jiggered a bit, because on my display (~1200px) some of the left-aligned image are breaking up the placement of level three headings.
  • There are some stubby paragraphs consisting of just one or two lines that need to be addressed (e.g., "Social attitudes and treatment of veterans"'s last line.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I will try to deal with the issues you have raised. In regards to the writing style in the Background section I'm probably a bit close to it to see the issue, so it probably needs an independent copy edit. Not sure what to do about the images as I'm not an image guru. Does anyone know how to fix the issue raised by David? — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been dealing with tone issues in a lot of MILHIST PRs, so it might have to do with the sources themselves, I dunno. As to the images, it just needs some jiggering (left-aligned images to right, et cetera). If you really feel like you can't move it, add a {{-}} to the bottom of the section with the image and it will clear it, but that's generally bad as it creates lots of whitespace. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

Here are my comments:

  • The statement in the lead that " it was not until the Fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975 that the last Australian soldiers were finally withdrawn from the country" is not supported by the citation, which says that the last troops withdrew in 1973. A small party of Air Field Defence Guards and many of the RAAF's Hercules were sent to Saigon in 1975, but this was to protect the Australian embassy and evacuate refugees.
  • I agree with YellowMonkey's comments on Ham's book - while it's been popular, it was badly reviewed and isn't a great source. I'd suggest making greater use of the excellent official history series which the Australian War Memorial has published.
  • The timeline section is unnecessary - these details should be in the article, so it's repedition
  • The Background section should be more tightly focused on how and why Australia became involved - there's no need to provide a potted history of the war. The current coverage of how Australia became involved is rather simplistic - the Australian Government was keen to become involved because it genuinely believed in the 'domino theory' and that volunteering troops would lead to greater US engagement in the region.
  • 1 RAR was only one of several units attached to the US 173rd Brigade - a full battalion group (including an NZ artillery battery) was sent.
  • 1 RAR's unhappy experiences with the US 173rd Brigade should be covered - the fundamental incompatibility of Australian and US tactics (especially in a hard-driving airborne brigade) was a major factor in the Army and Government deciding that the Australian force needed to be self-contained and independent of US units.
  • The 'Australian counter-insurgency tactics' section is a bit confused (and this is at least partially my fault). The last para contradicts most of the preceding paras and most of the section is various individuals personal opinions (some of whom aren't well placed to comment). It might be best to re-write this section to describe Australian doctrine and tactics and what the results of Australian operations were, leaving out the various opinions
  • The disagreements between the Army and RAAF over how No. 9 Squadron was used should be noted - this led to very heated debates and the eventual transfer of the RAAF's transport helicopters to the Army in the 1980s.
  • The section on the withdrawal of Australian troops needs to note that this began in line with US withdrawals
  • The Social attitudes and treatment of veterans section is full of weasel words (eg, "came to be seen by sections of the Australian community in less than sympathetic terms", "generated negative views of veterans in some quarters", "some sections of the anti-war movement", "some World War II veterans", etc). Greater precision and better sourcing is needed. The strong popular support for the war throughout most of its duration (which included very well attended welcome home parades for most units at the time) should also be noted.
  • A section on the impact of the war on the Australian military and Australia's strategic situation should also be noted. The withdrawal of the US from South East Asia forced Australia to adopt a more independent foreign policy with a much greater emphasis on the defence of continental Australia and this had important implications for the military's force structure. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Nick. Thanks for the review. I think I have now fixed the comment on the lead section (please take a look and let me know if it needs more work) and will try to fix the others as I go. To be honest I don't have access to the official history volumes so I'm hoping that someone else might have them. I have the Ham book, but as you say it is not the be all and end all. The only other source I have is Jeffrey Grey's Military history of Australia and he's a bit light on the details. Anyway, there's no rush so I will just keep working on bits and pieces as I can. I am hoping that perhaps a few interested parties might be keen on collaborating to get the article up to scratch. I'm fairly sure that User:Anotherclown has the official histories, but he is currently out bush. I've left a message on his talk page. Maybe when he gets back he might be able to help with some of these issues. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The lead looks good. I own one of the volumes of the official history ('On the Offensive') and have easy access to the rest through several libraries. I'd be happy to help out with the article. Some other things it could cover are:
  • The performance of 1 ATF's civil affairs efforts
  • The construction of the barrier minefield and its disastrous effects for 1 ATF
  • More material on the RAAF and RAN
  • The significant US disatisfaction with 1 ATF's performance and, ironically, the Australian Government's unwillingness to move it after Phuoc Tuy was largely pacified
  • More on the dynamics of how 1 ATF operated (eg, the various phases of settling into Phuoc Tuy, securing the base area, securing the province, operating outside the province and pulling back to Phuoc Tuy in the last years of Australia's involvement) Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Question on casualty numbers[edit]

I am having a bit of trouble getting accurate statistics on casualties and numbers of personnel that served. The article has some variations, e.g. 520 or 521 killed (I think it is 521 and have changed this), 2,400 or ~ 3,000 wounded (originally article had 2,400 but cited a source that actually has over 3,000), 49-50,000 or ~ 60,000 personnel served (article specifically mentions 49,968 in infobox but all the AWM stats seem to say ~ 60,000). Also in terms of determining the 521 killed, does this include the six personnel listed as missing in action that have since been located? This article seems to indicate that the figure of 521 only includes three of the missing personnel, so hence would it now be 524? (I believe that all six men listed as missing in action have now been located and confirmed as killed in action, but I could be wrong).

I suppose, however, that we can't really say 524 if none of the sources say it. Just thinking out loud, though. Sorry if this makes things even more confusing. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The Vietnam War nominal roll administered by the Department of Veteran's Affairs at http://www.vietnamroll.gov.au/ states that "approximately 61 000 Australian Service personnel who served in Vietnam during the period 23 May 1962 to 29 April 1975" and I'd suggest that this figure be used. I think that it's safe to assume that the 'missing' personnel were included in the figure of 521 killed on the AWM's site - there has never been any doubt that they were killed in action, and the 'missing' classification was to acknowledge that their bodies hadn't been recovered. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

There's little I can add to what's already been covered but to follow up on a couple of points Nick made, I can point you to some relevant stuff in other WP articles I've worked on, which might save you a bit of time writing or searching for sources. On the somewhat precipitate commitment of Australian troops, there's a bit in the Legacy section of Frederick Scherger, Australia's senior soldier in the late 1960s. For lack of cooperation between army and air force re. use of helicoptors, there's the Vietnam section in Alister Murdoch, the RAAF's Chief in the same period. Both include some choice quotes from particpants and later commentators. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hawkeye7[edit]

In addition to what the others, particularly Nick have said, there's still more I'd like to see:

  • "Australian Advisors, 1962–1972" only covers up to 1964. I'd like to see more on 1965-73, including the two Victoria Crosses, the involvement in parts of Vietnam other than Phuoc Tuy and the Australian involvement in the Phoenix Program.
  • The text on the medical and logistical effort is inadequate. Remember that more Australians served in 1ALSG than in 1ATF.
  • "Protests against the war" isn't entirely about the Anti-war Movement and probably shouldn't be - consider renaming the section something like "Home front" in line with the WWI and WWII articles. I'd like to see the bit about conscription expanded and a subsection on the anti-war movement. At the least, I'd expect to see mentions of figures like Jim Cairns, Joan Child and Simon Townsend.
  • Perhaps a section on the politics. Particularly "all the way with LBJ" and the Clifford-Taylor mission.
  • The discussion of Australian tactics is too glib and doesn't really come to grips with the reasons for the differences in tactics between US and Australian forces.

I'll see what I can do to help when I get back next week. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Dunkirk[edit]

Nominated because I'd like to know what else I need to do to promote this article above "B"-class.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cuprum17[edit]

Overall the article looks very good. Very organized and well linked.

  • A red link Bulscamp exists in the article under the 'Defence of the perimeter' section, which if the spelling is changed to Bulskamp will redirect to Veurne. If this is the same locale, I would suggest making a spelling change for Bulscamp or changing the name to Veurne in the article. You would have to do a little research to see if each of these names refer to the same locale. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 DoneS Marshall Talk/Cont 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • The article is far too brief to get beyond B-class at this stage, considering its place in world history
  • Large parts of the article are unsourced.
  • Lead is too short
  • The article starts with the invasion of France without explaining any background, and although it is obvious to most people for some it would be difficult to understand

YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Hi, good work so far. These are my comments:

  • Bibliography could be formatted with {{cite book}} template;
  • Lead could be expanded up to four paragraphs;
  • Each paragraph needs a citation for B class, more for higher;
  • Per the WP:MOS headings shouldn't begin with 'The';
  • Try to add the links in the See also section into the text.

Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Jackyd101[edit]

Hi, not a bad short article, but that is also its principal problem - it is far too short and lacking in detail. For an operation of this importance (and it shouldn't be forgotten that disaster here could well have knocked Britain out of the war) there is a severe lack of pertinent details - where particular defensive actions took place, when and involving which units on either side in a blow by blow breakdown. Other specific points:

  • The lead is too short and inadequate for introducing the article.
  • The entire evacuation section is vital - without the evacuation there would have been no evacuation and vice versa - even though it has its own article, this article must carry an extended discussion of the event. Always remember that each article should be able to stand on its own as a useable resource.
  • More sources needed throughout, preferably from a wide range of historical viewpoints and national perspectives.
  • The in popular culture section is a mess - I agree that one is relevant for this article, but it needs to be in the form of coherent sentences.

Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for these comments, all. Do others agree the evacuation section needs to be expanded?

    I originally proposed to merge the two articles (Dunkirk evacuation and Battle of Dunkirk), but the idea did not seem popular. Given that the evacuation does have a separate article, I wasn't previously minded to give that bit much in the way of detail.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes please to expandions YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, what I was asking was not that the Dunkirk evacuation article be duplicated here. However I think it is absolutely vital that the evacuation is given a detailed summary: without explaining the evacuation in enough detail for it to stand on its own, you cannot put both the causes and effects of the battle into their correct context.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Louis H. Carpenter[edit]

Completing review request for Jrcrin001. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Good work so far. I haven't read the whole article yet, but I have a couple of comments at the moment:

  • There are no disambig links and the external links are good according to the WP:Featured article tools (well done);
  • There seems to be a cite error with Citation # 18;  Done
  • Further reading section should be formatted with {{cite book}} template;  Done
  • Hyphens and dashes need to be consistent with WP:DASH, e.g add endashes to date and page ranges, use unspaced emdashes in text;  Done
  • The use of the two different images for the Medal of Honor (in the infobox and then in the Honors and awards section) might be a bit confusing for some, I'd suggest using the image of the version he received in the infobox, or just the subject's portrait;
 Done I removed the one that was previously displayed in the infobox because its was the wrong era. --Kumioko (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Duplicate references/citations should be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS. I think I saw at least one (Carpenters encyclopedia of Carpenters);  Done
  • In the citations section, where you have the bare url links, I'd suggest embedding them so that the bare link doesn't show, but can still be clicked on, e.g. London Gazette (I don't think this is a requirement, but I feel it makes the citations look a bit 'cleaner', after all the long url takes the eyes off the important information);  Done

Anyway, hope this helps. I will try to take a more comprehensive look later. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Ejosse1[edit]

Starting with the Infobox:

  • I would leave out the image source on the caption, as that can be found by clicking through to the image file.
 Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You don't need to specify the county on place of birth or place of burial, especially not for Philadelphia.
 Done I removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Rather than Department of War on Service/branch, use United States Army. I'm not big on also including Union Army, as it seems redundant, but that seems to be the practice.
 Done I removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • For years of service, just put the range of years.
 Done I removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the docs for the Military Person Infobox, do not use Units if you are using Commands.
 Done Jut for the record I don't agree with removing the units if commands are used because the 2 are not mutually exclusive but I did it anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Under Battles/wars, rather than giving the number of campaigns in each war, specify one or two of the principal battles he participated in. It doesn't need to be a complete resume, either.
 Done --Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Leave off the date range under other work.
 Done I removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're trying to cram too much information into the infobox. Just list the important highlights and leave the details for the article.

Other points:

  • Under Early Life, I would trim down the paragraph about the brother, or use it create a short stub article and link to it. Done
  • I just don't think the images of regimental and cavalry insignia add anything to the article. The same could be said for the whole Military promotions section and the Samuel Carpenter images toward the end.
 Done --Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll probably add more later. Overall, this is a worthy article on a subject needing more coverage in Wikipedia. Keep it up! --Ejosse1 (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In Addition to the items listed above I expanded the lead, moved some images around and reworded a few things. --Kumioko (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Platine War[edit]

Hello to everyone! I have been working on this article for quite some time by now. I believe it is a good article, but perhaps with some grammar or spelling errors that could be easily fixed if identified. Thus, I would like to ask for your help to review the article and make it better, if possible. Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • Citations that are the same need to be merged. I'll do some examples for you
  • For the montage, can you put an explanation on the image page at least of what each of them are? They need a source for each of the constituents to be PD. I presume the individual pics were before 1860 but that you grouped them, whcih should be noted on the image page YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you move the commanders into the infobox. The ARG and URU guys, it doesn't say which side they were on YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I´ve putted the information about each image in the compilation. I´ve moved the commanders into the infobox. - --Lecen (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai[edit]

  • Lead is not adequete. It does not tell the outcome or aftermath of the war for starters. Some more detail during the war would also be helpful, but not too much.
  • In the section The Empire of Brazil the line "It was probably the only one with a steady and democratic constitutional regime." would appear to be original research. If the source states that it should be better clarrified that historical evidence justifies that.Jinnai 01:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fixed it. I´ll improve the heading later. I presume everything else is ok? - --Lecen (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell. It's getting late though so some trivial stuff may have slipped by.Jinnai 02:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Looking pretty good, although I haven't read the whole article through yet. I have the following comments:

  • There are some stylised quotation marks that should be converted to straight quotation marks ("), an example is in The Empire of Brazil reacts section (this is a nitpick, I know);
  • The lead could be expanded, up to four paragraphs if you want (usually required for a GA mark);
  • The reference error checker indicates that there are quite a few references that are the same. As per Yellow Monkey's comment these should be consolidated using WP:NAMEDREFS;
  • As per my comment in the Armed Forces of the Empire of Brazil review, I suggest adding more details about the authors of the images used if you can (i.e. date of death) in order to put their PD claim beyond doubt;
  • Possibly format the entries in the Bibliography using the {{cite book}} format.
  • Add ISBNs to all the sources if you can.

Hope this helps. — AustralianRupert (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hchc2009[edit]

Really good to see a substantial article on this. A few comments:

  • The odd untranslated/linked word early on - e.g. "the caudilho searched" in the 'Juan Manuel de Rosas dictatorship' section.
  • I think there's room for some further polishing of the translation - "The Argentine dictator looked to hinder the contact of Paraguay with the exterior thus to submit it to his will." "With almost the totality of the Uruguayan territory at his hands, Oribe allowed..." "a convict monarchist", "they practised booties and murders", "the decurrent instability" etc. I'm happy to give it a thorough scrub if you like.

::My english sucks. I´m trying to find someone who could fix all grammar and spelling issues. However, I had no luck so far.

  • I do sense a POV in the article, but this may be a result of the translation rather than intent. A couple of examples:
We have the "assassinations" and "murders" of one side - I'm really not certain from context if these are murders or assassinations, or just deaths in a bloody civil war.
They were political murders. Those deaths were not resulted from battles in a civil war, but killings ordered by Rosas. I did not enter in details because that should be done on his article.
There is the "old Brazilian province of Cisplatine" in 1830; the wikipedia entry on Cisplatina describes it as a Brazilian province from 1815-30 only, and as Spanish before that - I don't know the full details, but it sounds disputed at the very least.
Portugal colonized Uruguay first, from 1680 up to 1777. The Spain took over up to 1815. Portugal reconquered and then Brazil kept it up to 1828. The text says that the once Brazilian Cisplatine changed its name to Uruguay.
The Argentinian military is comprised of "thugs" - it feels a little pejorative.
They were not soldiers but in fact, men who worked for the caudillos. They were thugs and bandits. We can not even call it a militia as they weren´t.
You could go for 'irregular', which could capture the sense of 'thug' I think you're after here, but wouldn't be perojative or imply they were an organised militia; if they were bandits, however (i.e. the source you're citing states that they met the definition at Outlaw), I'd go with 'bandit'. Or you could go for "formed almost entirely of men drawn from the caudillos who supported them", which would also keep it neutral. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Brazil's desire for regional hegemony is uncommented on; Argentina's is.

::Yes, it is. Read again. It says clearly that Brazil wanted to make South America its own zone of influence.

  • The interests of France and Britain in uninhibited trade could be made clearer (if I remember correctly, their original problem with de Rosas, and why they intervened during the civil war to keep the ports open).

**That´s a matter to be written more detailed in the article about the Guerra Grande, not in the Platine War article.

  • I didn't entirely understand how the "internal stability caused by the victory over Argentina allowed the material development of the Empire of Brazil" - insofar as it wasn't clear to me how the victory caused internal stability in the Brazilian empire.
Rosas kept aiding seccessionist rebels in southern Brazil for years. Once Brazil defeated Rosas, it also ended any possibility of rebels in Rio Grande do Sul try once again to rebel.
  • (additional) Just had a look through the Spanish wikipedia articles on the Guerra Grande - some material there could probably be incorporated - the fate of the escaped slaves at the end of the conflict, for example.
    • The Platine War was not the Guerra Grande. Different conflicts. They are part of a larger conflict in the Platine War, if you want to consider it as such. However, Spanish Wikipedia never use sources. I prefer not to put something wich I´m not sure if it is true. - --Lecen (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a strong line of thinking in other English wikipedia articles that places the Platine War as part of the Uruguayan Guerra Grande conflict (see Uruguayan Civil War for example). I wouldn't suggest that you turn the Platine article into an article on the Guerra Grande, but the introduction might usefully capture the different perspectives - i.e. that for Brazil, the Platine War was a specific international war against a troublesome neighbour; for Uruguay it was part of a very long running internal civil war (the Guerra Grande); and for Argentina it formed almost the end of the internal Federales-Unitarios conflict.Hchc2009 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The source says: "Mas essa gente não tinha entusiasmo pela ingrata causa que tentava defender e o seu general, sem estado-maior, sem técnicos, não sabia aproveitar as inegáveis vantagens dum terreno propício. O seu exército, na maioria, era um "exército de presa, sem pátria e sem lei", composto pela escória da província de Buenos Aires e de seus arredores. Não havia unidade na sua formação e as tropas verdadeiramente veteranas atingiram a pouco mais de dois mil homens. Source: Barroso, Gustavo. Guerra do Rosas: 1851-1852. Fortaleza: SECULT, 2000, p.119. Although the author is Brazilian, he cite his sources as "Ramos Mejia - Rosas y su Tiempo, Atanasio Martinez, Buenos Aires, 1927, vol. III, pp.157 and 157, and Private Memo of "del Ministerior de Guerra y Marina". Both Argentine sources.

In English: "But this people [Rosas´soldiers] did not have enthusiasm for the ungrateful cause that they tried to defend, their general had no military staff, no experts, was not wise enoulgh to use in his advantage the undeniable advantages of a propitious terrain. His army, in its majority, was one "army of looting, without native land and nor law", composed by the scum from the province of Buenos Aires and its outskirts. It did not have unity in its formation and the truly veteran troops were a little more than 2,000 men".

The Guerra Grande, or uruguayan Civil War ended when Oribe surrended. The Argentine civil wars ended when Rosas fled. However, the international war between Argentina and Brazil that started in 1851 ended after the Battle of Caseros in 1852. They are all connected and part of a larger conflict between the Portuguese and Spanish American world that began in 1500 (or 1825 if you want to begin with the Argentina-Brazil War). - --Lecen (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon Bolivar Buckner, Sr.[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I have recently done a major expansion of this article with an eye toward taking it to FAC. Before I do that, I'd like to have some more sets of eyes on it, especially since the majority of my sources are about Buckner's political career, not his military career. I would appreciate feedback and suggestions for things that should be improved before the article can pass an FA review. I hope to gather this feedback quickly, because I have to return Borderland Knight to a distant library on September 18. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 02:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few things that stick out:

  • If you are heading toward FAC, you are going to need to add alt text to images. Alt text is a brief, but concise, description of what the actual images are of, and is added to the image markup through |alt=.
  • Added.
  • Dashes used in the prose should be unspaced, and be emdashes rather than endashes. For example: "They formed a new party – the National Democratic Party, or Gold Democrats – which Buckner joined." --> "They formed a new party—the National Democratic Party, or Gold Democrats—which Buckner joined."

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Done. Those dashes drive me nuts.
Thanks for your comments Acdixon (talk contribs count) 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Looks very good, structure and citation appear excellent. Two things from me as well:

  • His son would later serve in the U.S. Army and be killed at the Battle of Okinawa during World War II. needs to be cited.
  • I can cite this to the younger Buckner's article in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, but though it appears on the same page as Harrison's article on the elder Buckner, it was written by a different author. Should I include two different citations to The Kentucky Encyclopedia in the "References" section?
  • Heh, nothing's ever easy, is it?! In that case, if it was me, I think I'd change the book reference to include just the editor's name in the Last and First fields and drop the chapter title after all, since it seems excessive to include two entries for the same book. The aim would be to end up with this: Kleber, John E. (ed.). The Kentucky Encyclopedia. Associate editors: Thomas D. Clark, Lowell H. Harrison, and James C. Klotter. Lexington, Kentucky: The University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0813117720. You'd have to change your citation Harrison in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, p. 136 to Kleber (ed.), p. 136 but you'd be able to use that citation for the son's fate as well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the References section, I'm a little confused by the Harrison books. He's down as both writer and editor and, while that's of course possible in encyclopedic works with many entries, it looks odd the way it's presented here. If you do mean he wrote the Buckner chapter/entry and was also the book's editor, you should probably use the Chapter parameter of Cite Book to give the chapter/entry title to make things clear. Another thing there is that, in any case, you only need to link Harrison's name once in the section.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This is, indeed, the case, and I have corrected the entry as suggested.
Thanks for your comments. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 14:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Couple of other things in References: 1) the first Harrison book is missing a title - I assume its Kentucky's Governors; 2) the entries use a mix of citation templates and manual formatting - should be all templates for consistency. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Close please[edit]

Would someone be so kind as to close this review? I'm taking the article to WP:FAC before I have to return Borderland Knight. Thanks. Acdixon (talk contribs count) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Background of the Winter War[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I aim for making the Winter War and its subarticle Background of the Winter War (now under peer reviews) the A-class (maybe GA) article for 30 November 2009, the 70th anniversary of the start of the war. Comments and suggestions? Peltimikko (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • You have mixed page formats: pp and pages
 Done Peltimikko (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Source 1 is used a lot, even a majority of times, but the page range is 13-46. Sometimes subjective comments are made, eg about Finland not having confidence in the LoN, but this is not targeted at a certain 1-4 pages. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done references fixed and a source book added, though subjective comments partly under construction. Peltimikko (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Partial dates are not to be linked
 Done Peltimikko (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done Peltimikko (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cplakidas[edit]

  • A thorough copyediting is needed to improve style.
Start hand.svg Extra hands needed Peltimikko (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I know :). I am going through the article now, making some changes. There are some points were the narrative is unclear, they will be added below as I come across them. Constantine 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I share YellowMonkey's concern about source 1, as well as for the presence of possibly subjective views. It would be better if you cited the exact page (the same applies to source 3), and also if you relied less upon it. It would be good to find further sources to provide additional support for the many statements about intents & views held by people or groups.
 Done see comments above. Peltimikko (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • IMO, for the article to be complete and able to stand alone, there should be a short section of a few paragraphs at the end dealing with the events that followed, i.e. the Winter War, the peace and the Continuation War, and perhaps the post-war Finlandization as well. This article deals in essence with Finnish-Soviet relations in the interwar period, and it would be useful to put it in a more complete perspective in the end.
Aftermath of the Winter War will be published later. Peltimikko (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, in terms of content covered, I think it is quite comprehensive. Constantine 13:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Further points:

  • the section on "Finnish–Swedish co-operation": there is a claim that "the question of the Finnish Jäger troops, who had received their military training in Germany" impaired relations with Sweden and the other Scandinavian states. How exactly? what was this "question"? Also, while Sweden was obviously the prime candidate for an alliance, a reference is made to the other Scandinavian countries as well. There should be at least a small reference to relations with them, e.g. "relations with Denmark and Norway remained cordial" or whatever (the same goes for the Baltic states below, where only Estonia is expanded upon). Why did Finland not have high expectations from the League? What was the "Committee of Erich" named after? Constantine 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Sweden, as the largest Scandinavian country, was the key to Scandinavian security. Other countries, Denmark and Norway, would have probably follow its decisions. So, Sweden = Scandinavia. 1920s Finland was a part of weak alliance of Poland and the Baltic countries, but it was over by late 1920s. I have not yet found the correct english name for the "alliance", maybe "Edge State Policy"?. Estonia is Finno-Ugric country, so close relations are natural. All small European countries had high expectations from the League in the 1920s, as it was meant to prevent wars and disarm. "Committee of Erich" was lead by Rafael Erich. Peltimikko (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • the section on Estonia: "From the Finnish point of view, the close relations with Estonia did not exclude the Scandinavian neutrality policy." what exactly is meant here? the "Scandinavian neutrality policy" is not referred to before, and the impression gained from the previous paragraphs indicate that Finland actively sought a military alliance with Scandinavian countries. "Nevertheless, the military relations were top secret, and the countries held joint military exercises." How can two countries that hold joint exercises keep their military relations top secret? Or was there some particular aspect that was kept secret? Constantine 14:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It was top secret for public, but the Soviets probably knew most of it, as later it was a one of the demands in 1939 negotiations. But the Soviets did not know everything, for example the radio cable at the bottom of the sea, used later during Winter War. Read more Finnish–Estonian defense cooperation (needs also copy-editing). Peltimikko (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • a mix of British and US English spelling is used in the article. Please standardize to one of them. Constantine 14:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
British spelling would be best option. My not so sophisticated "broken english" from early years of the elementary school, can only stress that British use the word "lorry" and the Americans "truck". Peltimikko (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • the section on "Stalin and the protection of Leningrad": there are several issues here, regarding the extremely simplistic portrayal of the Soviet Union. The statement about the "collapse" of Soviet economy and agriculture is very dubious. While Stalin's breakneck industrialization and collectivization policies certainly came at an enormous human price, to say that the Soviet economy "collapsed" is grossly exaggerated, and the industrial base acquired would prove crucial in WWII. Some more expert and specialized sources should be used here. Also, the shift in Soviet foreign policy from "international revolution" towards "socialism in one country" and the slow re-emergence of the traditional Russian aspirations in the 1930s, which also coincided with/were caused by the rise and consolidation of Stalin's power, could take some additional explaining, again, with more specialized sources than those used. In general, I would suggest merging this section with the above, and emphasizing the two distinct periods in terms of relations: 1920s and early 30s - the Soviet Union seeks normalization (and the reasons why: relative weakness, priority on economic & industrial development, international isolation), late 1930s - expansionist policies (and the reasons therefore). Constantine 21:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
You are right about the "collapse", the claim should had a better sourced and explained. Though, we have to take consider that Russian Civil War and later Stalin's collectivization did couse huge famines, where at least the latter was deliberated (a part of the Stalin's ideological action to create new Soviet-human, no matter the human cost). "The world revolution" and "state interest relation to national security" is taken from a book by A.O. Chubaryan, Academnician from the Russian Academy of Sciences. But again, you are right, this section needs improvement. Peltimikko (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • a few remarks on the lead: per WP:LEAD, it should summarize the article. Currently, it does not. It should mention in overview Finland's quest for a military alliance with Sweden and Estonia, her ambiguous relationship with the Soviets in the interwar, as well as the events of 1938-1939. There are three major sections in the article so I suggest summarizing each in a distinct paragraph in the lead. Constantine 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done Peltimikko (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • a minor point in the section on the 1938 negotiations: is the phrase "By the winter of 1939" true, or an error for "winter of 1938"? Because if it is the former, the section's title should be changed. Constantine 22:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Last of the first phase negotiations were held winter 1939. Still, winter 1939 did not offer anything new, so title could remain the same (or change). Peltimikko (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done On second thought, the title is changed and added a mention of Sten's department. Peltimikko (talk) 07:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Operation Crossroads[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

I think this article has progressed to the point it's better then a B-class article. It's well sourced, well illustrated (with a featured picture) and plenty of content. I think it's well on the way to being a featured article, and would like to know what additional work needs done.

Thanks, — raeky (talk | edits) 00:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth[edit]

I found this to be most interesting, well-written, apparently comprehensive, and well-illustrated. It's greatest weakness may be its lack of sourcing in places and its tendency to inject explanations that may be true but appear to come from the general knowledge of the subject by Wikipedia editor(s) rather than verifiable sources. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources. I did a close reading down to the "Radiation" section, and I noted several recurring small problems such as the lack of metric conversions in many places, the lack of non-breaking spaces here and there, and a few unexplained technical terms that could be linked or briefly explained for the general reader. Mainly, though, this looks very good, and you should be able to get it to FA quality with more work.

General

  • Images need alt text to pass FAC reviews. See WP:ALT for details and examples.

Lead

  • MOS:INTRO says in part, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." - The existing lead comes pretty close but doesn't mention "Bikini after Crossroads" or "Legacy" and might be a bit more inclusive.

Preparation

  • "The atoll remains unpopulated." - It would be good to include here "as of 2009" so that the reader can tell whether the information is up-to-date.

Ships

  • "brought 200 pigs, 60 guinea pigs, 204 goats, 5000 rats, 200 mice" - WP:NBSP says in part, "Wikipedia recommends the use of a non-breaking space (also known as a hard space) when necessary to prevent the end-of-line displacement of elements that would be awkward at the beginning of a new line... " - Subject to interpretation, this might include constructions like 200 pigs. Just to be safe, I often add nbsps to combination like these.
  • "containing insects to be studied for genetic effects by the National Cancer Institute" - Wikilink National Cancer Institute?

Cameras

  • "and 1,500,000 feet of motion picture film" - Metric conversion?

Nicknames

  • "the time of detonation for each test was announced as "H" or "How" hour;[11] in the official JTF-1 history, the term "M" or "Mike" hour is used instead" - It would be interesting to know why "M" is used. "H" comes from "hour" presumably, but what does "M" hour derive from, if anything?
  • It's a good rule of thumb to provide at least one source for each paragraph as well as sources for direct quotes, sets of statistics, and any claims that might reasonably be questioned. Two of the paragraphs in this section are unsourced. Quite a few others are unsourced elsewhere in the article, including some with statistics and technical analyses that are not common knowledge and can probably be sourced.
  • "starting in 1946, of bikini as the name of for woman's two-piece bathing suit" - "a woman's"? Or "for women's two-piece bathing suits"? Or "the name of two-piece bathing suits for women"?

Test Able - July 1

  • "painted red, with white gun barrels and gunwales" - Wikilink gunwales?
  • "inside a firestorm over two miles wide." - Metric conversion?
  • "But water doesn't burn, and warships, other than aircraft carriers, are extremely resistant to blast and fire." - Probably true, but this reads like an interpretation by the Wikipedia editor. That, in turn, calls attention to the fact that most of the material in this section is unsourced.

Radiation

  • "Altogether, 35% of the animals died as a direct result of blast" - Since you use "percent" earlier in the paragraph, this should be "percent" for consistency. Ditto for similar instances. The symbol, %, is also an option in some circumstances but probably not here.
  • "Since rats made up 86% of the total, obviously not all of them survived." - "Obviously" is an editorial comment, and the rest of the sentence seems to refer to a calculation made by the Wikipedia editor. Shorten to "Not all of them survived" or give the number of survivors?
  • "Although the Able bomb missed its target, Nevada, by nearly half a mile," - Metric conversion?
  • "Had the Nevada been fully manned, she would likely have become a floating coffin, dead in the water for lack of a live crew." - It seems likely, but is this Wikipedia's interpretation, or can it be backed up by a reliable source?

Test Baker - July 25

  • "Wilson cloud" appears here and in the lead photo. Should it be linked (perhaps to Wilson cloud chamber or briefly explained?
  • "any ships that remained afloat within 1,000 yards" - Metric conversion? Ditto for other unconverted imperial expressions in the article.
  • Citation 17 seems to be floating under the table on my computer screen.
  • "where she capsized in shallow water on 22 December 1946" - Dates are no longer autoformatted.

Sequence of blast events

  • "The Able shot also produced a Wilson cloud, but heat from the fireball dried it out more quickly." - The Manual of Style generally advises against extremely short paragraphs such as this one. Two possible solutions are to expand or to merge. With this one, I'd suggest merging with the paragraph above.

References

  • Page ranges take en dashes rather than hyphens.
  • A few of the references such as Citation 49 are malformed in that the title is normally linked, and the bare url is invisible.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article about a subject of your own choosing. I found this one in the PR backlog. Finetooth (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Grand Port[edit]

Hi everyone, in the lull following the completion of a massive article project (Atlantic campaign of 1806) I'm going to try and make the final push on a few articles towards FA standard. The first is this one, which is already an A class article. Its been a few months since I've had a punt at an FAC and I may be a bit rusty, so any and all pointers welcome. I'm esecially interested in what people think of the huge hi-res image that has been added to the middle of the article - I think it is interesting and visually stimulating, but I want to know what peoples general impression is. Thanks --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Woody[edit]

A few comments, the article looks very good at the moment

  • Articles at FAC now require alternative text for the images, see WP:ALT for information.
  • You might consider using {{Ref label}} for the last two footnotes as they are footnotes rather than refnotes.
  • I really like "Combat" image, indeed, it is very striking.
  • Apart from that, I really couldn't find anything that wrong with it. There are a few long sentences, but nothing excessive. All of the images are PD and demonstrably so, they are well captioned and relevant. It is MOS compliant as far as I can work out. So, all looks good to me. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai[edit]

This page is pretty good. There are a few minor problems:

  • Remove sentance starters like even, however, although, etc.
  • Time zones - it may be unclear what timezone this is. First one should mention it.
  • A few of the images maybe could be have smaller thumbnails on the mainpage (the full zized image can still be viewed by clicking it).Jinnai 21:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the images statement: the lead image is a standard size (300px), all of the others are standard thumbs, bar the map of the action which is bigger as it wouldn't be legible or useful at a smaller resolution. So in that sense, I think it works as is, in my opinion of course. Regards, Woody (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the map, but I can understand that. However, 'Grand Port mg6971b.jpg. is much larger than a thumb and does not need to show the kind of details a map needs to.Jinnai 01:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
That is fair enough, but that is what Jackyd wants from this peer review: opinions. I count that as 1 for, 1 against! :) Regards, Woody (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your comments, they were all much appreciated and have largely been incorporated. I will be taking this to FAC now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

First Battle of Charleston Harbor[edit]

I have done just about everything I set out to do with this article, and now think that it meets B-class criteria. Another set of eyes may detect shortcomings, so suggestions for improvements are welcome. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You need to properly capitalize all your sources' titles. Will reply later with more substantial comments. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This style (i.e. sentence capitalization) is permitted by the manual of style. I use it because I copy and paste most of my bibliography from the Library of Congress online catalog, and I deem it too much trouble to revise it. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai[edit]

A quick glance over and it looks mostly like it just needs tightening up, ie removing excess words. The lead should be reduced to just explaining the main points. FE, the whole fourth paragraph could largely be reduced to a 2 sentances and merged with the last paragraph. Just tell people that the war didn't go as planned and on either side resulting in defeat for the union forces. Details should be left for the inidivisual sections.

red links should be avoided and the number the article has may be a bit too much.

Finally there are a few words that may should be removed. FE: "Keokuk sank during the night, fortunately with no loss of life,[...]" or "Later, a so-called "boom" was laid between Forts Sumter and Moultrie." a few others, somewhat, although, however, only, etc.

Other words to you can look to remove are ones like thus, in addition, etc. Finally do not start sentances with even, because and of course although (see above).Jinnai 04:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention.
1. I have revised the lead to accommodate your suggestions.
2. I have cut out the words you want me to get rid of, with one exception: the "Even Keokuk" in the last paragraph is left in to emphasize the fact that it would be unexpected.
3. The red links dismay me also, but I think the cure is to create the articles they would link to. I am particularly surprised that articles (at least stubs) for Battery Gregg and Fort Johnson do not already exist. As for the naval officers, I think that all three that are now red-linked are notable enough to be worth their own articles.

PKKloeppel (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Woody[edit]

This is a good article, a few comments from me:

  • First off, don't worry about the red links, certainly don't remove them. It indicates articles that still need to be made.
  • Could you split up the battle section, perhaps adding in sub-sections. At the moment it is a very large block of text.
  • The section headers in the background section aren't very intuitive for the non-American. Could we change it to Union and Confederate or something along those lines?
  • Could we get an image made up of the battle, a diagram?
  • Make sure you use consistent date formats, I note you use 5 April (rather than April 5) in the battle section. Some people at FAC can get very worked up about date formats.
  • "Four monitors led the way; first was USS Weehawken, Captain John Rodgers." This doesn't flow very well, maybe USS Weehawken under the command of Captain John Rodgers. or something to that effect.
  • Do we need to list all the commanders in the text? Perhaps a separate order of battle section and put this in list form. That is a stylistic preference though, something to think about. How do other battle articles deal with it?
  • Can you take Passaic class monitor out of see also and link it in the text somewhere; perhaps it would be more appropriate to link it instead of the lead ship in this sentence: "The Passaic class gunboats were designed"?

So, a few suggestions for you to ponder. It is good work so far. Regards, Woody (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

  • First, let me apologize for not responding earlier. I was away from Wikipedia for a few days, and I just plain forgot to check in.
  • I think that I have responded to all of your suggestions except one. See what you think of it now.
  • The suggestion that I have not done anything about is to show a map. I have a map that I would like to use, but it is too detailed for presentation on a computer screen, so I will have to modify it. With my artistic skills (not), this will probably not be completed anytime soon. Bear with me (and if anyone else has a good map and wishes to jump in, he/she will earn my gratitude).
  • I have left the names of the several captains in the text because it showed the importance ascribed to the battle by the Navy Department. The ten men who were selected were regarded as the cream of the crop, as shown by the later elevation of seven of them to flag rank. This was a density of future gold braid that has seldom been equaled in any navy. (I wish I could put this expression of my Point of View into the article, but you -- and all the rest of Wikipedia -- would frown on that.) PKKloeppel (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the length between my replies; I distinctly remember responding to you, though I think my internet connection vanished. On to the task at hand, don't worry about the map, someone will create one at some point. It was simply something that could be done in the future. In terms of the captains, that is fine, I understand your reasoning now, it just seems a bit awkward in the text.
Another point, some text is now squashed between the images in the confederacy section which is against MOS. Woody (talk) 10:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Montana class battleship[edit]

Previous Peer Review is here

Its been about a year since this article made FA, and now its time for its annual peer review. This is a routine maintenance peer review, I do not expect the article content to have shifted drastically since the FAC last year, but I am open to any suggestions for improvement. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Hi, Tom, just a couple of points:

  • There are a couple of sentences at the end of paragraphs, and a paragrah or two themselves, that a without a cite and could probably do with one.
  • As there are so many actual notes contained in the "Notes" section among the citations, it might be worth separating them into two different sections; one "Notes" and the other "Footnotes" or some such.
  • If possible, it would be best if a few more of the images were aligned to the left, as the majority currently sit to the right.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ed![edit]

Same, just a few things to point out.

  • The "Armament" section is the main place without citations. Some paragraphs could use more thorough citations while others (such as the first paragraph in the section) aren't cited at all.
  • The books in the "References" and "Further Reading" sections should be put into {{cite book}} templates.
  • I see a few links that appear multiple times in the article (Iowa-class, Battle of Midway, etc.) I would suggest skimming through the article's links again and making sure each link only appears once.

-Ed!(talk) 20:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cam[edit]

Just a few things here and there

  • Yamato and Musashi need to be wikilinked in the third paragraph of "history"
  • Could the Panama canal restrictions be worked into the article a bit earlier (or at least mentioned in more explicit detail in the "design" section)?

Can't find anything else worth mentioning. Still a superb Featured Article. Well done! Cam (Chat) 17:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I Corps (United States)[edit]

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!(talk) 01:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few minor points that stick out:

  • All dates should be delinked.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Endashes are required in date ranges used in the article, and page ranges used in citations.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Level headings should not begin with "The" per MoS.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how those listed as "Notable commanders" in the infobox have been ordered, but I think it would be preferable if the were ordered chronologically by the first of those men to command the corps down to the most current of them.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The "References" section should probably be renamed "Notes", and "Sources" to "References".

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

I just skimmed the article, but I did pick up some things:

  • In the Korean War section, only two engagements are wiki-linked (Inchon landings & Operation Ripper)
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Cold War section, you wrote: "The eastern half of the border was handled by the South Korean Army while I Corps took charge in the east.[30]" Is the 2nd east supposed to be "west"? Or were they in command of the South Korean Army in the east? This should be fixed or clarified.
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Honours section should be cited
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

--Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa[edit]

Just a few things:

  • There are a lot of identical links in some sections, this need to be sorted out
  • Years could be added to the notable commanders in the infobox to make things clearer
    • Done. —Ed!(talk) 02:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The image that shows the structure of the Corps is not clear. It needs to be made bigger or moved.
  • The history section is very large, it may need trimming down a bit.

Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 15:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

45th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!(talk) 04:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

EnigmaMcmxc[edit]

  1. I have had a look at the refs and sources they look a-ok to me. Internet sources all appear to be US military or Gov, the one that isnt cites it sources.
  2. "After a brief deactivation, the division returned to duty in the Korean War, defending U.N. lines against repeated attacks from Chinese forces" - This is in the lead, does this mean that the division did not have an offensive role in the war?
    1. By the time the division got to Korea the fight was mostly trench warfare, so not really. I clarified the lead to say that the division was "on the UN lines" -Ed!(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  3. Too many dead links, they should be removed until the articles have been created.
    1. Removed most of the less important ones. How does it look now? -Ed!(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  4. "Brigades were disbanded in favor of regimental commands" - what does this mean?
    1. From that point, the division contained three regiments instead of two brigades. I have clarified this. -Ed!(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  5. "On August 1, the Division withdrew from the front line for rest and patrols." - it withdrew from the front to patrol? I think this needs to be clairfied a little.
    1. Clarified. -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. "Allied forces conducted a frontal assault on the Gustav Line stronghold at Monte Cassino, and VI Corps was detached from the Army Group and assigned to land behind enemy lines at Anzio, Operation Shingle." - Can this be reworded so Operation Shingle isnt tagged on the end?
    1. Done. -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  7. "part of a buildup in preparation for an invasion of mainland Europe in southern France to coencide with Operation Overlord.[15] The 45th Infantry Division, along with the 36th and 3rd Infantry Divisions were pulled from the line in Italy, however the planned attack, Operation Anvil, was delayed until August.[15]" - i think Operaiton Anvil should be introduced earlier, when talking about the division being withdrawn.
    1. Dome. -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  8. "The 45th Infantry Division participated in its fourth assault landing during Operation Dragoon on 15 August 1944, at St. Maxime, in Southern France.[10] The German Army, reeling from the Battle of Normandy pulled back after a short fight" - These 2 sentances need to be clairfied; surely the Germans facing this division pulled back after a short fight and not those up north that took part in a 3 month long slogging battle. I think it should be mentioned that the Germans were not simply just pulling back but something about their strategy should be mentioned as it seems they hightailed it back to Germany following Normandy and Dragoon.
    1. Clarified that the german's retreat was part of a larger overal withdrawal east. -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  9. "During this time much of the division's artillery assets fell under the command of the 44th Infantry Division" - what does it mean fell under their command? Where they transferred? The following sentance "It returned to VI Corps on New Year's day", is this in regards to the arty or the division - can this be clarified?
    1. Clarified both. The Artillery was attatched to the 44th Divison - it wasn't permenantly assigned to them, but it was sent to them temporarily to support their own assets. -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  10. "The division captured Munich during the next two days, and remained there until the end of the war on V-E Day.[10] During the next month, the division occupied Munich " - 2 points, the bit about VE day seems a bit awkward. 2, the division captured Munich and stayed there but only occupied the city after the war - that seems a little confusing.
    1. Tried to reword both points to make them more clear. -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  11. "Post-War Drawdown" - drawdown means?
    1. As the second grapgh in the section states, "drawdown" refers to the Army's massive reduction in size, cutting around 80 divisions of the force. I can't think of any better word for this in the section header so I just renamed it "post-war" -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  12. "The 45th Infantry Division was reconstituted as a National Guard unit" - the pre war section states this division was already national guard?
    1. The division was activated into the Active duty force from the national guard force during the war. I've tried to emphasize this at the beginning and end of the WWII section. -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise the article looks good and i dont see why it doesnt go right to the FA review now?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I hope to put it up to FA as soon as possible, but first I am going through GA and Peer Review, then A-class, then FA. That way I can absorb as much constructive criticism as possible while improvine the article gradually. -Ed!(talk) 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87[edit]

To me, it just strikes me as a bit bland and lacking in detail, especially for a division that fought through many of the major campaigns of the Second World War. Where's the use of the official history of the division, or more secondary sources like Atkinson that examine the various WWII campaigns? To me, it just doesn't seem to have enough detail; I realize there aren't exactly many divisional pages of a high quality to base this on, but I think more could be done. Skinny87 (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to look for some other sources to spice it up, but I'm not sure how much I can do. What parts do you think should be improved with more sources? -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai[edit]

My only comments, as much has been covered by the reviewer, is that some of the info in the After Korea section might be better moved to the legacy section, specifically those about the 45th Infantry Brigade. Also there is some minor prose cleanup. Its not major though, so for a GA its probably okay.Jinnai 22:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've copy-edited the article, are there any prose issues you still see? and as for the legacy section, I thought the information on the 45th brigade belonged in the history because it is, by definition, an extension of the 45th Division's history. Which parts should be moved? -Ed!(talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The opposing viewpoint is that the 45th Inf Bde is a separate formation almost entirely, sharing only a number. Unless anyone objects, I will move almost all of it to the 45 Inf Bde article. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 17:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not really necessary. Consequently I've also put the 45th Infantry Brigade up for GA, and it covers its subject reasonably well. I just assumed that, since the 45th Brigade shares the 45th Division's lineage it would be appropriate to include more details of the 45th Brigade since it is technically the same unit. -Ed!(talk) 18:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Um, (1) both are formations, not units, being brigades/divs. Units stop at the battalion level, as far as I've ever heard. (2) One is a division and the other is a brigade - how can they be the same formation? IoH makes it clear - 'predecessor organization' - not the same formation. Buckshot06(prof) 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Thank you for providing the source! It looks like you're right and the 45th Brigade info wasn't necessary after all. -Ed!(talk) 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Info about them passing on the lineage and heradly is still relevant to this topic though. However that's imo is more of its lasting legacy, ie that a brigade has taken the lineage and heraldry of a division which shared its number.
as for the prose, the only one I'm still wondering about is this line under Salerno and Anzio -- After linking up with the British Eighth Army that had advanced from the south, the combined force, under the Fifteenth Army Group was stalled when coming on the Gustav Line. -- Is the combined force refering to the 15th?Jinnai 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Buckshot06[edit]

Was the 45th Division the only one singled out for disbandment in 1968? If I remember rightly, the answer is no. A better answer may be at Manouver and Firepower: Divisions and Separate Brigades [2] which might give a picture with more context. Buckshot06(prof) 17:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -Ed!(talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel_66[edit]

I'm a little confused about the transformation of the OK Militia Regiment into the 142nd. Was it simply renamed as the 142nd or was there something a little more complex going on? At any rate reassigned doesn't seem to be the proper word to use. Fix this sentence: On September 16, 1940, the 45th Infantry Division was activated into the Active duty force. Clumsily worded, use either mobilized or federalized. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Ed!(talk) 01:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few points that stick out:

  • Endashes are required in date ranges used in the article.
  • The "Honors" section is completely without any references, and requires them.
  • "Alledged War Crimes" - the "w" and "c" should not be capitalised.
  • I think {{reflist}} is preferred over <references/> in regards to citations.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All of these recommendations are fixed. —Ed!(talk) 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

24th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

Article is a GA nominee, looking to get it to FA eventually. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!(talk) 03:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A very nice article, overall. A couple of questions and suggestions:

  • Is globalsecurity.org the best available source for the division's later career? I would have assumed that there must be more conventional coverage of the Gulf War in recent literature.
    • Replaced globalsecurity with two book sources. —Ed!(talk) 16:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • "A division in name only" seems a bit glib for a section title.
    • Changed. —Ed!(talk) 16:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The article needs to be copyedited before moving to FAC; there are a lot of sections where the prose is very choppy (likely due to sentences being split along source lines).

Keep up the good work! Kirill [talk] [pf] 23:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Cla68[edit]

Although the section on WWII is probably long enough already, you might consider using the following online sources to reinforce the information you already have and to check for any important details that should be added:

Cla68 (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the extra sources. I will look through them to see if there is anything I missed. —Ed!(talk) 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Just a few points that stick out:

  • In the infobox, the presentation of the endashes is inconsistent, with the first being spaced and the following two not. Please make all three consistent.
    • fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Level headings should not begin with "the" per MoS.
    • fixed. —Ed!(talk) 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The "Honors" section is completely without any references. Please remedy this.

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

    • fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Cuprum17[edit]

Mostly very minor points:

  • In the lede the word Division is capitalized and shouldn't be. (The Division then participated in post-war...)
    • fixed. —Ed!(talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Cold War section, the parentheses should be removed and the sentence reworded. I have a "thing" about parentheses used in sentences. Abbreviations are OK but if it could be stated in words, it makes much smoother reading.
    • fixed. -—Ed!(talk) 17:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There shuld be a link used with the phrase ...Square Division TO&E... similar to the one used for Triangular Division TO&E, Pentomic Division and ROAD.

Those were the only things I saw that detracted from the article, the link being the worst offender. Very good work, I can tell that a lot of effort has been put into the article. Good luck and Cheers... Cuprum17 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

List of aircraft carrier classes of the United States Navy[edit]

I have done a lot of work to this article, and I wanted to know what needed to be done for it to be A- or FL-class material. Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Patar knight[edit]

A couple of points:

  • The intro should start off mentioning the actual subject (US Aircraft Carriers) from the first paragraph, rather than going straight into a description of US Aircraft carrier history, which is confusing for readers, and doesn't provide a good summary
  • The section headers are misleading. Most people would expect Yorktown to be in the WWII section. Also, the Pre-World War II section contains information on Pearl Harbour, which definitely during the war.
  • In the WWII section, "On September 2, 1945, Japan signed the surrender agreement abroad the USS Missouri, ending World War II.[9]" does not pertain to Aircraft Carriers whatsoever, unless its paired with some factoid (e.g. By the time Japan...ending WWII, the United States had x amount of active carriers).
  • The "Escort Carriers" section should be a sub-section of WWII, since all the escort carriers are from that time frame.

--Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

PKKloeppel[edit]

According to mynameinc, the person who requested this review no longer intends to edit Wikipedia articles, presumably including also this one. It is clear that he has not responded to Patar knight in more than two weeks. I have made some of the changes suggested by Patar knight, but have neither the time nor the resources to do a good job. Either someone else will have to jump in and do it, or we should forget about it. PKKloeppel (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From a logistical standpoint, the review will be getting archived at some point, once it drops to the bottom of the review list. I'm not sure there's any benefit to explicitly ending it before that point; even if nobody is actively making the suggested changes, the list of suggestions may prove useful to future editors in and of itself. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

List of destroyer classes of the United States Navy[edit]

I have done a lot of work on this article, and I wanted to know: what needs to be done for it to be A- or FL-class material? Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66[edit]

You might want to expand on the flush-decker explanation; I don't find flat-deck anything close to a reasonable translation. I'd explain that they lacked the forecastle used by most contemporary ships and this single deck from stem to stern was called a flush deck in naval terminology. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 DoneThanks, do that tomorrow. Did you notice anything else wrong? mynameinc (t|c|p) 03:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) If anybody notices anything else wrong, please tell me here, the article talk, or my talk page. Thanks, mynameinc (t|c|p) 17:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


McComb[edit]

I perceive your approach is to compress multiple linkable source articles into a single article as a framework for your table. I am not a regular Wikipedian and only by accident discovered this page; also, I lack time for much more than review -- but in the interest of historical accuracy, I'm all in favor of seeing this done well. Accordingly, I took the liberty of making some edits of my own last week but misemphases remain. I'd be pleased to offer comment in the spirit of continuing education in lieu of making further edits of my own; is that what you're looking for? If yes, would it useful to point you toward resources other than what's available on the web? If no, would you tolerate reworking of some sections? I ask the question as the author of many of the articles you've cited in your REFERENCES and I'd be willing to work with you if we could find an efficient way. McComb (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Kumioko[edit]

I think its a very good list with plenty of references and good explanations. I would totally support it for a Featured list. I only have a couple comments and they are relatively minor.
  • You need to put alt text in the images. Alt text has been around for a while but is being enforced now so you will need that.
  • You have a DAB link for Bulwark that needs to be fixed.
  • I checked all the references and look good to go except for 34, 36, 45, 54 and 59 need accessdates.
  • I ran the article through the Autoed tool and it didn't find anything meaningful.
  • I ran the article through AWB and it didn't find anything either. --Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347[edit]

Hello! I have just finished writing this article, on one of the most crucial albeit somewhat forgotten conflicts in Byzantine history. I would like to take a shot at A or even FA status eventually, but before, I would like to have some opinions on its present quality, both in terms of prose quality and comprehensibility of the narrative, as well as on whether the coverage of the subject is comprehensive enough. Thanks in advance, Constantine 08:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yannismarou[edit]

  • "During the ensuing winter, heavy snowfall rendered campaign was impossible." Does this sentence have two verbs or is it just my bad English?
  • "Kantakouzenos set out into Macedonia, hoping to break through to his wife, who was holding out at Demotika against the forces of the regency." Wasn't she in prison?
  • Check the copyright status of File:Byzantine empire 1355.jpg.
  • "To a lesser extent, the conflict acquired confessional overtones as well, as the supporters of Hesychasm were usually equated with the supporters of Kantakouzenos." I don't see any elaboration on that in the main article.
  • Check the sources of the article's images. For instance, I cannot access the link of the source of File:John V Palaiologos.jpg.

I liked a lot the article. It flows very well; it is well-referenced; I think it will be soon FA!--Yannismarou (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the review. I fixed the first one, and clarified that Kantakouzenos' wife and children were actually at Didymoteicho, which was his base and residence. I also fixed the info & sources on the images. They are indeed PD, I hope it's OK now. As for the Hesychasm, traditionally, there was the equation pro-Hesychast=Kantakouzenist, which the later Byzantine writers themselves espoused. However this is more polemics and less fact: the actual record shows that the sides chosen during the conflict had little to do with one's preferences towards Hesychasm. True, the victory of Kantakouzenos also led to the adoption of Hesychasm by the Church, but that was not why the war was actually fought. I am still uncertain as to how exactly include this in the article, which is why I only mentioned it in the lead, with the "to a lesser extent" qualifier. It will be elaborated upon, but I need some time to think it over, and it is either way not crucial to the understanding and development of the conflict. Constantine 05:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai[edit]

This is generally a good article. Good work! There are still some problems though. First with the lead.

  • The second paragraph seems a bit too detailed for a lead, particularly the second half. I realize the need to explain circumstances, but a lead is suppose to be a summary explaining the main points.
  • The last paragraph also seems to have some information unreferenced and not supported fully by the rest of the article, particularly the last 2 sentences.
  • A few problematic statements that might be close to violating WP:NPOV. FE:
    • its strength was allowed to wane under his successor Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282–1328)
    • It was a good choice: Angelos was loyal and effective, and soon managed to bring Epirus into the Kantakouzenist camp as well.
    • On 11 July 1345, Alexios Apokaukos, perhaps the main instigator of the civil war, had been murdered.
    • "In spite of the this, his subsequent reign saw numerous of successes that shored up the tottering empire."
      This statement is fine, the statement later, "Several towns in Macedonia were lost in 1334 to the Serbs, led by the renegade Syrgiannes Palaiologos, but the murder of Syrgiannes led to a negotiated settlement that limited Serbian gains." Does not appear to support the notion that it was a success. The Serbians still, according to the text, made some gains.
  • There are a couple of statements I added [according to whom?] to. If they are by the author lated cited, then say so in the text as those statements are otherwise WP:OR (this is because those statements are attributing what the state of mind of a particular person was).
  • I have also done some additional copyediting. I would have this looked over by a copyeditor before proposing for a GAN, especially on comma usage.Jinnai 23:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review & the copyedits. Now, on the lead: I have shortened the opening sentences of the second paragraph, but I cannot reduce them further except to the effect that "the civil war broke out in early autumn 1341.", which I won't do, since the process by which the war came about is important. As for the last paragraph: the disruption of trade and devastation of the countryside are mentioned and cited in the Aftermath section, while the gains made by Dushan and Bulgaria are so throughout the text. I have however added a citation just in case. For the POV statements: I have revised the first three. On the fourth, well, the successes followed before that (Thessaly and Epirus) and after. I have repositioned and rephrased the sentence on the war of 1334, it should be OK now. As for the [according to whom?] tags, I edited the sentences accordingly, except in one case: "In July, he left the capital at the head of the army leaving Apokaukos, whom he believed to be still loyal, in charge." The source here is Nicol, cited later. I don't see OR here, it's common sense: if Kantakouzenos had not held Apokaukos to be a reliable servant, he would certainly not have let him running the capital. Cheers, Constantine 08:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
BTW, aside from the style issues, what do you think of the article as a history? Are there any sections that ought to be covered in more/less detail? Any issues left unclarified (aside from Hesychasm)? Constantine 08:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, and as I told you above, the story flows very well. You have an excellent structure in your history, and you narrative style is nice (σε κρατάει as we say in Greek!); unfortunately, and this is a strictly personal opinion, the WP NPOV policy and the way it is applied leads to dry and boring articles; this one is an exception to the rule!
Although I am not a history expert, I can't find anything missing. The article looks comprehensive. The only thing I could think about, from a strictly military point of view, is this: is there anything worth mentioning in terms of military tactics and strategies? Something innovative? Any more details about the (pathetic?) status of the Byzantine army after the end of the disastrous civil war?
As regards the economic impacts, I see that you cover them quite satisfactory in "Consequences" (where you cite Laiou, maybe the best expert on the field). Maybe, if there is availability in terms of material, you could expand on the social (-class structure) impacts. You say that Ioannis VI was supported by the aristocracy. So, what were the repercussions for the middle and lower classes (if there were any) after his victory? And what do we mean exactly with middle and lower classes? For instance, merchants (Byzantine and even non-Byzantine if the latter had a say or a means of influence) supported whom?--Yannismarou (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
By the way, although your good grasp of the English language is more than obvious, I would agree with Jinnai that it would be nice to have a native speaker check the prose. But I would also advise you to go straight for FAC (after all your preparation is done), and forget GAC!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If you can get a map from 1350 rather than 1355, that would be preferable, but if not its not a big deal. Other than that, I have to agree with Yannismarou.Jinnai 21:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, regarding the military aspect, the war didn't really result in anything new. The methods employed were those common throughout the Palaiologan era, so there isn't anything noteworthy, except of course for the great reliance on foreign forces, but that is noted throughout the text. I don't feel that going into details of the Byzantine military system of the time is advisable here. Ideally, at some point the Palaiologan army article will be brought up to a satisfactory standard. I also clarified (hopefully) a bit the distinction between classes in the "Outbreak of the war" section. As for repercussions, there were few: it was business as usual, except that the state's authority was weakened, and that large parts of the Empire were under Serbian control (where Dushan largely retained the pre-existing social and administrative order). The only truly radical social change of the period were the Zealots, but the nature of their movement is poorly understood - echoing the (usually aristocratic) Byzantine historians' own incomprehension of it - and the subject of considerable controversy, so that conclusions differ according to each scholar. I'll contact some copyeditors, and await further comments by other users. Thanks again to both of you for your time and comments. Regards, Constantine 06:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus[edit]

Passes my checklist of "looking good at first glance" :) In other words, it has good layout, appropriate categories, ilinks and map/pictures. If I were to nitpick, I'd say - add a picture to the lead/infobox :) Not being a specialist in the relevant history, I cannot tell you more - but keep up the good work! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :) I'll keep the review open until Friday, if no one else comments, I'll close it and probably next week I'll submit it for A-class. Constantine 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

WP:WIAFA needs WP:ALT nowadays, so it might be useful to get it out of the way now. It's quite straightforward YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy, this will be interesting... Thanks for the notice, I had not noticed that requirement. Constantine 06:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I added these descriptions, except for the maps, where I do not see how a "short" text can be added. As I am very unlikely to be in front of a PC for the next few days, I'll keep this review open until next week. Constantine 18:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua[edit]

Very interesting and detailed job. I believe we can add something more (1 or 2 paragraphs) in the end as an 'aftermath section', talking about the Ottoman expansion in Balkans until the Fall of Constantinople.Alexikoua (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Operation Badr (1973)[edit]

Around six months ago I made a rewrite of this article and since then, I have been continually adding to it. This [3] is how the article used to be. I think it might qualify for GA. I'm particularly concerned about prose and any NPOV issues. Any suggestions and criticisms are welcome. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I created the initial stub on the topic many years ago, and am really impressed by the expansion you have undertaken. One thing I find lacking is any discussion of the political ramifications of the battle. Sadat became the "Hero of the Crossing" securing his internal position and that of the Egyptian regime. This gave Sadat the ability to sign peace with Israel, while the initial defeat also convinced Israel of the need to negotiate towards peace. - SimonP (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. The sources I have at hand do not go into the political impacts of the battle, so I can't back up anything I add on this topic, which is already sufficiently covered I believe in the Yom Kippur War. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added something about the political impact of the battle. I realise it has little to do with Sadat's widespread popularity after the war. This is something I'll certainly be able to do once I have new books on the topic. Thanks for your review. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

I haven't read the whole thing through yet, but so far it looks comprehensive and well cited. A couple of points I have so far (mostly just nitpicks, but can help get it rated higher):

  • Endashes are required for date and page ranges (check the citations list as there are many that require endashes), e.g. pp. 101-102 should be pp. 101–102);

 Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Some sections are quite long and aren't broken up by an image, if possible I would suggest trying to find a few more images so that you can break up the long sections of text. I know you have quite a few images so far, but it would probably make the article a bit more visually appealing;

Articles on the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War have a very visible lack of images. There are tens of photographs available online, but only in forums, blogs, and the like. I just can't find any images with a suitable copyright.

  • Emdashes are required in text rather than hyphens (e.g. "etc... - before any bridges were set up" should be "etc...— before any bridges were set up"

 Done I made a few exceptions however (for example: anti-tank, air-to-air, and weapon designations like T-55, MiG-21...) --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • possibly try to use convert tags for distances and measurements as some parts of the world use kilometres and some use miles. If you put in a convert tag it makes it conceptually easier for all readers. For example: 100 kilometres (62 mi) is achieved by adding the following: {{convert|100|km|mi}} .

 Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • In the citations list please check that all page ranges are denoted by "pp.", as I think some have just "p." which would indicate only one page (another nitpick, sorry).

 Done --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway that is it for now. Hope it helps. I will have a more comprehensive read over the article soon and provide more feedback if I can think of anything. This is not an area of history that I have much knowledge of, so unfortunately I can't really help with any of the content, mainly just technical stuff. Good work so far, by the way. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I really needed someone to point out the various technicalities that needed to be fixed. --Sherif9282 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello again. I've done some more MOS work on the article. I think I've fixed most of the ndashes and mdashes (you had incorrectly used ndashes in some places where mdashes should have been used). Not to worry, though, it is no big deal and I may well have made errors. I would like to echo what has been said below, though, there are some tense issues with the text, e.g. "From 22:30 to 01:30 after midnight, all bridges—eight heavy and four light bridges—are laid, and along with the ferries, begin transporting reinforcements to the opposite bank." The issue with this sentence is the words 'are' and 'begin', they should be replaced with 'were' and 'began'. Do you see the issue? There are other instances throughout. A thorough copyedit would fix this, but unfortunately I don't have the time to do it. Sorry. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I realize the article needs a copyedit. Is it a requirement that the article be an FAC to I ask someone listed here for a level 4 & 5 copyedit? As for the n and mdashes, see the link below to the section of the MoS on the use of those two dashes. It allows spaced ndashes to be used as an alternative to mdashes. I did this because the text looked better that way. Cheers. --Sherif9282 (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

David Fuchs[edit]

  • Admittedly, there's the year of the operation in the disambig title, but it still reads odd that no mention of the actual date of the operation is made in the lead's first paragraph, especially when you start talking about when they planned it. "initiating the 1973 Yom Kippur War against Israel" or similar would fix that.
  • "Under the restrictions of Israeli air supremacy, Egypt laid down limited objectives to pursue. Preceded by exhaustive preparations, meticulous planning, and an extensive deception operation, Operation Badr was launched in conjunction with Syria on October 6, 1973, a day that coincided with Yom Kippur, the Jewish day of atonement, and also coincided with the Muslim month of Ramadan." This reads as jargon. I know that what you're probably trying to say is that since the Israelis had the advantage in airpower Egypt planned a more limited offensive, but these statements don't necessarily link together well, and don't in fact seem to square with the body text (which says that due to air superiority the Arabs planned a multipronged strike to dilute the air force's effectiveness.) It's in this paragraph that I start seeing a major problem throughout the article, that of improper tone and POV language. This might in fact be an issue with the actual sources, which is also a worrying sign. The sentence tries to smash too much information on the significance of the date into the paragraph and sounds bad.
  • POV, hyperbole: " daring assault that caught Israel and the world by surprise", "the supremely confident, even arrogant view"
  • "A certain number of Egyptian commanders", if it's a certain number, why can't you tell us?
  • File:Operation Badr.png missing key information, such as where it was originally published/date/author. As it stands it's licensing tag is invalid.
  • "On October 6, at 14:00, the Fourth Arab-Israeli War began." I'm pretty sure it wasn't immediately called the "Fourth Arab-Israeli War". Just tell us that's when they attacked. We're not a history channel special.
  • In keeping with tone problems, there's a bunch of weasel words and qualifying phrases which undermine the text, such as "all in all", "apparently", "Nevertheless", and such.
  • Another worrisome issue, "discovering the Arab intention to go to war only nine and a half hours before the outbreak of hostilities"... the text that runs before makes it clear they didn't just open a door and "discover" that they were going to be attacked.
  • MoS issues: incorrect use of em/en-dashes and hyphens throughout.
  • Rundancies abound: try User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a: redundancy exercises (for example using the more verbose "as well as" instead of a simple "and").
  • "It reached the opposite bank around 14:40 without losing a single casualty"; you can't lose casulties, only sustain them (or lose men); reword.
  • "brought forward to breach a way through"; 'a way through' is redundant with the word breach, which if used in such context ("to breach") should be followed by a noun (what they are breaching). Reword.
  • "By now company and battalion—size units of Israeli tanks and infantry begin reaching the Bar Lev Line, but are ambushed by Egyptian troops who prevent them from reaching their positions."; spot the tense errors.
  • The article appears to use American English for most of its length, but randomly uses the BrEng "kilometre" spelling.

Overall it is my opinion that the prose needs a significant copyedit and audit for POV language. The article does not come off as neutral, and if the problem is with the sources themselves, a deeper appraisal of the article foundation may be in order. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of your comments have been met. I don't know how to change the spelling for kilometre without removing the conversion template (in use throughout the article). I'll probably ask someone to copyedit the article and check for POV language. I suppose I'll have to further elaborate on why Egypt pursued limited objectives. How would you rate the article's neutrality on a scale of 1 to 5? (5 meaning the article is outrageously biased and 1 representing the complete opposite) Take into account the latest edits when making your rating. Thanks --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I would give it an overall 3. Most of the issues seem based in the prelude, strategies, and preparation sections, which I think is probably due to the sources trying to "color up" items. But we shouldn't be saying anyone was "mauled", and if we're calling the Six Day War "disastrous" we should spell out why it was. Sections of the preparation seem overly pro-Egyptian (the deception bit) and I think need to be substantially reworded. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I will try to tone down the POV in the first few sections, and ask someone to copyedit for prose. This has been very fruitful. So thanks a lot. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai[edit]

Resolved comments from Jinnai

First off I think the Prologue section should be renamed. It gives the sense that this is not an article, but a story. And while in some sense it is a story, it is first and foremost an article.

Second, I believe acronyms for everything should have the name used at least once in each article usually with a parenthesis. This is a real problem for acronyms that have multiple meanings. RPG comes out to me as the most. Im addition to its use here, it is a programing language and a genre of game.Jinnai 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I implemented your second suggestion. As for your first, I can't come up with another title. Any suggestions? --Sherif9282 (talk) 10:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Since you've used Background already, perhaps Pre-war or Before the war?Jinnai 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
How about it now? --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks fine.Jinnai 03:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

German battleship Bismarck[edit]

This article is one of the most famous warships of World War II, and as such, should be at a much higher quality level than it currently is. I am requesting this peer review to bring in outside eyes to help those of us who have been working on the article, so that we can improve it and eventually reach FA. In many areas, lack of sourcing is a problem; I'm more concerned with the soundness of the prose, whether there are any POV issues (Bismarck has both fan and detractor crowds), etc. Thanks for all comments in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

Here are my comments:

  • The 'Background' section should probably include a brief summary of her design
  • The article doesn't cover the period between her commissioning and Operation Rheinübung - information on her trials, crewing, officers, training exercises, etc would be interesting
  • I think that the coverage of Operation Rheinübung is too detailed - this really belongs in the dedicated article
  • The photos are very well chosen, but could some photos of the ship on the sea bed also be included under a fair use claim?
  • Does there need to be a dedicated section to the ship's war diary?
  • I think that the 'References in the Wehrmachtbericht' section should be removed (and possibly moved to Wikisource?) as it doesn't add anything to the article which shouldn't already be in the prose.
  • Information about what happened to the crew who were rescued would be interesting. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with most of Nick's comments, especially about the one about the Wehrmachtbericht. But I will note that the discussion about the loss of the Hood needs to be cited. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett[edit]

Having reread the start of the article, I changed "Background" to "Building and commissioning" this made more sense in the context of a single ship than background. the section could use some attention:

  1. Plan Z and Bismarck's part in it is split across the two paragraphs - there's sort of a half repeat of information which could probably be phrased better.
  2. use as a commerce raider - it would be good to know when the decision was taken, but more so if functioning as a commerce raider she would be aided by other ships. The section states that she could tackle a battleship on convoy escort, but what of the remainder of a convoy's warships (eg cruisers and destroyers)- its left open as to whether Bismarck would be unable to tackle these as well or would be aided.

Her operational history

I personally would trim some of the detail, provided it remains in the relevant articles, so that her (brief) service is more readable. There are a number of digressions eg in on Norwegian agents. Some parts could be precised eg on the Bergen stop "Both German ships ..... British air surveillance." could be precised to

"It had been intended for both ships to refuel in Bergen. Prinz Eugen did so but Bismarck did not; their next refuelling would be from an oiler that was waiting in the Arctic at least one day's sailing away. Stopping in Bergen cost him a day and gave the British the opportunity to detect them."

Rediscovery
This section could have a simple precis before launching into the various subsections.

Wehrmachtbericht
the section adds the quotes but without any context as to what the Wehrmachtbericht was and to why these references were important, or what the reaction was to them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Harley[edit]

My knowledge of Bismarck is limited to Breyer, a D. K. Brown/Garzke/Dullin article on her rediscovery, Preston's The World's Worst Warships and the Mearns book on Hood and Bismarck, and kicking around somewhere I have Ballard's memoirs and the relevant chapter on Bismarck, so I won't comment on the technical aspects of the article.

  • The Rediscovery section confuses the hell out of me. The most obvious problem is "Ballard's third expedition" - when was his second? When was the third, since its date is not mentioned in the article proper? And how some of the sources, supposedly written in 1990, can have a bearing on this section is beyond me. Can someone with the knowledge sort this out? --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 10:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

British Army during World War I[edit]

I started tinkering with this article two weeks ago and one thing lead to another and here we are. I would like to get the article to A class, but think it has some way to go. Any suggestions would be appreciated --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

LeadSongDog[edit]

  • Lede is completely uncited, so should be carefully checked to ensure each statement is elsewhere in the text. I'd suggest hidden comments to say where.  Done removed what I could not readily source
  • Commanders:
    • When did French's term start? Why was he replaced?  Done
    • "conduct during the war" or "conduct of the war""?  Done
  • Organisantion:
    • consider "any conflict" or "any external conflict"?  Done changed wording
    • link first use of Guards, infantry, cavalry regiment, division, brigade, battalion, how big are these units?  Done all linked the size of each unit is found via the link don't think we need it in the text
    • relate 3s6d/week to the modern equivalent  Done
  • Recruitment and conscription
    • not just men, women (esp nurses), boys (some of 14) volunteered  Done good catch on the woman in ww1 , I have not commented on boys volunteering as officially they never did volunteers had to be 18
  • Doctrine
    • the quotation "In every respect the Expeditionary Force in 1914 was incomparably the best trained, best organized, and best equipped British Army which ever went forth to war." is attributed in Beckett & Simpson p.38 to J.E. Edmonds' Military Operations, France and Belgium, 1914, Volume I, pp.10-11, HMSO London (1925) should be verified and properly attributed  Done
  • Artillery tactics
  • Communications
  • Life in the trenches
    • lice and rats didn't cause the diseases, they carried them.  Done
  • Gas helmet
Thanks for the comments --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This is a very good article, and I think that I'll borrow elements of its structure for the Australian Army in World War II article I'm slowly working on. My comments are:

  • The 'commanders' section is probably placed too early in the article, and could be expanded to discuss the backgrounds (and performance) of lower ranked officers as well. Eg, how did the Army identify its junior officers, how did men become divisional and corps commanders and did the system work? ID JUNIOR OFFICERS DONE
  • It seems a bit simplistic to state that the Army's experiences with colonial warfare led to the adoption of offensive doctrine prior to the war - the same was true for the French Army (which took horrific losses as a result) as well as the Germans and (as late as 1917) the US Army changed wording  Done
  • You could merge the section on the BEF and Kitchener's Army into a single section describing how the Army's organisation changed over the war  Done
  • The statement that 'The British Army of 1914, was the best trained best equipped and best organized British Army ever sent to war' needs to be qualified - the source was published in 1925 and better trained and equipped British Army units have probably been deployed since. changed wording  Done
  • The 'Equipment' section is probably too detailed given that all of these weapons have their own articles  Done
  • It should be noted that British Empire forces were integrated into the British Army and used British weapons, organisations, etc, and were often led by British officers.  Done
  • The Royal Flying Corps and its eventual separation from the Army to form the RAF should be described.  Done

Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments -I did consider the RFC but as I had not covered any of the other Corps in detail left them out Tank Corps Machine Gun Corps etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Harley[edit]

  • A greater mention of the work of the Machine Gun Corps might be warranted, what with their use of indirect fire - could be described in the doctrine section. The whole section about the firing rates of the Vickers HMG is somewhat pointless if the reader doesn't know why such fire was necessary. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)  Done
  • Creation of the Tank Corps? When was it, why was it created?  Done
  • Harper at Cambrai - there's a lot of published materiel out there which questions the standard perception of his role during the battle. A World War I encyclopedia is hardly authoritative or representative. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

German Unification[edit]

This article had a major overhaul in the past 6 weeks, and has had a Project Germany review, but needs the military history review as well. I am completely baffled by the instructions on how to move/copy/relink an archived peer review from 3 years ago to this new review. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • If you are looking for GA and above, then they will expect you to have a citation (at least one per paragraph) to cover the info
::done.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Repeated references need to be merged. I will do some examples for you
see below, I saw your addition to the Kaplan reference. --Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Also for number ranges, ndash needs to be used instead of a small hyphen.
done--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For Further reading, I think the blurb should be changed to rm "suggestions" and the sentence as otherwise the article seems to be endorsing certain books,m which isnt allowed YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll go though and add the ndash, if that's the correct thing to use. I don't understand all your abbreviations, such as rm and m ....
the use of merged references I find extremely confusing to read, especially since most of them have different page numbers anyway.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yellow Monkey's comments have been incorporated. Now what? What else should be done to move this along to a B? (or higher). --Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87[edit]

A large number of citations refer to a number of books, but don't actually have any page numbers; this needs to be fixed immediately. I'd also support merging references if the same page-numbers are used. For reference, rm=remove and m=moerge/move depending on the context. The article also seems to rely on Sheehan quite a bit - a bit more variety might not be a bad idea, there are more than enough books listed in the Further References section to use. Skinny87 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus[edit]

The first and only instance of the use of word Poland was not wikified, leading me to note that the article needs many more wikilinks. Link to War of the Fourth Coalition added. I also wonder why the article doesn't mention that part of the "unification" included lands of the Prussian partition of Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Army of the Tennessee[edit]

This AOT article was started and given its basic organization by others (with most prior edits by Jeremy Bentham and Hal Jespersen). It was rated "start class" until recently (with about 17,000 bytes). I have substantially expanded (and in some cases corrected) the article, adding discusson, references, footnotes, and images (now 54,000 bytes); the info box was modeled on the Army of the Cumberland page. During this process the article was upgraded to B class by The ed17; then a fair amount of additional work was done. The ed17 then assisted with some format matters. I believe the article is on a worthy subject and is now in pretty good shape and should have a higher rating. However, before requesting a rating upgrade, I would welcome input on the article. FWIW, this is my first request for a peer review. Thank you in advance for any input. Hartfelt (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have continued to refine the AOT article over the last week, but hope to have reached a resting point now. Many thanks to PKKloeppel for his various efforts on the article. Also, due to Yellow Monkey's comments, I have introduced some additional cites at various places. Especially after the addition of those citations, I believe that the substantive reliance on the memoirs of Grant and Sherman is really quite limited; the memoirs are cited mostly for reasons of color or simple facts like who led which column. (I might add that on detail points they are often more accurate than the historians who sometimes don't seem to have done their homework on such details.) Would appreciate any further comments, and thanks in advance. Hartfelt (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PKKloeppel[edit]

Very thorough. My only negative criticism concerns a rather minor point of literary style. I think there are too many parenthetical insertions that should either be converted into subordinate phrases or dropped altogether. I will change some of them myself, but I do not have time to do a thorough job. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
You did most of what I thought necessary, and I have now taken care of a few that remained, so I think this issue is laid to rest. What is left to do now is cosmetic (but note that cosmetic issues are important to the gatekeepers for GA, A, and FA approval). (You see that I, too, can use parentheses. Tee-hee.)
1. Most dashes should be replaced by either &ndash; or &mdash;. I have started on this and will get back to it and hope to complete it later. You may wish to check my work.
2. The citations and references are not handled uniformly. You may, if you wish, use the cite template, which can be found here. It produces a form that I personally dislike, but at least it is consistent.
By the way, you can reply to my messages here rather than on my user page. Then other possible editors will be able to see that you are responding. PKKloeppel (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pkk: Thanks again. I have tried to be attentive to consistency, but you are doubtless correct that there is not perfect uniformity, and I will look at your link and try to spiff things up. What is your reaction to the comment below by YM? Hartfelt (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Pkk, Thank you for the work you have done so far. Like you, I'm not thrilled by that format for references -- with dates taking priority over title. However, now that you have taken the trouble to change them all, we may as well stick with that format. (After you had changed only the first four or five I suggested that we restore the prior form for those references and find another approach to render them consistent. But developments have overtaken that suggestion.) BTW, may I ask the background for the alternative format you adopted to citations for the Official Records? Hartfelt (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

{PKK: Thanks again for your work on the references section for AOT. Now that the references are in order, is it OK just to use a short form for the notes -- like Woodworth, p. x, without more? That seems to be suggested by the article citations for beginners, also by something written in the peer review list by Yellow Dog. The reader can then refer to the reference list to get the title. Or do you recommend something else? Hartfelt (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)} -- I have copied this message here from my User:Talk page so that other editors will know what I am talking about. PKK.

A short form is adequate, so long as the identification is unique. Wikipedia policy is given here. The "unique" requirement means, in the present case, that you will have to be careful when citing either Cox or Marszalek, as each of them is author of more than one book. Also remember that other editors may add additional material, including other books by your authors; what is identified uniquely today may not be uniquely identified tomorrow. Properly, that should be their concern, not yours, but keep in mind the varied backgrounds of our editors and be tolerant.
For what it is worth, I always include a short title. Because I prepare my notes by copying and pasting from a bibliography that I maintain away from Wikipedia, it is no more difficult than writing a minimal reference (for example, {Cox, Atlanta} is as easy to copy and paste as {Cox}). Although the likelihood that later editors will add material affecting the citations adversely may be small, I am paranoid or delusional or whatever enough to include short titles in all my footnotes; in other words, all citations are treated as if they have to stand alone. This is a price we pay at Wikipedia for our policy of never having a truly final manuscript.
Note that I do not wish to impose my system on you. I am merely telling you why I do what I do. Wikipedia policy is quite loose, and you can choose the truly minimal form if you wish; it would not be a deal-breaker in your effort to raise the article to GA-class. Have I answered your question? PKKloeppel (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

I have ot say that I am concerned by the usage of the memoirs of the involved parties, especially as this means that in some parts, entire paragraphs are cited to officers invovled, as bald fact. Involved parties have a vested interest in making htemselves look good. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yellow Monkey: Thank you for looking at the piece and raising this issue. In my view, your comment overstates the case about reliance on memoirs. I wrote having in mind the issue you raise and seeking to avoid falling into the category of original research. There are selected citations or quotations from the memoirs of Grant, Sherman, Lew Wallace, Howard, and Cox (I believe). These bring color and feeling to the piece, or else supply otherwise hard-to-find info like troop totals. I don't think puffing is involved (except possibly in Sherman's praise for the AOT and saying that the Carolinas march was very impt and more impt than the march to the sea). Moreover, professional historians are liberally cited, usually in addition to memoirs. Further, evaluative judgments (like the significance of various campaigns) have very much been left to historians of the caliber of Jean Edward Smith, John Marszalek, Jim McPherson, Steve Woodworth, and Albert Castel. So, in my view, the article does not deserve to be marked down on the ground you raise. However, if there are particular points or paragraphs of concern to you on this score, please identify them for special attn. Thanks again. Hartfelt (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree with the objection. The material that is taken from memoirs is mostly simply matters of fact, and when opinion appears, it is surrounded by quotation marks (unless I missed some). To be sure, the authors of the memoirs are biased, but so are the historians, and it is easier to spot the bias of the former. PKKloeppel (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ain't that the truth! Also, much as I respect the effort that goes in to writing a history book, the more I know about the CW, the more errors of fact I notice, including items of conventional wisdom repeated as gospel when the CW is simply not supported by the underlying facts. Still, the article as written tries to avoid the formulation of original or contrarian opinions and relies on well respetced professional historians for the evaluative conclusions. Hartfelt (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom during World War I[edit]

I believe this article may be A class but would like a peer review first its been expanded by about 10 times by User:Jarry1250 and myself. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. (20 times actually.) It appeals to me as an article that could attract a great deal of interest among the greater public. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

I like what you have done with this article. I don't think I can add much to the review, but have one question:

  • In the citations (see # 66), you have included the full bibliographic details (Gibbons, Verna Hale (1998). Jack Judge: The Tipperary Man. West Midlands: Sandwell Community Library Service. ISBN 1 900 689 073), where all the other citations seem to use abbreviated format in citations, then full format in references. Is there a reason for this? My suggestion would be to move the full details to the references section and use abbreviated form in the citation to maintain consistency. Also, there is no page number for this citation.

That is all I have at the moment. I will keep looking for those pesky hyphens and dashes. — AustralianRupert (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(Can I reply here?) I just steamrollered a load more hyphens --> dashes using AWB, and I've moved the ref. I don't have a page number for it, as I don't personally have a copy, but I might try to search an online copy. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I see Jim's exchanged the ref for a different two now. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hartfelt[edit]

Having myself today requested a peer review, I thought I should conduct one. Overall, I am favorably impressed with your article, but there is of course room for improvement. I have no expertise in your subject, and my comments reflect a single, uninterrupted read-through without written notes.

(1) Obviously, you have written with British background, spellings, and style. You might remember, however, that many of your English-language readers will be Americans, etc. and ask yourself whether you sometimes take too much for granted for non-British readers (as in not immediately identifying the sitting King in the royal family section, in discussing the maneuvers of government formation, and in assuming familiarity with the women's movement in England).

(2) Consider the flow of your outline. Does it make sense, for example, to interject "propaganda" between newspapers and magazines. Maybe propagana should go before or after both or be in its own category. There may be other such items. Given that you cover a grab-bag of topics, your effort will benefit from having the most logical sequence, creating the greatest flow. Should royal family go before government? Has more color and might be of more human interest to more readers.

  • moved propaganda left monarchy after government  Done

(3) I suggest streamlining the introduction and making it more inviting. Eg, remove the stuff about the Tsar and the qualification concerning women's issues. Make it agree with your outline.

  • Required per MOS

(4) The royal family section would be improved by stating who the sitting king was at the outset.  Done by Jarry

(5) There are many formal items needing attention. These includes seeming inconsistencies in spelling out or not spelling out numbers (see fifty one v. 17 in same section); method of giving year spans; extra spaces or missing spaces in punctuation around footnotes, etc. It also seemed to me that there are sentences that should be broken in two.  Done

(6) I am not familiar with the two-tier footnote approach and don't really care for it. At a minimum, might it not be better to include some of the shorter ones in the text itself, rather than divert readers into the footnotes?

  • One added into the text the others are better off as notes I believe  Done

(7) Question: Given all the ships sunk, were there really so few deaths as you give.

  • Checked the source almost 15,OOO in the Merchant Navy does not seem a small amount  Done

(8) Suggestion: Find a way to discuss Winston Churchill's role during the war, as he is such an important and familiar figure to so many.

(9) I like your additional information links. Should there be more?

  • Added as many as possible  Done

I hope the foregoing is of some help to you, and that you get some comments from people with more substantive expertise! Good luck from here. I am going to go back into the article and make one small editing change. Hartfelt (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah good, I was starting to worry about that whole in my schedule for tomorrow. :) I agree with most of the above, and particularly the outside approach ones (1, 2 and 4). (6) I'm not so sure about (include in the text itself?); and though Churchill is famous as a person, he really didn't feature enough in these adventures to realistically justify (8). Point (3) arguably goes against MoS guidelines, but I do get where you're coming from. (5) I will correct and (7) and (9) I will have to research tomorrow. Certainly points to think about there, appreciated. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Jarry: Just wanted to clarify my point on footnotes. I am focused on the nb footnotes, which are textual rather than citations. Some are so short that they could be kept in the text, in a parentheses or worked into text, rather than diverting the reader into the footnotes to see a little piece of text. Then the reader has to check a footnote to the footnote. Hartfelt (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, now I follow. The problem is that a couple really are neccessary, so you'd never be able to get rid of them all. But I'll give it a go. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Jarry: Re Churchill -- If Dardanelles caused govt to fall and Churchill responsible for Dardanelles, doesn't Churchill deserve mention? Also impt in naval readiness. You're the expert, but I think you would make your article more accessible by working him in a little, as compared to the forgotten figures who are now the whole focus. Just a thought. Hartfelt (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I am by no means an expert, but the problem here is that there is a real temptation - that both Jim and I have been suppressing - to launch into accounts of the various battles and raids (such as in the Dardanelles). But I'm sure we could mention him briefly though. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 08:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments I have done some I believe Jarry is working on the others --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jarry/Jim: I see you have been at work, but hope you won't mind some addtl thoughts, for what they are worth.

(1) My question about few deaths at sea related to the 900 or so "civilian" deaths. Is that an accurate figure?

Yes according to the source there is another figure of 14,000 for the merchant navy which is seperate from civilian deaths --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(2) Churchill. Obviously, I'm just one reader, but I wanted to know more about Churchill. Without discussing the Dardannelles expedition in any detail, couldn't it be mentioned that Churchill was behind it, which you say caused the government to fall. Also, in the Navy section, why not mention that Churchill had emphasized preparedness before the war so the navy was well prepared, but he led the navy and army into the Dardanelles exp & lost his job. Also, his service thereafter in the army could be mentioned. In that connection, you have a single sentence about service by MPs. Should that be expanded? What was consequence -- did they remain in Parliament or have to resign? Was Churchill the most prominent? It is, of course, your article but I think you could make it more reader-friendly if you wove a little Churchill into it.

We already have the Winston Churchill and Winston Churchill in politics: 1900-1939 articles which cover him in detail --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(3) Because your article is necessarily a "grab bag," it necessarily has flow problems (unlike an article that has a strong time-line). I think you could help this with some attn to transitions. Why not, for example, start the Monarchy section with a topic sentence like "World War I led to profound changes for Briatin's royal family, caused by their close ties to Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm." Something to reorient the reader's attn to a new subject and tell them why it's a topic of interest.

(4) The Pankhurst gang. This reader wants to know who all the Pankhursts were -- sisters, cousins, mother/daughter? Seems striking that they were on both sides of the divide.

The danger is writing the History of the Pankhursts article which has been a problem all the time --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we can make room for a note about which one was the mother and which two the daughters. Duly  Done. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, keep up the good work. Over & out, hoping this is of some use. (I'm going into the article to make a specific change; feel free to revert.) Hartfelt (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Jarry/Jim: I have belatedly focused on fact that you have a subsection on recruitment and draft; then a section on CO. Why not combine them into a single section addressing recruitment, draft, and CO all in one place under an appropriate heading. As it is, draft is mentioned in the subsection, then again and more informatively in the CO section. Also, the mention of parliament members in the military where it now resides is rather disruptive of the flow of the government section. Prior treatment was less disruptive. Hartfelt (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Jim's moved the bits to their own section, and I've commented out the fact for now. We'll see how that develops. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Jarry/Jim: I see you have made many expansions and improvements (e.g., discussion of the role of the royal children in the war). I also want to note that there are some very nice parts to the article, e.g., the nice meshing of graphics and text regarding the Tsar and the zeppelins. Of criticisms, you may have heard more from me than you want to. If so, I apologize. Two last comments:

(1) The conscription section does not hang together for me. The Jan-March-May dates seem out of whack; the statements about married-single seem out of whack. Someone should pin this down and straighten it out. What was the date of the Act cited? When did policies change? Could married men be drafted or not?

(2) More important, please forgive me for saying frankly that I find the introduction off-putting. It seems to me rather disjointed, jumping around, and would not encourage me to drive on into the article. I urge you to spend some time to polish it. Shorten it some if you can, but in any event give it a better, more inviting flow. I have been tempted to try something myself, but it's your article and you can do a better job than I can if you put your mind to it. Remember, you only have one chance to make a first impression. I reacted negatively to the introduction when I read it first, and I still do.

Congrats on a worthwhile and improving article. Best of luck from here. Hartfelt (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.[edit]

Very good work. Just a few initial comments for now:

Lead
  • The opening sentence in the lead doesn't sit well with me. "United Kingdom during World War I (1914–1918) was one of the Allied Powers" - this seems to be saying that World War I was one of the Allied powers. Could this be tweaked?  Done
  • It should be clarified in the lead when H. H. Asquith is mentioned that he was PM. Same with George.  Done
Government
  • "and the internal divisions within British politics that had plagued the pre-war years continued." - requires a cite.
    That's me. Should be in here somewhere (looks down at tome in front of him). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 11:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
    Can't find it, so removing. Not integral to the article anyhow. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • "failed Gallipoli Campaign in the Dardenelles, when many thousands of men had been lost for very little perceived gain" - "many" --> "several".  Done
  • It should be clarified exactly when George took over as PM.  Done
  • I think I've taken care of the few in this section, but remember that Acts of law should be in italics.
     Done, I think. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review I think between Jarry and myself we have covered them all --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson[edit]

This article has changed pretty much out of all recognition since the previous peer review (archived here), and has now reached Good Article status. I'd like to get this article up to FA standard by October this year at the latest, since after that I will be hard pressed to devote much time to it, and would appreciate any pointers or advice. Benea (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

I guess you have forgotten to remove some of the hyphens for ndashes.... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87[edit]

The Trafalgar and subsequent sections are rather thin on the ground - I'd like to see some expansion there, as they're quite anemic compared to the rest of the article. Skinny87 (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Military career of L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

I have completely rewritten this article from scratch following concerns that the previous version - not written by me, I hasten to add - was excessively POV and based on original research. (Compare before and after.) The replacement article documents the military career of L. Ron Hubbard, who served in the US Navy from 1941-45 (active service) and 1945-50 (reserves). I would like to get it up to at least GA standard and preferably FA standard, and would appreciate feedback on the current text. I've avoided, wherever possible, quoting from primary sources but I should say up front that there are some primary source quotations simply to meet the demands of NPOV - the account would be extremely one-sided if Hubbard's own POV could not be quoted. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • In number ranges, you're supposed to use a ndash instead of a hyphen.
  • Usually multiply used books are listed in full in the a separate section and in the notes section it is just "Miller, p. 50." without needing to use ibid, especially as only one book is used for the given author
  • Lead is a bit short and I don't think that US should be used three times in the first sentence; after the first mention of USDF, the fact US doesn't need to be stated before the MC and N. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I've actioned the first two points. I'll have a go at expanding the lead later today. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I have now expanded the lead. Please take a look and let me know what you think of it now. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466[edit]

I commented on the article's talk page earlier today, unaware that this peer review was ongoing. Is it possible to place a more prominent reference to this peer review on the article talk page? Anyway, here a copy of my comments.

  • The "Marine Corps Reserve" section states,

    "Although he was rated 'excellent' for military efficiency, obedience and sobriety,[4] he received an honorable discharge on October 22, 1931 along with the annotation "not to be re-enlisted."[5]"

  • This synthesises two sources: Miller, who states,

    "Ron returned to Washington to report for two weeks' annual training with the 20th Marine Corps Reserve and was rated 'excellent' for military efficiency, obedience and sobriety".

  • The other cited source, Atack, states,

    "On October 22, 1931, Hubbard received an honorable discharge from the Marine Reserve. In his service record, there is a handwritten note under the character reference: 'Excellent.' In another hand beneath this is written, 'Not to be re-enlisted.' There is no explanation of either statement."

  • I suggest we lose the "Although" in our text, because it editorialises and subtly suggests there was something wrong with his performance. 1931 was peace time, so I wonder what "not to be re-enlisted" means in such a context. Could it mean that he simply had finished his stint of reserve duty? And Hubbard obviously was re-enlisted in 1941 (although not by the Marine Corps, if that is what is meant).
  • "He got no further than Brisbane" seems to imply it was Hubbard's fault; sources say his ship was diverted to Australia instead. Suggest we use a more neutral phrasing.
  • Streeter, who is cited, also includes praise Hubbard received from a senior officer for his navigating skills, "excellent personal and military character", etc.; I think to be balanced, that should be included too.
  • This passage, along with some others, has an air of synthesis about it:

    According to the Church of Scientology, Hubbard was landed on the island of Java "in the closing days of February 1942" to search for "stockpiled weapons and fast, shallow-draft vessels." He was cut off by invading Japanese "and was only able to escape the island after scrambling into a rubber raft and paddling out to meet an Australian destroyer."[9] Another Church of Scientology account describes Hubbard as "Senior Officer Present Ashore in Brisbane, Australia" and states that "after fracturing an ankle in subsequent action, he was flown stateside (in the Secretary of the Navy's plane no less) as the first American casualty returning from the Pacific Theater."[10] The US Navy's files do not record this episode.[1]

  • The sentence "The US Navy's files do not record this episode." appears to be sourced to the sentence "The US Navy files do not record the time that Hubbard is supposed to have spent on Java" on page 207 of Streeter. I think it would be better to move that sentence to before the sentence on the flight on the private plane, so it is used in the context in which the source is using it.
  • Some sentences seem to be designed to elicit guffaws, e.g.: "The PC-815 sustained some self-inflicted damage when a misaimed burst of gunfire shot away the vessel's radio antenna and injured three of the crew." (unsourced; questionable relevance unless sources say Hubbard was the one doing the shooting and was censured for it); "Other documents on Hubbard's medical file stated that he had injured his back in 1942 after falling off a ship's ladder.[43]" (sourced to "Greenwald, David (1984-12-21). United Press International.", no further details given).
  • A number of sentences don't have references, making verification difficult; given the contentious nature of the topic, I would recommend placing a ref after each sentence.
  • In an earlier discussion on the talk page editors agreed that Melton was not a historian, and that there was no need to include his version of the submarine incident. I think I would like to have another look at this issue, for two reasons. Melton's account has since been re-published by Oxford University Press [4]:

    "It appears that PC 815 did engage and sink a Japanese submarine off the Oregon coast, a fact only recently substantiated because of the American government's reluctance to admit that the Japanese were in fact operating off America's Pacific Coast during the war".

  • Secondly, this present article is almost exclusively based on Miller and Atack, and Frenschkowski, in the Marburg Journal of Religion, wrote,

    "- Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah: The True Story of L. Ron Hubbard, New York 1987. London 1988. The most important critical biography of Hubbard. Like Haack's and Corydon's books it is extremely polemical and very much tries to pull Hubbard to pieces who is seen as a dangerous megalomanic and notorious liar (especially when talking about himself). Miller has definitely exposed some inflated statements about Hubbard's early achievements, as they are represented e. g. in the preface to Mission into Time. On the other side the Church of Scientology has been able to disprove some of Millers assumptions. Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII, e.g., have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show, as can be seen from his naval records that have been made public during the processes following the publication of Bare-Faced Messiah (a complete set of the relevant documents is part of my collection). The Church of Scientology has also been able to verify Hubbard's statements about "Comander Thompson", the source of his early acquaintance with Freudian psychoanalysis. Joseph "Snake" Thompson (1874-1943) was Commander in the US Navy Medical Corps; his personal relation with Freud is documented by a letter written by Freud and addressed to him (in the Library of Congress, Washington. Copy in my possession). This material so far is not part of any bibliography of Hubbard."

    — [5]
  • This creates enough doubt in my mind to make me feel that we should not be relying on Miller's version exclusively; we have to represent significant viewpoints in proportion to their prevalence. At the least, I think we should attribute material that comes from Miller to him, and find room somewhere for Frenschkowski's assertion that parts of Miller's narrative have been disproved. Jayen466 12:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I'll go through them in more detail later on today, but I'll make a few interim comments.
  • We decided in the earlier discussion to exclude Melton not simply because he's not an historian but because his claims about Japanese submarines are not corroborated by any other reliable source, and in fact are actively contradicted by the standard histories of the Japanese navy's submarine fleet. There is literally no other source that suggests that any Japanese submarines were sunk off the US coast, by Hubbard or anyone else. I refer you to WP:UNDUE: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article... Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." This viewpoint is presented in no reliable sources other than as a claim made by the Church of Scientology. Note that Melton cites no sources to support his contention - he says it's "substantiated" without saying what substantiates it. It's a textbook case of a red flag: a "surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources" and a "claim that is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons." If Melton is correct, then it overturns 65 years of scholarship and research and disproves all of the previously published evidence from official sources - US, British and Japanese - concerning this issue. We can't ignore the fact that there is a huge weight of scholarship contradicting Melton's assertion.
  • As for Miller, unfortunately Frenchkowski doesn't say in what respects "Hubbard's assertions about his military career in WWII have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show." He doesn't actually dispute anything Miller says about Hubbard's WWII career. If there were specific issues of dispute, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but Frenchkowski doesn't give us anything to work with - it's just a non-specific general disagreement. It would be interesting to know what his specific concerns are, though. Maybe someone should ask him?
  • Regarding Thompson, I don't see the relevance of that point - that was well before Hubbard joined the Navy. It's relevant to a general biography but not to an article concerning his military career.
  • I take your point about the wording of the lines concerning the damage sustained by USS PC-815. It's not meant to "elicit guffaws" but to account for damage and casualties during the "engagement". I'll reword it to make that clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am in two minds myself about the Melton passage; other scholars, while praising Melton's book as a whole, have remarked that in his bio of Hubbard, he may have been too credulous. In the end, I just don't know. I wouldn't even mind mentioning that Melton has received such criticism, but we shouldn't sweep him under the carpet. Melton's book is used in many university courses on Scientology, and Oxford University Press is in the academic mainstream. Melton also mentions the dispute about the number of medals. Jayen466 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
(The Thompson reference is indeed irrelevant to this article. It was just included for completeness' sake. Jayen466 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
It's nothing to do with how "mainstream" Melton is. I'm sure he is regarded as a mainstream sociologist, and I have no doubt that his work is used in an educational context as you sau. The issue here is simply that he makes an unsourced claim in an area outside of his professional competence - military history rather than sociology - that no other reliable source supports, and that basically every other relevant reliable source actively contradicts. Let me walk you though this. Melton asserts, without any substantiation, that a Japanese submarine was sunk 15 miles off Oregon in May 1943. Only a handful of Japanese submarines were even capable of crossing the Pacific in the first place. Their service histories are well known and their losses are recorded in detail by the IJN, the US Navy and the Royal Navy. The specific submarine that Hubbard claimed to have attacked was recorded as having been sunk a year later. No Japanese submarine is recorded by any reliable source as having been off Oregon in May 1943, and no reliable source of any kind records that any Japanese submarine was sunk off the continental US coastline at any point in the war. Melton's assertion is not only made without evidence, it actively contradicts all of the published military histories of the US and Japanese navies. It's as if Melton was asserting that the Russians attacked Pearl Harbor rather than the Japanese. He's literally in a minority of one in making his claim. In that situation it doesn't matter that he is a mainstream sociologist or that his claim has somehow got into an OUP publication (their editorial standards have evidently slipped) - it's a textbook case of a red-flagged fringe claim from someone way outside his area of expertise. If we're trying to write a serious piece of military history Melton really does not have any place here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
You are arguing from personal knowledge here. What you say may be true, but it is not verifiable from what you have written above. As you know, Wikipedia's standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Oxford University Press is the exact opposite of a fringe source. Even if we believe in our hearts Melton is wrong, I still think we should mention him, along with such criticism as his bio in the book has received in RS, as suggested above.
As for Miller, he is not always correct either, according to Frenschkowski, who says that the Church has been able to disprove some of his account, as quoted above. Given that we rely so heavily on him, would you object to attributing the material cited to Miller in the text, i.e. "According to Miller, ...", and adding that Miller's account has been disputed as well, as per Frenschkowski?
I feel to be NPOV on this we should give no source complete credence. We should describe the dispute as accurately as possible based on what RS have said and refrain from setting ourselves up as its arbiters, knowing full well that none of our sources may be correct in every detail they assert. It might be worth adding a paragraph just on the available sources on this topic, and how their reliability has been assessed. If you like we could mention Melton's version of the submarine there, rather than in the actual military history section, along with a mention that his account was deemed too credulous by some. We could also mention Miller in the section describing the available sources, and say that Frenschkowski asserts some of his details have been disproven. I think that would help getting to an NPOV presentation. What do you think? Jayen466 09:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Marine Corps Reserve, Brisbane, Java, PC-815 damage and casualties. I've reworded these section to address your concerns.
  • Miller. It's not accurate to say that the article is almost exclusively based on Miller and Atack. I count 36 separate sources - Hubbard's military career has been tackled by non-Scientologists for nearly 40 years, well before Miller and Atack got into the act. I've expanded the article to provide some more context (see Military career of L. Ron Hubbard#Documenting Hubbard's military career). Miller and Atack are simply the most recent and comprehensive treatments, but I've purposefully sought to include as wide a range of sources as possible.
  • Sentences without references. If you can identify specific sentences that you feel need referencing, please do so and I'll see what I can add. Generally, if a sentence is without a reference the next reference you will find will be the one covering that reference. Multiple sentences (and in a few cases, paragraphs) are covered by individual references.
  • Melton. It doesn't matter that Melton is a mainstream sociologist published by a reliable source. WP:NPOV's undue weight provisions are in some respects more important than that - even if a source is reliable it may not be suitable for inclusion. Fringe claims are inherently unsuitable for inclusion, particularly when they are textbook examples of red flags. Don't confuse fringe claims and reliable sources - a fringe claim can be made by a reliable source, particularly when the author is writing about something outside his area of competence. It doesn't make the claim any less fringy. The Imperial Japanese Navy's submarine force has been written about numerous times; the activities and particulars of loss are well-documented from Japanese, US and British records, as are the details of the IJN's activities off the US coast (which ceased after 1942). A number of books give the details: Retaliation: Japanese Attacks and Allied Countermeasures on the Pacific Coast in World War II (Webber, 1975); The Imperial Japanese Navy (Gordon & Watts, 1971; ISBN 0356030458); Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy (Carpenter & Polmar, 1986); Submarines of World War Two (Bagnasco, 2000; ISBN 1854095323); The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II (Boyd & Yoshida, 2002; ISBN 1557500150); and Imperial Japanese Navy Submarines 1941-45 (Bryan and Stille, 2007; ISBN 1846030900). Melton's claim contradicts all of these sources and the official war histories of the US and Japanese navies. I don't propose to waste any more time on it since it is so clearly an exceptional claim and Melton's unsourced, virtually throw-away line is not remotely an exceptional source. It does not belong in the article, period. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Close to half of our citations are to Atack and Miller. Frenschkowski is positive that Hubbard's church has disproved some of Miller's assertions about his military history. That deserves a mention somewhere. Are there any other sources detailing the disputes that followed the publication of the book? We should mention them.
As for citations, honestly, I would suggest citing every sentence. Cirt usually does that, and it makes a lot of sense on topics like this. Jayen466 13:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding the source on the I-76. However, this makes clear that the sentence

    "The I-76 (later I-176),[35] named by Hubbard as the vessel that he had sunk, was in fact destroyed off Buka Island in the western Pacific by USS Franks, USS Haggard and USS Johnston on 16 May 1944.[36]"

  • is WP:SYN. None of the cited sources presents this information in direct connection with the article topic. We need a source saying, "Hubbard said he had sunk the I-76. In fact, the I-76 was later renamed the I-176 and sunk off Buka Island in 1944." If there is no such source, then this analysis is original research. JN466 08:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Hubbard himself said that he had sunk the I-76. This is quoted and sourced in the article. What is the difficulty here? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It's a novel analysis. That alleged Hubbard quote is present nowhere on the Internet (including google scholar, google books and questia) but this Wikipedia article: [6] We are not supposed to perform original research here, but merely to cover what others have written about the topic, in this case the Military career of L. Ron Hubbard. That whole combination of the alleged Hubbard quote, the source about the renaming of the Japanese submarine and how and when and where it was sunk after it was renamed is not in any of the sources cited and is in fact unique to Wikipedia. JN466 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I object strongly to your obvious innuendo that I have forged the "alleged" quote which, I remind you, is properly sourced. I'll invite you to withdraw that remark. Unless you are going to approach this by assuming good faith, I think this discussion is at an end. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Objection noted, and I did not mean to imply that you "manufactured" the quote. However, it is odd that it is nowhere available but this Wikipedia article, given that incriminating Hubbard quotes are usually liberally reproduced. I have obviously no idea whether you read the book yourself and can vouch for the accuracy of the quote, or if this is information inserted by another editor. I believe you mentioned you were not the original author of the article. More importantly though, the point still stands that even if the authenticity of the quote were confirmed, there is apparently no published source discussing any such Hubbard quote in connection with the renaming of submarines by the Japenese navy, and the sinking of renamed submarines. As such, the presentation we have in the article is original research as per WP:SYN. Our job is to present the points made in reliable sources, rather than combining sources in new ways to arrive at novel conclusions that so far have not been presented in reliable sources. JN466 20:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification about your meaning. This quote was in the original article and I'm not sure off the top of my head who added it, but I rechecked it (along with everything else in the article) and it is genuine. I have the original lecture at home (or more precisely, a published transcript of it). I'm away from home at the moment, so I can't check the fine details immediately, but it appears in a transcript published along with a set of cassette-recorded lectures that were published - if my memory serves me correctly - by Bridge Publications ApS of Copenhagen, Denmark, the main European distributor of Scientology publications. I don't recall the context of the quote off-hand, I'm afraid. I remember thinking it was rather random; Hubbard was in the habit of throwing in personal anecdotes to illustrate some point he was making at the time. The fact that it doesn't appear on Google Books is hardly a surprise, since Scientology is notoriously jealous of its copyrights. I don't think I've ever seen a Scientology book on Google Books.
As for your WP:SYN comment, I'm afraid you're misunderstanding what WP:SYN actually says. It prohibits us from "putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources," or in other words "A and B, therefore C". This is not happening in this article. "L. Ron Hubbard said he sunk the I-76, but the US Navy said he didn't, therefore he was lying" would be an example of original research through synthesis. No source could be cited to support that conclusion. But of course the article doesn't state this. It states: A, Hubbard said he sunk the I-76 and B, military historians say the I-76 was sunk a year later. It does not reach any conclusion or state that either party is wrong, so there is no C - no conclusion that would fall foul of WP:SYN. This sort of treatment is exactly what WP:NPOV requires of us, i.e. to present fairly conflicting viewpoints without endorsing them. We're not judging Hubbard here, simply presenting the fact that his view and that of the military/historical professionals are in conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Just re-read the Smith and Jones example in WP:SYN. I think this is pretty much exactly analogous to it – in the example too there is no explicit statement that Jones did not commit plagiarism. The juxtaposition is enough, and it's SYN because the second source did not comment on the Smith/Jones dispute. But I don't blame you for trying it with this wording; we'll discuss it with the GA reviewer later on and see how it goes. JN466 23:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
You're still misreading WP:SYN. The Smith/Jones example (and indeed the page as a whole) says nothing about juxtaposition. It cites two paragraphs, the first of which juxtaposes Smith's and Jones's positions, and the second which draws a conclusion about those positions. The second paragraph is "the original synthesis ... because it expressed the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it" (emphasis added). By contrast, "the first paragraph was properly sourced" because it simply summarised the opposing claims as found in reliable verifiable sources. We are supposed to juxtapose rival claims without drawing unsourced conclusions. That's not synthesis - it's NPOV at its most basic. Smith/Jones would only be analagous if the Hubbard article was making a specific unsourced claim about the Japanese submarine, which it doesn't. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Let me put the submarine passage in Smith & Jones terms:

Hubbard claimed in a lecture he had sunk an I-76 submarine.(on-topic [but primary] source a)

Now comes the original synthesis:

In fact, the I-76 was renamed I-176.(off-topic source B) The I-176 was sunk some time later, and elsewhere.(off-topic source C)

We do not have a published source on Hubbard's military career that presents this argument, encompassing these three logical steps, logically connecting these three items of information. That is why, in my opinion, the argument is original research. Also see WP:ORIGINALSYN. JN466 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To avoid any suggestion of synthesis, I've tweaked the wording to read: "According to military records, the I-76 was destroyed off Buka Island in the western Pacific by USS Franks, USS Haggard and USS Johnston on 16 May 1944." Note that this is a straightforward presentation of claim and counter-claim. Hubbard makes the claim that he sunk I-76 off the Columbia River. The records cited in the article and by the referenced historians say that the same submarine was sunk off Buka Island a year later. I've removed the "in fact" which I agree was probably fringing on endorsing one side. I've also added a picture of the I-(1)76 to the article, moving across the citation that the I-76 was renamed to I-176. The picture comes from the same source as the citation. So what we now have is claim A, the I-76/I-176 was sunk by L. Ron Hubbard off the Columbia River in May 1943, and counter-claim B, that the I-76/I-176 was sunk by three US Navy destroyers off Buka Island in May 1944. There is no conclusion C, "therefore L. Ron Hubbard was wrong" - we simply have the claim and counter-claim without endorsement for either side. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate the effort, though it does not change the basic problem that the source we cite for where the I-176 was sunk does not present this information in direct connection with the article topic, as WP:SYN demands. :( What you are doing may possibly be good original research, but it is not what WP is supposed to be doing. JN466 12:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Against my better judgment, I'm going to have one more go at explaining this to you.
You're claiming that the sources are "off-topic". The topic in the paragraph in question is the fate of the I-176. Hubbard presents one claim about the submarine's sinking. Military historians and the US Navy present a different account. We are not saying which side is right or wrong; we are simply documenting what each party says about the submarine's fate. It would be unbalanced and POV to cite only Hubbard's claim; as WP:NPOV says, "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate your taking the time. We just have an honest difference of opinion on which sources are on-topic here. As far as I am concerned, the topic is Hubbard's military career, and we should quote sources commenting on that. Sources that do not present their information in relation to his career are out of bounds, in my view, and using them takes us into SYN territory. Now, you are putting together (1) a (fairly obscure, I think you'll admit) primary source from Hubbard himself, talking informally, swaggeringly, about a submarine he believes he sank, which he refers to as the "I-76" in that talk (2) a source not commenting on Hubbard, which says the Japanese submarine I-176 was named I-76 while being built, but renamed I-176 when it was commissioned in August 1942 and (3) a source not commenting on Hubbard saying the I-176 was sunk at such and such a date (1944), and at such and such a location. Now, according to our article on it, the I-76 was only ever called I-76 during its construction. What grounds do we have for believing that Hubbard knew the I-176 was previously called the I-76, and that he meant to refer to this specific submarine? If he didn't know about the name change, or just made the number up, or got it wrong, or meant to say I-67, what point is there detailing the fate of the I-176? The talk you are citing from Hubbard was clearly off the cuff; has anyone made an exhaustive review of whether he ever told the same story at other occasions, giving a different submarine identification? If he did, should we follow up all of those submarines' fates as well to prove that each one perished somewhere else, or survived the war? The point is that a number of key points in our article's coverage – that Hubbard knew the Japanese submarine I-176 was named I-76 during its construction, and therefore he was referring to the I-176 when he said I-76; that the talk we cite from him is the definitive source and account of his claim; or indeed that there was only one Japanese submarine ever named the I-76 – are not based on secondary-source coverage of Hubbard's military career. Their juxtaposition represents a unique historical analysis as regards the topic of this article, Hubbard's military career. Let's rather concentrate on what the sources commenting directly on Hubbard and his phantom submarine say. If they say, the Japanese Navy did not lose any submarines in May 1943, in it goes. If they say (and they do) that his superiors thought he was mistaken, it goes into the article. That is all we need to do: summarise the sources commenting upon Hubbard's military career. Best, JN466 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I know that I am a bit late coming to the party, but in FAs I have used references that have nothing to do with the topic I am writing about to verify the accuracy of a point I am trying to make. For example: one source says that the Dutch Design 1047 battlecruisers would have been similar to Germany's Scharnhorst class. Including that in the article, I use a source that has nothing to do with the 1047s, but everything to do with the Scharnhorst's, to give the specifications for the latter that were not present in the first source. I see nothing wrong with this... —Ed (TalkContribs) 06:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

AHS Centaur[edit]

The article on AHS Centaur was promoted to Featured Article status just short of two years ago. In that time, there have been changes to the article, plus alterations to and tightening of the FA criteria. I would like to know if the article still meets the FA criteria, and if not, what needs to be done. -- saberwyn 08:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

For reference:

  • The previous peer review (from February 2007) is here.
  • The A class review (from May 2007) is here.
  • The Featured Article Candidate discussion (which resulted in the article's promotion to FA in June 2007) is here.

the ed17[edit]

  • Comment - I've just read through the entire article, and I am amazed that it is in such good shape for a 2-year old FA. However, I have a major query: at the end of the "Attacker" section, it seems to imply/say that Nakagawa might not have been the attacker (as there was not enough evidence. However, the rest of the article, namely the "Reasons for attack" section, advances the viewpoint that Nakagawa was the commander. If this was intentional, I apologize, but just a thought. —Ed (TalkContribs) 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Nakagawa was the commander of I-177 at the time of the attack, but that submarine was one of three that were in the area at the time and could have attacked Centaur. In the immediate aftermath (during the war crimes tribunals), there wasn't enough evidence to prove which of these submarines was responsible. The publication of the War History Series in 1979 indicated that I-177, with Nakagawa commanding, was the responsible submarine, and all of the sources on the attack I have seen accept this as fact.
That said, any suggestions on how it could be made clearer? -- saberwyn 21:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that information (that Nakagawa was almost certainly the commander) could be added at the end of the "Attacker" section? —Ed (TalkContribs) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite the "Attacker" section, partly to make the identifying of Nakagawa clearer, and partly because I think that section could be a little better structured. It will take me a little while because I don't have access to some of the sources used at the moment. I'll notify here when its done. -- saberwyn 07:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The "Attacker" section has been rewritten, and tweakes have been made to the "Reasons for Attack" section. Hopefully this clarifies things. -- saberwyn 07:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

I've formated the citations. I'll look at the prose more carefully soon YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Guyinblack25[edit]

Quite an informative article, and one that looks to have stood the test of time. I haven't finished reading the article, but here are the issues which stood out to me.

  • Terms like keel, stern, and draft (hull) should be wikilinked for readers unfamiliar with the topic, such as myself.
  • Per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, images should not be left aligned directly under level 3 headings to prevent a break between the heading and the prose. I would either right align them or move them a paragraph or two down closer to the most relevant text.
  • This is more a preferred style issue, but there are several instances where consecutive sentences both use the same citation. I've always tried consolidating them to cover groups of sentences. That's just me though.
  • The "Military reaction" section starts with a single sentence paragraph. I'd integrate it with the following paragraph.
  • The first sentence of "Official protests" is a bit confusing with its comma usage. The list of groups involved in the consultation is the culprit. It might benefit from splitting the sentence in two.

I'll finish up tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

In order

  1. Examples given linked at first appearance in the text.
  2. Images dropped down or moved elsewhere in the article.
  3. I'm the opposite... I prefer attaching citations to every sentance so that readers know that that particular sentance can be verified by that particular citation.
  4. Problem is, the first sentance describes the general reaction from military personnel, while the subsequent paragraph describes a reaction to the attack by the military as an organisation, and it doesn't seem right to strap that sentance to the front one of one. Thoughts?
  5. Done. How does it read now?

Looking forward to the rest of your observations. -- saberwyn 23:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Round two-
  • I'm no military expert, but I don't see much difference between the reaction of an organization and the reaction of its members. They're different levels of military, but still military. I'd say the amount of overlap outweighs the differences. That's just me though.
    The only other suggestion I have is to expand on the content of the servicemen's reaction. One or two more sentences would be all that's needed (if there's any available).
  • Under the "Reasons for attack" section, second sentence of the second paragraph, I believe a semi-colon should be used instead of a colon. "...until reaching the Great Barrier Reef:; her course keeping..."
  • Under the "Nakagawa unaware" section, should 'unfortunate accident' use double quotes instead of single? I assume this might be another difference of styles.
  • Under "Memorials", I'd wikilink cairn.
  • I would reorder the "Memorials" section chronologically.
  • After reading the whole article, the lead feels a bit off. Specifically how it jumps right into its attack, then summarizes the article. I don't really have any suggestions, and assume its more just a difference of style.
Quite a fine article. It was a pleasure to read and very informative. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC))
Round two replies
  1. Here's an example of what I mean. You and your colleages walk into work after a good weekend, to find that your workplace has been destroyed, equipment vandalised, etc. You and your colleages are likely to be angered and annoyed. Your company is likely to review security proceedures and contact the police to begin an investigation. That said, I like the idea of adding a few more lines to evolve it into a paragraph, and am hunting for possible sources.
  2. Agreed, done.
  3. In my understanding of Australian English, single quotes are for emphasis and double quotes are for quotations. Having read the relevant sentace, I don't think there should be any quote marks at all as it could be intended as scare quotes (that may have been my intention when I originally wrote it, but if so, its not appropriate per NPOV), and have removed them.
  4. Done
  5. No answer at this moment in time, need to have a think about it Done, how does it look now? -- saberwyn 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  6. The reason the attack is mentioned straight off the bat is that it is the key reason why the ship is notable. Per Wikipedia:Lead_section#First_sentence, the subject of the article and why it is notable should be clearly identified as early as possible.
-- saberwyn 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. I only saw two other minor issues:
  • Should this be semicolon instead of a colon? "...by other Allied personnel:; United States Army Air Force General..."
  • I would add a {{-}} tag at the end of the "Memorials" section so the picture doesn't run into the footnotes.
Article looks great, like it could weather a couple more years. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC))

Saberwyn-closing[edit]

I'm closing this peer review as I will be unable to react to suggestions after this weekend for about a month. I would like to thank everyone who has expressed a view here, and hope the changes made to the article are satisfatory enough for AHS Centuar to retain FA status. Any further observations or comments are more than welcome at the article's talk page. -- saberwyn 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

7th Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

Article is a GA, looking to get it to FA. Please pay special attention to referencing and sources, they seem to be the biggest obstacle. -Ed!(talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Per User:Abraham, B.S., I would like to request to close this peer review, since I currently have an A-class review open for this article. I will reopen a new Peer Review when the A class review is complete. -Ed!(talk) 05:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin[edit]

A few (mostly stylistic) suggestions:

  • I'd suggest removing the "(inactive)" fields in the infobox entirely; they're pretty repetetive, and just make the infobox bigger without really adding any information.
  • The "Active Component/Reserve Component" heading may be better off as "Active and Reserve Component" or something along those lines; the slash is a somewhat peculiar thing to have in a section name.
    • "Active Component/Reserve Component" is a proper noun to describe the status of the unit according to the Army. If its a terrible issue I can rename the header but it shouldn't be altered. -Ed!(talk) 04:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason why the unit citation table is in reverse chronological order while the campaign streamer citation is in chronological order? I would suggest, in any case, removing the two sub-headings and just having the two tables in a single section.
    • Reordered the first box of awards. -Ed!(talk) 04:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The component template at the bottom might be better nested immediately after the infobox, with "style=wide" removed.

Keep up the good work! Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No. 410 Squadron RCAF[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, this has had a lot of time and effort expended into it, and now needs more work to reach the lofty goal of FA-Class. What needs to be done?

Thanks, TARTARUS talk 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sturmvogel 66[edit]

I wouldn't call the V-2 a rocket bomb, that's for sure. And it's pretty unimportant that that same missile landed in England. Otherwise looks good although I'll have to take a closer look when I'm a little less frazzled. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

Added a few links

  • when the unit was renowned for its skill and number of victories.- needs a cite
  • Change enemy to German
  • Change kills to victories
  • More cites needs Post D-Day section -
shot down two Do.217 aircraft in twenty minutes
Since D-Day the Cougars had destroyed twelve enemy bombers
still maintaining their schedule of nine sorties per night
During an operation that resulted in the thirteenth kill of the period, one aircraft crashed—its crew was unable to bail out
  • Battle of the Bulge and the end of the war section -
the Germans launched a surprise offensive in the Ardennes.
This was done using the Luftwaffe, which caught many squadrons off guard,
it was called upon to provide a special patrol of four aircraft as air cover for Armistice Day ceremonies being held in Paris
  • Wartime commanders section - does the one ref at the end of the paragraph cover all the changes ? it would be better to cite all changes in command
  • Post-Second World War section - the first two sentences need cites

Thats all for now will return later --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

I am not an expert on aviation articles at all, so I'm afraid I won't be much help. Jim appears to have covered most of the points I would raise, but I do have a couple more:

  • Please check the official rank name for the rank that you have abbreviated (F/O). At the start (in the lead) you state that it means Flight Officer, but later you appear to use Flying Officer. I think it should be Flying Officer the whole way through, but could be wrong. In Australia it is Flying Officer, but I don't know about the RCAF at all. Just strikes me as possibly wrong.
  • In the bibliography section some references use the {{cite book}} template and others are manually written, leading to different formats. Consistency is always best, so I would choose one or the other and make them all the same. My suggestion is to use the cite book style (as it usually gets brought up at A class review anyway).
  • I suggest adding 'p.' in front of the page numbers. I don't know if it is required under the MOS, but it seems like a more standard system than author, #. Some people also use 'Author (Year), p. #'. The advantage of that is that is a little more user friendly, in my opinion at least.
  • I suggest moving the picture of the JU88 to the left, in order to balance the sequence of the images. Not necessarily a must, though, but sometimes gets mentioned at A class review.
  • Probably try to add a few more citations. I know you have lots already, but there are a few paragraphs where the majority of the citations are at the end, and there are chunks at the start of the paragraph that aren't cited. Even if it is the same source, at A class review they will usually ask you to put them in anyway.

Anyway, seems like a good article (without loading the term). Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force[edit]

This article has been at FA status since July 2007 and is due for an update and general tidy-up. To help me with this I'd appreciate any comments on the article as it currently stands. Please note that the article was previously peer reviewed in March 2007 before it was nominated for A-class and then FA status. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • The lead is quite short
  • Odd usage of First-Last name, I'll get to work on that, and also some refs are repeated in long form in the footnotes when not needed as the full form is already in the multi-use refs. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Date formats are mixed. I prefer yyyy-mm-dd if that's ok YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during World War I[edit]

I am nominating this article for peer review as it has been listed as the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight with a view to taking it to FA class by another user, although I am the main contributor (of course, however, there have been a number of other editors who have worked consistently on the article also and who have been invaluable in bringing it to where it is now). It is currently listed as a GA and has been previously been peer reviewed. Before taking the leap, I would like to see what the liability is before getting involved in an ACR or FAC, so am requesting opinions about what would be needed to get it to these levels. All comments welcome. Cheers. (Prior peer review here). — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth[edit]

May add more comments later. Carcharoth (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I will wait before I do anything too drastic about the section sizes as I want to get a number of opinions before forging ahead. Cheers, though. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Carcharoth. IMO the command structure is probably too detailed for this article, but I would encourage you to add it to First Australian Imperial Force if you feel so inclined. Likewise I think listing all the memorials may be a bit much also. They could be included in the articles for the battles themselves though (if they haven't already been added). Lastly I think the relative importance of each topic/battle/service should determine the level of coverage, not an arbitrary allocation of equal space to all topics. In this regard I think the article probably strikes this balance. Anyway thats just my two cents, others may disagree of course. ChoraPete (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


ChoraPete[edit]

Personally I think this article is quite good. Only a few minor points:

  • There are some very short paragraphs which should probably be linked with other sentences to form real paragraphs, or expanded on to achieve the same;
  • Maybe expand battle of Krithia and Turkish counter attack sections a little in the Gallipoli section
  • Maybe the section on Es Salt could be expanded (just a couple more sentences perhaps), likewise for the battles of Rafa and and of Romani in the Egypt and Palestine section;
  • The see also link to the article on the Australian official histories could be worked into the prose (IVO where you mention Bean probably) and then this could be eliminated and Done
  • Is there anyway of 'right-aligning' the table at the end to remove the whitespace?

Anyway that is all from me for now, if I think of anything else I will let you know. Good luck. ChoraPete (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the review. I will see what I can do to address these. Thanks. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This article is in excellent shape, and is probably nearly ready for an A class nomination. As an over-arching suggestion, I think that the article might be too detailed, and you should look to move some material into subsidiary articles. In particular, many relatively small actions of the first years of the war involving battalions and brigades are covered in what seems to be excessive detail compared to the succinct descriptions of the AIFs division and corps-level operations in France from 1916 onwards. My specific suggestions for improvements are:

  • Some maps would be useful if they're available
  • The single paragraph sections should be integrated into neighboring sections
  • The lead photo lacks visual impact - while its a featured picture, this seems to be due to the rarity of high resolution pictures of World War I rather than any implicit value (disclaimer: I voted against it during its FPC). I'd suggest that it be replaced with something which more strongly grabs readers' attention.
  • The first two paragraphs of the lead are a bit too detailed - this should be a high level summary of Australia's involvement in the war
  • The 'German New Guinea' section is too detailed and should be trimmed to about three or four paragraphs
  • I don't think that the first brigade commanders need to be named in the 'First Australian Imperial Force' section, particularly as this isn't carried through the remainder of the article
  • The expansion of the AIF is repeated at the end of the 'Evacuation' section and start of the 'Egypt and Palestine' section
  • Reference 73 ("The Turkish Rout at Romani — from a British illustrated magazine, published September 1916") seems like an odd choice given the availability of many post-war works. The claim that the Turks were seeking to destroy the Canal also is a bit surprising - was this even possible?
  • 'Imperial Mounted Division' shouldn't be in italics
  • The photo captioned simply 'Charge of the 4th Light Horse Brigade' is potentially misleading given that there's been a long running (and as far as I know, unsettled) dispute over whether it is authentic.
  • There's a bit of over linking in the 'Fighting around Gaza, 1917' section - 'Australian Mounted Division' and 'Beersheba' are linked twice
  • The statement that "Five infantry divisions of the AIF saw action on the Western Front in France and Belgium, leaving Egypt in March 1916" is over-simplistic and not correct: this ignores the many corps level units and the 3rd Division was trained in England until December 1916
  • The paragraph on the 1st Division's mechanical transport probably belongs in the article on the division and isn't worth more than a passing mention in this article
  • The 'Royal Australian Navy operations' section repeats some of the content of the 'German New Guinea' section
  • The 'Internment, censorship and other special measures' and 'Economy' sections are probably too detailed for an article on the military history of Australia during the war, and could be split off to provide an excellent starting point for an article on the home front.
  • The simple table in the 'Statistics' section should be converted to prose
  • The entries in the 'Footnotes' section need citations. Footnotes d and f could be removed (the first isn't necessary and the second is one person's view of a hotly contested topic which largely falls outside the scope of this article) Nick-D (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Nick. Some excellent points. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Concur with other reviewers that this is a very good article as is, and probably quite close to A-Class standard. I'll try and review in detail when I can, particularly the air corps section.

  • Just as an initial comment, I agree with Nick that the lead picture lacks impact. The first two iconic images that come to my mind—which surprisingly don't appear in the article anywhere else as yet—are File:1stAustralianDivisionHooge5October1917.jpeg and File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg. The Nek painting and the photo of Beersheba are certainly iconic as well, but a bit specialised for the lead IMO. Any other suggestions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg would be a great choice, especially as it's also an FP. The Australian War Memorial's wonderful book Contact says that it "remains one of the most recognisible and widely reproduced images of this landscape, which has come to serve as an emblem of the Great War". Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Both are excellent suggestions, leaning towards File:Chateau Wood Ypres 1917.jpg. ChoraPete (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Cool - of the two, Ypres would be my preference as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty happy with the AFC section. I'd consider mentioning a few more names in the text, however, in addition to Petre and McNamara, namely Richard Williams, Oswald Watt, and Harry Cobby:
    • Williams and Watt should logically appear after the line Thousands of aircrew from the other Dominions ... without gaining the benefits of command and the administrative experience which came with an independent air service, as they illustrate the contrasting situation for AFC men, namely that they both commanded wings (Williams temporarily leading the RAF's Palestinian Brigade as well). I can add the words and/or provide you a ref, if you like.
    • Cobby should be mentioned as the AFC's leading ace of the war, with 29 victories.
    • You could also drop the names of Robert Little and Stan Dallas as the top-scoring Australian aces of the war and as examples of Aussies flying with the Brits, but that may be overdoing it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Took the liberty of copyediting the Half-Flight subsection, adding a new ref. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Ian. Some more excellent suggestions. Any and all help with the article is appreciated. I'm a bit under the pump this week in real life, so won't be able to put much time into the article until the weekend, unfortunately. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

North Staffordshire Regiment[edit]

I've nominated this article because it's been assessed as B-class and mostly I'm trying to work out what needs to be improved/changed to either get it rated A-class or GA without virtually paraphrasing entire source documents.

This unit isn't one of the most well known in the British army and it's history isn't one of the exciting ones, so sources aren't that prolific and therefore I'm wondering if their is an overpreponderance on what source material there is. NtheP (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I think all the points mentioned below have been accounted for except the comment about the summary. Any suggestions? And where do we go from here towards A-class or GA? NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Hi, mate. Firstly, I'd like to say well done on this article. You've clearly put a lot of work into it. I have only got a couple of points:

1918–1939

  • Could you perhaps expand a little on the Regiment's involvement in the Third Afghan War? It only gets a very brief mention (although I accept that it was a very brief war). From what you have written it seems that all they did to earn their battle honour was be stationed in India at the time, but I believe they were a bit more active in their involvement. The wiki article on this war has a little, but there is, as you say very few resources.
    • will do. Not at home so don't have the reference books with me.
      • I've added in a small amount (only one sentence unfortunately) from the only reference I had that mentioned it. I hope it helps. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
        • Expanded (slightly) with references to the Official Account NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Second World War

  • What happened to the 7th Battalion, do you know? It is only mentioned in passing, stating that it was part of the 176th Bde, but that it did not land in Normandy with the 6th Battalion as it had been transferred away in 1942. Do you know where it was transferred to?
    • updated for now. Again I have the divisonal assignments somewhere.
      • Updated with references NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1945–1959

  • You mention the new 1st Battalion (64th/98th) – was this the unit's official designation when the 1st and 2nd Battalions were amalgamated in 1948? Seems a little clunky, but if it was its official name, then it should stay as is, otherwise I'd just change it to 1st Battalion. Perhaps you could clarify the redesignation if that is what happened as the wording is a little vague in my opinion, by saying something like "Accordingly the 1st Battalion left India to take part in a ceremony officially amalgamating with the 2nd Battalion in Egypt in 1948, to become the 1st Battalion (64th/98th)..."
    • It's the designation as per the regimental history (not as bad as some - have a look at The Sherwood Foresters)
  • You mention that the 1st Battalion went to Korea after the war ended, but don't state what they did there. I take it that they were part of the UN garrison and were there to act as a deterent against a continuation of the conflict?
    • yep - nothing happened. NtheP (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, that is all I've got. Well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, mate. Looking good. I just added a bit and tweaked a couple of internal links, but it looks like it is getting there.
References
  • a couple of the references do not have an author. Are you able to find out the author and add it in? That way the reference list can be sorted alphabetically. I checked google for the 1908 one and couldn't find it. For the War Diary, I would suggest perhaps using 'War Office'. Just an idea. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • The historical record has no author. I guess it was commissioned by the battalion for the battalion but there is no note as to who wrote the history part. The war diary I suppose could be edited by the adjutant. NtheP (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • What makes Orbat a RS? Seems like a hobby website
    • alternate reference used

*Other websites need publisher info for BBC, date of printing etc

    • ok, but out of interest why?
  • why are the decorations in all caps
    • They're not. Not all honours are entitled to be carried on the colours. To distinguish those that are they are in capitals as the section intro says
  • Summar section at the bottom should not be there. It should either be int eh lead or ina section, the quote can't stnad out by iteself like that
    • It was originally in the lead section but it was suggested as part of the B-class review that it shouldn't be there. As it relates to the regiment's history as a whole, where do you suggest it should fit? NtheP (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
YellowMonkey  (cricket calendar poll!) 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
      • summary section removed and used in a quote box instead. NtheP (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • 1/5th Battalion TF -most readers will not know that TF stands for Territorial Force it should be added the first time it is used with TF in brackets afterwards 1/5th Battalion Territorial Force (TF)
    • done

*There are a lot of links that could be added the battle honours, 1st Division, Aden, France etc --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

    • superior units done
    • isn't linking Aden, France etc over linking?
    • a link for every battle honour, I did think about it and then balked at the effort :-) if you think it's worthwhile then I'll go back and do it. NtheP (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe it is worth doing. Poelcapelle , Passchendaele etc if a reader wanted to know what they were the link should be there. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, definately worthwhile. I've done a few of them today to help out, but ran into some difficulty with some of them as I didn't know some of the search terms. If someone else could take a look and see if they can find some of the links, that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
All done NtheP (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

Just a couple of points:

  • Just from a quick scan, there are several grammar and spelling mistakes, so a copy-edit should be done before a GAN.
    • I've picked up some but if you see more please point them out to me or correct them, thanks. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I can do a thorough copy-edit for grammar/spelling/style if you want. Best results not guaranteed, since my own grammar/style isn't the greatest. If you accept, notify me on my talk page. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's is short for "It is", if you want the possessive, you should use "its".
    • Done, thanks NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Watch out for your commas. In a complex sentence, if there is a dependent clause before an independent clause, there should be a comma between the two.
    • please cite me an example. My grammar isn't what it should be ;-). NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • One example in the "Pre First World War" section, you have: "During the campaign the 1st battalion were based initially at Wadi Halfa but moved to Gemai to avoid a cholera outbreak." This should be "During the campaign, the 1st battalion..." --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • ok, thanks NtheP (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For the Victoria Crosses section, it would be nice to know which battle/action it was awarded in.
  • The first paragraph of the "1918–1939" section is uncited.
  • Rename the "1918–1939" section to "Interwar years"
  • The dates of WWI and WWII should not be mentioned in their respective section headers
  • Rename the "1945–1959" section to say, "Postwar years", "Ammalgration", etc.
  • I don't' think that all the individual name changes for the regiment need to be bolded. Unoboled will do just as fine.
    • I agree for the individual battalion names but not for the name changes of the regiment. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • For the Battle Honours section, some honours are uppercase and some are lowercase. I would think that lowercase is preferable and more uncyclopedic, but it should definitely be consistent. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please see the first sentence of the Battle honours section. Not all battle honours awarded can be carried on the regimental colours. Those that were chosen to be carried are distinguished in capitals in this section. NtheP (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Can you add this explanation to the introduction to that section? From what's there, it was pretty vague. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Indian Air Force[edit]

I have done significant changes to this article. I will appreciate thoughts of other editors. It will be great to get some input from others and make this article better.Sumanch (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

  • There are a lot of refs in the article lead they should be covered in the body of the article if possible leaving the lead free of refs. It also makes it easier to read
 Done Done Sumanch (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The mission statement seems to have some text missing and it needs referencing at the end of the paragraph
  • REF 114 cites Wikipedia we can not ref our own articles
 Done Corrected. Sumanch (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • There are two different type of dates used; 8 October and October 8 you should select which one you prefer and use that one throughout
 Done Fixed. Sumanch (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Some date are linked others are not the present preference is to leave them un linked.
 Done I think, I got them all. If you find any, please feel free to correct them or let me know. Sumanch (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 is linked via [went to war] so unless you click on the link the conflict goes unnoticed it would be better to use the link [Indo-Pakistani War of 1965]
  • There are large sections un referenced After the 1965 war for example
  • I am not sure if its only my settings but the rank tables are obscured by images
  • I am guessing that English is not your first language as the article could use a good copy edit
I agree I do need help of someone who can do a good copyedit. How did you guess? Sumanch (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That all for now this is a huge article well done for attempting it --Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

  • No cites in section headers. Not allowed
 Done Done. Sumanch (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In general reference books at the bottom, do not put page numbers in there, as it is a general ref not attached to a certain passage of wrtigin YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
When I put the page numbers, they ment total number introductory page followed by total number of content pages. I thought to list books for general reference it is customery to do that. Usually when you search a book in the library, the information includes the number of pages. Let me know if this is an issue. Sumanch (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Askari Mark[edit]

A tremendous amount of work has gone into this article and the editors are to be commended for it. Having just skimmed through it, I have a number of general and specific recommendations to make for further improving it.

General:

  • Regularise usage of “air force” vice “airforce”. Former is preferable.
 Done My mistake — fixed it. Sumanch (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Contentious claims – particularly those regarding the comparative performance of Indian and Pakistani forces, disputed reports of kills and losses, and the effectiveness of each side’s air forces – should rely on independent, reliable and neutral sources wherever possible, rather than the heavy reliance on Indian sources currently seen here. If you don’t, this article will eventually invite contentious editing between the various “truth” claims from each side.
 Done Sumanch (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead

  • Para. 3: “Some the aircraft in the Air Force's inventory are ageing.” No, all of them are. Should indicate that a large portion of the air force is comprised of elderly aircraft quickly approaching the end of their service lives. With lengthy delays in the development of an indigenous replacement fighter, the MRCA program was launched.
 Done Fixed. Sumanch (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mission: The first sentence, which incorporates a lengthy, set-apart quote, is awkward to the point of making the reader want to look for the missing text.

History:

  • Para. 1: Should give the force size at the start of WWII, then address the growth in 1943 and 1945.
 Done Added Sumanch (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Para. 2: The sentence beginning “In 1947…” is a non-sequitur. Also, the “Uri bowl” is an unintelligible reference to most general readers and lacks context for them to discover what is meant.
 Done Fixed. Sumanch (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Para. 4: May want to do further research on the “attrition rates”. I suspect these are based on all combat sorties – or perhaps even all military aircraft sorties – which, if so, isn’t a reliable justification for claiming “…that the IAF fared better in air-to-air combat” – which would make this statement original research. The statistic you’re really wanting to find to support the claim is the “loss-exchange ratio”.
 Done I agree, I fixed the later part. Sumanch (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Para. 6: The claim “Comparatively, the PAF was flying fewer sorties by the day fearing loss of planes” needs citation and not from an Indian source.
 Done Sounded Peacocky — Deleted. Sumanch (talk) 03:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Para. 7: This whole paragraph does not come across as NPOV. It is difficult to trumpet as “strategically successful” an unopposed operation into an unoccupied area (much less one in contravention of an agreement not to). I’m also aware of criticism from the Indian Army over the performance of the IAF in this action, which perhaps ought to be added for balance.
 Done Sumanch (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Also: The deployment of IAF aircraft into Afghanistan is a significant event that should probably be mentioned.
I never heard anything about IAF deployment in Afghanistan. There was news about IAF leasing a base in Tajikistan but it did not materialize. Sumanch (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You are correct; I was tired and confused it with the Army training missions to Afghanistan (and Uzbekistan). My understanding is that small numbers of IAF personnel and aircraft assigned to the International Air Command rotate through Farkhor Air Base, Tajikistan. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Officer: The image of officers’ rank badges appears too wide to fit on a screen for IE users. This needs to be adjusted.

Let me know if the issue is still there.

IAF Aircraft: It is illogical to provide an exact count of 1502 aircraft and then point out that “reliable sources provide notably divergent estimates for a variety of high-visibility aircraft.”

 Done I will generalize it and say over 1500. Let me know if it is OK. Sumanch (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
That is fine, Sumanch. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reconnaissance and Airborne Early Warning aircraft: The first sentence about UAVs seems out of place and irrelevant since an entire section on them shortly follows.

 Done Fixed. Sumanch (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Aerospace Command: This should be moved to the end of the Commands section.

I might have some structural change suggestions to after I get some time to think about it. The article is very long and could use some tightening up, but I’m aware that’s hard to do.

Sumanch[edit]

I had edited this article in IE, visually it looked fine both in IE and firefox. Another editor formated it in firefox, now firefox looks better but IE is screwed up. Any sugestions? Sumanch (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently some other change "fixed" it as it now appears okay on IE. Wikimarkup can sometimes produce strange results. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz[edit]

Checked some references and found this. More feedback later

  • These may not fit the relaible source definition:
    • http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/index.html ("This is not the official website of the Indian Air Force and is neither endorsed nor recognised officially by the Indian Air Force or any of its institutions. , ......Jagan Pillarisetti and Samir Chopra. Neither Bharat-Rakshak.com nor any of its members other than Jagan or Samir are responsible for the accuracy of the information nor will Bharat-Rakshak.com be held accountable for any damage or liability arising over the inaccuracy or inappropriate usage of information contained within this sub-site. "), Are Jagan Pillarisetti and Samir Chopra. notable experts of IAF?
    • http://www.globalsecurity.org/index.html
    • http://www.domain-b.com/index.htm (Non-notable news website)

Solution:

    • Remove all references from the site, replace with other ref
    • Prove the said site is a WP:RS
  • Khan, Maj.Gen. Fazal Muqeeum (1973).(26) page no needed --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done Found Replcement Sumanch (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

It's a pretty good article overall. Here's just a couple of things to fix up here:

  • In the lede, link to President of India, Air Chief Marshal, 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, and Arjan Singh in the 3rd paragraph, which looks rather bleak without links.
  • In the history section, the IAF's involvement in WWII is rather short, only getting one sentence describing it. If possible, it should be expanded. Also "During the Sino-Indian War of 1962, India's military planners failed to deploy and effectively use the IAF against the invading Chinese forces.[17] " Any examples of ineffective use?
  • In the same section, "Indian experts believe that the Atlantic was on a probing mission to gather information on IAF air defence.[50]" Is there any particular reason why probing mission is in italics? If not, it should be removed

 Done Sumanch (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

  • The 2nd last paragraph of the history section could use some links to the types of aircraft/helicopters used by the IAF
  • In the "Bases" subsection, all numbers look better spelled out.

 Done Sumanch (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  • In the "Airmen" subesection, add some relevant links
  • In the "Non Combatants Enrolled and Civilians" there are no citations whatsoever.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Nosedown[edit]

All claims in the lead has been addressed in the body of the Article. Wikipedia policy discourages redundant citations, specifically when lead is concerned. There no citations were used or redundant citations removed systematically. Sumanch (talk) 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Lead paras

Several changes were made to the lead paras without discussion. The editor who made these changes argues that they were made in accordance with the peer review. I have gone the peer review and below are main points:

  • One of the reviewers raised this valid point "There are a lot of refs in the article lead they should be covered in the body of the article if possible leaving the lead free of refs. It also makes it easier to read." And as per the suggestion, all the refs were removed. However, as per policy, "any material [in lead paras] not in the body should be sourced as usual". IAF being the world's fourth largest is not mentioned anywhere else in the article and hence a source on this is required in the lead paras.
  • It is surprising that this article was being pushed for FA-status with sentences like "India is increasingly projecting its power beyond South Asia" and "A defining moment came for the force in 1971, during the Bangladesh liberation war." Please keep Wikipedia free of nationalistic bias.
  • Minute details — such as who awarded the IAF the prefix royal; under what circumstances was a particular officer promoted to the post of Marshall etc. — belong to relevant sections, not lead paras. Keep the lead to the point.

I have made appropriate changes. --Nosedown (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Karl-Gerät[edit]

I've been working on this one pretty steadily and have pretty well exhausted the available literature. I think that it's well beyond B status and may well be eligible for A with some more work. I'd appreciate any and all comments to let me improve it up to A status. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey[edit]

Actually there is a lot that needs to be done, B-class generally expects at least a cite per paragraph

  • Footnotes not cited consisted; pp and p are both used for multiple pages. Ndashes need to be used for numerical ranges
Done
  • The two websites that are cited seem to be amateur and have no information on their WP:RS status. Otherwise, the article is almost entirely dependent on one book, which can be a problem/
This is a general problem as nobody had any real information on the weapon other than stats and its participation in the Battles of Brest-Litovsk, Sevastopol and Warsaw before Jentz released his book. I wouldn't have used the first one at all for the claim to be the largest self-propelled weapon in history except that I didn't want to be dinged for OR.
  • Cites nees to be imediately after the puncutation
Done
  • Lead is very short.
This is what I'm concerned about; what else should I cover in the lead, specifically? I've said why it was notable and gave a brief synopsis of its career and the fate of the individual vehicles. Doesn't seem appropriate to expand them in the lead. This is a general problem for the equipment articles which I write and I'd like some pointers since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of stuff to work with when you either lack the info for the rare guns, etc., or have so many produced that they become almost anonymous in their numbers. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Many other problems probably still remain. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

  • The status report section - well reads like a status report and is not encyclopaedic
  • What make this site reliable ? [7]
See above. In the one particular that I support it verifies my own original research.
See Wikipedia:No original research
Why do you think I didn't simply assert it? My own research simply confirms that the website in question is, in fact, accurate for the cited fact. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill; this is simply a superlative and easy to confirm or deny. If I ever bother to find a crappy printed general history of artillery that says as much then I'll replace the cite, but until then... Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

and this one [8] It's only present to give a reader information on the Maxim Gorkii Battery, for which no article exists, not to support the fact that Karl-Geräte fired on it, which is cited at the end of the paragraph.

  • The lead is already tagged for expansion
Something a little more helpful, please?
  • It also relies very much on the one source Jentz
See above, can't get around it.
  • The ammunition section schwere Betongranate (heavy concrete-piercing shell) as this is the English Wiki , English first then the German translation in brackets.
  • In the Status and fate section In 1945, Nr. II ("Eva") as well as Nr. V ("Loki") does Nr stand for number ? if so spell it out.
That's clunky as hell!
  • There is a of of German text - Kommando für Sonder-Geräte etc which needs translating --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
That's one of the very few that haven't been translated, but good catch. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
More comment -
  • Taube, Gerhard is listed in the References but does not appear to be used --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
You are quite correct, I haven't seen Taube. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

Many things need improving before it can be promoted.

  • The lede should be expanded to include additional details (e.g. When was it in service (years)? How many were in service? What happened to the other pieces?) The producer (Rheinmetall) could be added too. Also, "It is notable because..." should be rephrased to something simpler (e.g. It was the...).
That I can use, thanks.
  • Same concerns with the sourcing (unreliable websites, one source).
  • The tables under "automative features" and "ammunition" could be turned into prose, which would reduce the amount of tables in the article.
Sure, they can be, but the tables are easier to comprehend.
If you insist on having tables, make sure you have some short summary of the table before, which can clear up any confusions about the table. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment on confusion. How can a reader be confused about the tables? There's already a short intro for the automotive table. But how can anyone be confused about its ammunition? Please clarify your meaning here. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well for one, a clarification for the light concrete-piercing shell (leichte Betongranate) and the leichte Betongranate 041, which have very similar names would be helpful to the casual reader. Also, are there statistics about the percentage of each fired? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Since leichte Betongranate had just been translated in the line above I though it redundant to translate it again, but the main difference between them is the caliber, which is laid out in the table. The ammo for the original 60 cm guns had no designation other than the name. They added the Gerät number for the 54 cm ammo. Would that be helpful to add as an intro for the ammunition section? No such statistics exist; they'd have to be compiled from the data presented in the article.
Yes, that would be helpful to add as an intro. Also helpful would be when the ammunition was introduced into service. If those statistics can cannot be reliably sourced from the book, then you shouldn't add them. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • History should be renamed to "Operational history", since the history of its development is already covered.
Very true, thanks.

Sorry, but I think that quoting verbatim original documents is far better than me rephrasing the same. A little fetish I have for primary sources. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's quoted verbatim, it should indicate so. I'm not sure how exactly, since it's too long for blockquotes. In its current form, its not very encyclopedic. Perhaps you could paraphrase it, and use an external link to a copy of it on the web? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
It is shown in the cite as a direct quote. The only way a copy is going to be available to link to is for me to type one up which doesn't seem worthwhile since we no longer use subpages. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Quoting an entire primary source verbatim is too long for most readers to comfortably read, and should not be in an encyclopedia article, especially when it could very easily be paraphased into a readable length. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still thinking about this. You guys make a big deal about suitability for an encyclopedia, but I'm not sure that I really agree with the level of detail, or lack there of, that y'all seem to be espousing. I want to present info of interest to a specialist, but not the stuff that only a fanatic would care about because I think that a casual reader will find it deathly boring while the fanatic will say that "I already knew that!". The perfect example, in this case, is the automotive stuff in this article, which I, as a specialist, only find mildly interesting because it shows how inefficient the Germans were that they couldn't standardize the components of these 7 vehicles. Similarly I think that the real value in the verbatim report is showing wargamers and Military/History Channel fans that the soft factors, like the readiness of things like trailers and cranes, when spelled out in detail, have a real impact on a weapon's performance and/or availability so that it's not all about the range or penetration, those things which are so easy to quantify and compare. So I guess that I'm writing for somebody like me, somebody who wants to more about these things than is given in any of the numerous published guides to weapons like most of those that I cite in the references section where you have little more than the stats and a paragraph or two of information. Which leads to the other problem of a single source that y'all complain about. While I haven't read the Taube book that was already referenced when I began to expand the article I'm familiar with his railroad artillery book and I don't expect to get much out of it if I ever get it through ILL. Which leaves Jentz as the sole source for the operational details and most of the technical ones as well simply because his book is dedicated to the Karl-Gerät and nothing else is. And that's unlikely ever to change and I'm OK with that. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but in its current form, it is unencyclopedic, a concern, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. The status report could be paraphased into a shorter, more readable section, and still maintain its interest to specialists. Also, if you're copying this word for word from Jentz's book, might there not be potential copyright concerns? Also, I noticed that this is the class of the Thor mortar used in the Siege of Sevastopol in the Second World War, and that could be expanded on more. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Carillon[edit]

While most of the other Ticonderoga-related battle articles have been straightforward to improve, this one presents a somewhat distinctive problem, which I would like feedback in addressing.

A key feature of this battle is that the commanders on both sides made errors, which were, for the British, the source of their disaster. (Montcalm rightly knew that he was extremely lucky.) The feedback I'm looking for is not so much how to describe the battle; I think that part of the article is in pretty good shape. I'd like suggestions on how to present the many errors made in the preparation, execution, and aftermath of this battle. I have roughed in some of the critical (and apologetic) materials, but there are more to come, and I'd rather get feedback before continuing. Magic♪piano 20:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

  • Its best if the images face into the article article most if not all the portraits are looking out
  • In the lead section which frontally assaulted an entrenched French position without using field artillery no need for the frontally
  • The first paragraph in the Geography section is unreferenced
  • If they had a limited number of Indian allies, they need adding to the Belligerents section of the info box
  • There is a mixture of measurements used 6 miles by itself and later 0.75 miles (1.21 km) you could use the conversion template = 6 miles (9.7 km)
  • In the Battle lines forn section - Each column was preceded by companies of the regimental light infantry companies. Could change to Each column was preceded by the regimental light infantry companies. no need for the by companies.

Some small points - but this is a very good article as it stands --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

  • End of the lede: "...and tactical errors that might have made an attacker's job more difficult." Isn't that what Montcalm wants? this should be clarified.
  • The caption of the first picture should have parentheses around "aka Carillon" or a comma before and after it. the caption of the second picture could expand a bit more on what William Pitt did (e.g. Where did he order the expedition?) or alternatively add a "who" before "ordered the expedition"
  • Last sentence of the "Background" section: "Montcalm left Quebec for Carillon." You could expand on that, e.g. for exactly what purpose? Defending it? Or to lead the 3500 men into the Mohawk River Valley?
  • In "British preparations" section, briefly expand on why Fort William Henry was reduced to remains. In the same section, Lake George cold be linked to again, and if an article exists Lord John Murray could be as well.
  • The map in "French defense preparations" is too small to actually see the lines without going to its file page. It should be increased in size. Also, where is the sawmill in relation to the other locations?
  • The numbers in "First march" can be spelled out.
  • In the "Battle" section: "the 42nd and 46th regiments on the British left, persisted in the attack." Any explanation for this besides fog of war? Also, two {{fact)) tags in the section
  • In the "Aftermath" section, John Bradstreet should be linked in the text too.
  • Nester's analysis needs to be sourced in the "Analysis" section. Also, would it be possible to combine the analysis section into one section which explains multiple viewpoints? That would read much better and look much more encyclopedic.

Good job on the article, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I know that a number of things are still uncited, but this is very much a work in progress, as I want to figure out how to present the material before going through the rigmarole of citing it. Magic♪piano 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Master's mate[edit]

Wrote this article recently after finishing Midshipman for its A review, and I think its close to B status. Thanks for your assistance. Kirk (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I fixed the various typos and grammar issues.
  • I added a note for capitalization, its confusing.
  • added categories
  • I'm hesitant to put the whole Mate = Matelot thing here because its trivia about "Mate" in general, not master's mate. I'll check OED.
  • I'll add something about what they did in a paragraph. RN: they did the same basic duties as Midshipmen, they slept together, ate together, etc. The change took place because there were a lot of potential officers after the Napoleonic Wars, but commissions were hard to get as the Navy shrank, and master's mates were paid a lot more than midshipmen. In the U.S. Navy: I'll find out, I think they were just experienced sailors who were paid more.
  • I have no idea on Second Mate, good question. Second Master (which I need to research) was something similar to 'first lieutenant' in the Royal Navy - both were titles granted to senior master's mates/lieutenants to indicate they were worthy of promotion, but not actual ranks. Second Mate is the Navigation Officer, which was the sailing master. When did this whole 1st /2nd/3rd officer/mate thing happen? It must have been sometime in the 19th century (I'll check OED.)
  • Master's mate preceded the commonwealth. France, Spain and Portugal probably had something equivalent, but they really didn't have the same kind of sailing master so I would doubt they had master's mates at all. They probably had midshipmen in blue uniforms instead.
    • I realized that
  • Thanks for your comments! Kirk (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • OED update: the ordinal (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) mates were the master's mates in the merchant service, and the basis for 'mate' was the german word 'Maat', not Matelot. Kirk (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • When they created "mate", they created 'second master' as well and they stopped using master's mate in the royal navy as a rating. I still can't find a date for this - sometime between 1820 - 1840.
      • I fixed most of Patar's comments. I finally figured out the second master story. No one writes about what Master's mates did in the US Navy, but I'll keep looking. I added more more details about their duties in the Royal Navy. Kirk (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool3[edit]

  • What's the correct capitalization? The title is "Master's mate" but the lead sentence is "Master's Mate". It should be consistent. Also whichever capitalization you choose, please bold it at the beginning of the article.
  • "a warrant officer rank established 1797" "It was re-established 1838" shouldn't these be in 1797 and in 1838?
  • "and in 1865 and replaced by the rating Mate". Why are there two "and"s
  • "By an act of Congress in 1906 the mates on the Navy retired list" I assume this is the US Navy. That should probably be made clearer.
  • "Six master's mates were allowed on a first rate, three on a third rate, and two on most frigates" Linking the types of ships would be good.
  • "Originally, a master's mate was an experienced seaman, assistant to the master, but not in line for promotion to lieutenant. By the mid-eighteenth century, he was far more likely to be a superior midshipman, still waiting to pass his examination for lieutenant or to receive his commission," Any idea why this change took place?
  • "There after, passed midshipmen appear to have been known as mates". Isn't "thereafter" generally one word?
  • "established 1797 and but unlike in the Royal Navy" I believe the and is unnecessary here.
  • "it was disestablished in 1813. After 1843 no more warrants were issued but those who had been appointed continued to hold their office and received their pay. It was re-established 1838 as a rating for experienced seamen, and was not considered a Warrant rank." I'm just confused by this. If I'm reading correctly, it was deestablished (is that a word?) in 1813, then reestablished in 1838, then discontinued in 1843? I'm not quite sure, please reword this to be more clear. Also preferably go in chronological order so that what happened in 1838 comes before what happened in 1843.
  • "By an act of 3 March 1865, Master Mate" Shouldn't this be Master's Mate?
  • "The quota of mates in the Navy was not fixed, but from a maximum of about 842 on 1 January 1865, the number gradually diminished until 1 July 1894 when there were only 27 remaining." Why?
  • More about the role of Master's Mates on ship would be nice.
  • Did any other navies use this or a comparable rank? (Australia perhaps?)

Good job on the article, I think it's closing in on B-Class. Cool3 (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

  • The article currently has no Categories added.
  • Is the Second Mate rank in the Merchant Navy connected at all.
  • The first line - Originally, a master's mate was an experienced seaman, assistant to the master, but not in line for promotion to lieutenant. needs a ref
  • REF 2 - states The term "Mate" comes from the French word matelot. this should be included.
  • The US Navy has only one ref at the end of the section

Patar knight[edit]

  • In the lede, you mention that a Master's mate "performed similar duties to an experienced midshipman." What would such duties be? A brief explanation or a short list would be helpful. Link Civil War.There should be commas after "By an act of Congress in 1906" and "Since the 1930s," as it is the dependent clause of a complex sentence.
  • In the "Royal Navy" and "US Navy" sections, you should link the first occurence of master to sailing master.
  • In the "Royal Navy" section, you mention that "The senior master's mate was the..." Is the senior master's mate the senior master's mate the ship? Or is it some kind of appointment for more experienced master's mates? It should be clarified for readers.
  • There are no links in the "US Navy" section. Appropriate links *(e.g. US Navy, Secretary of the Navy, etc.) should be linked.
  • This article deals primarily with the history of Master's mates, and their pay and promotion paths. More details could be provided with what exactly they actually did on ships. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cuprum17[edit]

  • Under the U.S. Navy heading the words:

By an act of Congress in 1906, the mates on the U.S. Navy retired list were promoted to the next higher grade if they had creditable Civil War service, which most of them had. They were given warrant rank and rated with the lowest grade of warrant officer.

appear in two different sections and is repeditive. Could this be combined to eliminate the duplication? Other than this minor rewrite everything else appears very good. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

HMS Endeavour[edit]

After much expansion this managed to get to GA late last year, and I'm interested in suggestions for further improvement. Any and all comments and opinions welcomed. Euryalus (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Benea[edit]

Comment - Why is the article at HM Bark Endeavour and not HMS Endeavour (1768), per WP:Naming conventions (ships)? Benea (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

  • For no better reason than I foolishly rewrote it without paying enough attention to the naming guideline. Happy to move it but one question - this Endeavour is significantly better known than any others of the same name. Following the naming logic here, this article should presumably be at HMS Endeavour with the disambiguation page moved to HMS Endeavour (disambiguation). What do you think? Euryalus (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering that myself. I've no objection to doing it that way. We use that convention sparingly (only 3 times in the RN), but I think this is a reasonable example of 'most well known ship of that name'. Benea (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
My understanding, based on volunteering as a tour guide at the Australian National Maritime Museum, where the Endeavour replica is docked, is that HM Bark or HMB is the prefix formally associated with Endeavour in this day and age...see these [9][10][11] museum pages on HMB Endeavour (the third page also claims that all surviving Admiralty documents refer to the ship as Bark Endeavour). However, HMS Endeavour seems to be in more common usage: Google Books searches for each name plus "Captain Cook" (to filter out false positives) came up with 8 for HMB, 155 for HM Bark, and 511 for HMS. Do with this information what you will. -- saberwyn 06:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Additional. Looking at some of the books from the Google Book searches, a few make the claim that this ship was called HM Bark because the previous HMS Endeavour (1763), a sloop, was still operating.[12][13] -- saberwyn 06:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting, J.J. Colledge also lists her as 'Endeavour Bark'. The situation of having ships of the same name in service at the same time is all too common for the Endeavours. Three ships of that name entered service in 1694 (a bomb vessel, a fire ship and a hoy), and two in 1763 (a sloop and a cutter). The prefix of 'HMS' only enters usage towards the end of the eighteenth century, and only for ship-rigged vessels, that were actually 'His Majesty's Ship...'. Other vessels would be referred to as 'His Majesty's sloop ...', 'His Majesty's cutter...', or 'His Britannic Majesty's cutter ...' and so on. HMS Ark Royal (1587) would never have been referred to be her contemporaries as 'HMS Ark Royal', just Ark Royal. Since our convention is to standardise and backdate military prefixes, an RN ship named Endeavour and acquired/launched in 1652 would be titled 'HMS Endeavour (1652)'. If we were titling this article to fit our conventions it would be at 'HMS Endeavour (1768)', or 'HMS Endeavour' if we decided that this one vessel clearly fitted the 'most well known ship of the name' clause. We had a similar situation not too long ago with the Bounty (HMAV Bounty, HM armed vessel Bounty or HMS Bounty?) that saw the article settled at HMS Bounty. Benea (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
As an idle addition, Cook himnself formally referred to it as "His Most Britannick Majesty's Bark Endeavour" in is journal, but most commonly simply called it Endeavour with no prefixes. Euryalus (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 Done Per what might be a mild consensus here, I've been bold and moved the pages. I think this fits well with the ships naming convention:
  • the article name should use "HMS" even where that prefix was not yet in common use (ie it can be backdated);
  • where there are multiple ships of the same name they should be separated by year of construction, but where one is overwhelmingly the best known of that name it can be recorded simply as the actual name (for a similar example, HMS Victory); and
  • The general naming convention at WP:NAME recommends using the most common modern name for the article subject. The most common modern name for this ship is unarguably HMS Endeavour, despite that not being the name she was registered under and the terminology not yet being in general use.
Obviously if there is objection to the move let me know and I'll move it back while discussion continues. Euryalus (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

This is a very good article. My comments are:

  • I suggest that you specify that Endeavour was the first European ship to reach NZ since Abel Tasman as it is likely that Polynesian ships reached NZ in this period
  • This might be a myth, but I've read that Cook selected Endeavour on the basis of his previous experience with colliers on England's east coast - is this correct?
  • "what is now known as Botany Bay" should read "what he later named Botany Bay" given that it was Cook who provided this name
  • The article should mention that Cook proclaimed sovereignty over Australia at Possession Island en-route to Batavia
  • The ship is referred to as both 'she' and 'it'; my understanding of Wikipedia's convention on this matter is that both are acceptable but that usage should be consistent in each article
  • I'm not sure if the Hessian soldiers should be referred to as mercenaries - Hessian (soldiers) says that they were and weren't mercenaries though, so it isn't much help!
  • There are some PD paintings of Endeavour on the National Library of Australia's website which can be accessed via [14]
  • Is it worth noting that the Space Shuttle Endeavour was named after the ship? (along with three different RNZN ships, countless streets in Australia and NZ, etc). Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, some responses in order of the above:
  •  Done
  •  Done - It's a myth, though an enduring one. Cook would have been familiar with colliers as an apprentice in Whitby but the Admiralty bought the Earl of Pembroke when the proposed commander was still Dalrymple, and before Cook had been suggested. The article doesn't really make this clear as I was trying to focus on the ship rather than the captain, but if there's a view its worth including I'll think of a way to work it in.
  •  Done
  • Thanks, will have a look at working this in. Done
  •  Done
  • Hmmm ... will have to do some background reading on Hessians. Done
  •  Done Great pictures, thanks for finding these. The article relies too heavily on images of the replica instead of the real thing, so I'll swap some around over the next few days. I've added one image from NLA, and requested another via email. Most of the images viewable online are either maps or of Banks' flora collection, which I'll see if I can work into related articles.
  • Possibly in the relics or replica section at the end? Will see where it might fit Not done After some reflection I'd prefer to leave the hatnote as the principal link to these other uses. The article sticks fairly closely to the exact topic, being the original ship, and only moves away in the (perhaps unnecessary) replica section. The Space Shuttle is the most prominent thing named after Endeavour, but there's also a range of place names, various other ships and so on. Obviously, omitting the Space shuttle from this article this is a personal opinion - other views welcome.
Overall, thanks for the great feedback, let me know if there's anything else seems worth improving here. Euryalus (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Patton123[edit]

This is a great article, the current structure is great and I'm sure it will make FA soon enough. I saw no concerns major enough to put here, but there are quite a few little prose slip-ups and i suggest getting a good copyeditor from our logistics department to help you out there.--Pattont/c 13:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is a WP:SHIPS PR with a redirect at MILHIST, Patton is referring to MILHIST's logistics department: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Logistics -MBK004 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Euryalus (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

saberwyn[edit]

Random question, should the ship be referred to as "the Endeavour". I was always under the impression that referring to a British ship as "the Foo" was incorrect. -- saberwyn 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You would be correct. There was a conversation at one time about not having "the" before ship names. --Brad (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done by Saberwyn.

Brad101[edit]

  • Your photos are not following the MOS. It basically means that pics starting at the top of the article should run right/left/right/left etc but no left aligned pics directly under a ===subsection===. With the exception of the infobox photo, all others should be set to |thumb| only; no |XXXpx|.
  • Your references need work. Any of the books used in this article should be moved down to a bibliography section using {{cite book}} with the inline citations denoting page numbers. --Brad (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, will address these in the next few days. Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done - I also added the RIMAP paper to the bibliography, as its cited so often that moving it "declutters" the refs. Not sure if this presents a format problem. Euryalus (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub-lieutenant[edit]

Hi - I'd like your help improving this article, specifically some assistance in what kind of structure to use since sub lieutenant is a very common rank in a large number of armed forces, and has some slightly different meaning in an Army vs. Navy. Help on what to change to get to B would be appreciated as well. Thanks for your help. Kirk (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

    • Thanks - I noticed the Ensign article wasn't in WP:MILHIST, so I added it. Note: commissioned ranks which have a rank which contains a word which would literally translate to Ensign in English (e.g. France) are frequently translated to 'Sub-lieutenant' in a dictionary, which is confusing. Similarly, countries that use Ensign as a Cadet rank (e.g. Germany) sometimes translate Ensign to 'Midshipman'. I'm probably going to move all the non-english 'Ensign' stuff into this article.
    • The current Royal Navy treats Sub-lieutenants and Midshipmen as 'Naval Cadets'during training, but I'll add a reference.
    • I would prefer the Naval rank articles reflect the English language definitions, then have 'other countries' as a separate section and fork into separate articles because its hard to find credible english language sources on non-english military ranks. The suggestion I had for Midshipman was a list of ranks and insignia, which I'll do here as well. I'm also probably going to only list the ranks in the top 15 Navies (sorry Thailand). Kirk (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

  • References need improving sections on Acting Sub-Lieutenants, Modern Royal Naval practice, Rank insignia: Armies, Rank insignia: Naval and British Army with no references
  • External links and Diambig all appear OK
  • The structure could follow the Ensign (rank) article as it would be a natural progression.
  • After the first use of Royal Navy add (RN) we know that it stands for Royal Navy, but there will be some who will not.
  • In the Royal Thai Army, Army Reserve Force Students who complete grade 5 and their B.D. are promoted to the rank of Acting Sub-Lieutenant - Whats a BD ?
  • The Modern Royal Naval practice section is very short and seems very strange, do they not train together ? and if so will the Midshipman not have to salute the higher rank ?
  • More details on other navys - its very much a RN or commomwealth navy article at the moment
  • Also some mention of what the next rank is Lieutenant
  • Ranks and insignia of NATO Navies Officers is a good source of rank images and other NATO navies names for the rank of Sub-Lieutenant Jim Sweeney (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Simon Harley[edit]

  • At the turn of the the twentieth century all midshipmen in the Royal Navy were promoted to Acting Sub-Lieutenant, and then confirmed in that rank later (usually at the same time when they passed their Lieutenancy exams). --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 09:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Cavalié Mercer[edit]

I created this article but I think I have now taken it just about as far as I can. Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ost[edit]

I titled some links and marked two as dead (one has an archive). I also noticed:
  • The first sentence of the lede is a bit long. It has good information, but it may be better split into two sentences. The lede itself could be expanded.
Done. Expanded the lead with brief descriptions of each reason for notability.
  • Consider Promotion in the Royal Artillery was glacial, especially in peacetime. Unlike in the rest of the British Army of the time promotion was by strict seniority and there was no opportunity for purchase of commissions
Re-written.
  • What was Mercer's involvement in the ill-fated Buenos Aires expedition of 1807? Is there a source for this?
Apart from the fact that he was with G Troop RHA, none of the sources gives any detail of his involvement. I have cited a source for the fact taht he went (though his son has him joining the expedition in 1808, which can't be right).
Done
Done for Napoleon, infantry square, carbine, case-shot, column, round shot, charge, limber, cantonments, and also for ball. Not done for line (this refers to naval warfare - line (formation) is also not the same usage) and battery (article refers to a Battery as a formal military unit, which the usage does not).
  • Arriving on the field of Waterloo, Mercer's Troop briefly took a firing position on the famous knoll behind the sandpit, not realising that the entire army had halted on the ridge behind them, and exchanged fire with arriving French batteries. Consider splitting into two sentences. Also, does the famous knoll have a name and what is the significance of Mercer not knowing that the entire army halted behind him?
Re-written the sentence. The significance is only that it's mildly amusing, acting as rearguard to cover the retreat of an army that has halted for battle 100 yds behind, and it's interesting to anyone familar with the battle as it occurs on famous features of the following day's battlefield.
  • Who are the Allied?
Allied means Wellington's multinational army, but I have replaced it with "Wellington's" throughout, except when referring to the allied occupation of Paris, where it refers to the forces of the Seventh Coalition, which has no page of its own to link to. I think it is reasonable to assume a little knowledge about the Waterloo Campaign.
  • It deployed immediately behind the ridge road, which was there raised on a low bank, which provided... is a bit awkward.
Re-written.
  • Are Mercer's troops they in so they opened fire with case-shot at close range,?
Yes; changed to "the troop".
  • What is case-shot over ball?
Double-loading - a common technique for guns expecting close-range action, either on land or at sea; two rounds are loaded one over the other. Range is shortened but effect is increased. I have changed it to "double-loading" and Wikilinked ball but I think any further explanition would be a distraction.
  • Consider Towards the end of the action, a battery established itself on the ridge to Mercer's left and delivered effective fire into Mercer's flank. The attack caused devastating casualties amongst the limber-horses, until this battery was itself driven off by flanking fire from a newly-arrived Belgian battery.
Slightly re-worded, but not sure what the concern is.
Ost (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Patton123[edit]

I think this article would be better structured like this:

  • Early life
  • Career
  • G troop
  • Waterloo campaign
  • After Waterloo
Is there a real benefit to that? The article doesn't have so many sections that they need to be hierarchical. Participation in the Waterloo Campaign is the notable event of his life and needs full emphasis - everything before and after is of lesser interest.Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Btw the section headings do no need to be capitalised all the way through.--Pattont/c 11:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Per MOS:CAPS#Military terms I think the capitalisation (of G Troop and Waterloo Campaign) is correct. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87[edit]

  • The first thing that catches my eye is that a lot of thetext is uncited. I realize you've heard this a lot, and that I believe you've put the cite at the end of the section, but the Waterloo section does look as it's almost entirely unreferenced. I'm not entirely sure what to propose, but I often cite through a section anyway - I think it helps a reader if they want to look up a certain fact, even if it is in the same source. Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you looked through the ODNB for anything on Mercer? I'll have a look now, and see what I can find.
Nothing on ODNB, I'm afraid :( Skinny87 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • But good work so far! I'll make more comments when I can! Skinny87 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Levi[edit]

  • Inline citations generally aren't required in the lead.
Practice seems to vary, but I don't think they're prohibited or discouraged.
  • I see the lead has already been expanded, but it's still kind of small. It has two single-sentence paragraphs, for instance.
What's wrong with single-sentence paragraphs? Style seems to vary between UK and USA, but short paragraphs are modern style.
  • "Mercer was a painter of some merit..." - The reader can decide this after inspecting his art. Might be more neutral to simply say "Mercer was also a painter".
The merit of his paintings is demonstrated by the Canadian National Gallery buying them; "was also a painter" gives no clue taht he was any good (or was not a hous-painter!).
  • Inline citations should generally follow punctuation marks to avoid cluttering up sentences.
They generally do, except where a cite relates only to part of a sentence.
  • The Waterloo Campaign section could do with some condensing. There are several small paragraphs, including a single-sentence paragraph.
Again, I think that's just good style. One idea, one paragraph.
  • The second paragraph in After Waterloo reads kind of like a list. It could do with some expansion.
I'm inclined to agree - to my mind the problem is the full date for each prommotion, which I don't think is necessary, but another editor strongly disagreed.
  • The first instance of "Journal" after the lead should include the book's full name.
Done
  • Is Mercer's book notable enough to justify its own article? If so, it should be wikilinked, even if it's red.
Done

Overall looks pretty good. I'm not a MILHIST editor, but I think it's heading towards B-class, especially if the earlier suggestions in this peer review are all implemented. — Levi van Tine (tc) 08:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

The first thing that pops up as something to improve on is the Waterloo campaign section. Excluding the last three paragraphs, you have only one inline citation for the first eight paragraphs, so citations for that section are needed. If possible, his artwork could be expanded upon, perhaps with its own section, because although it's mentioned briefly in the lede, it is only described in a short paragraph in the last section. Good job on this article, --Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Magicpiano[edit]

Some technical things, assuming you eventually want to put this article through GA, and a few prose items.

  • More inline citations
  • Learn to love WP:ENDASH for year and page ranges
  • Others have commented on the lead brevity; the last two one-sentence paragraphs can be combined, if they're not going to be expanded. (I'll also disagree with Levi on the inclusion of "of merit"; I think it's fine, not particularly WP:PEACOCK, and sufficiently justified by the museum acquisitions.)
  • "Towards the end of the action a battery established itself" - images of a gun carriage maneuvering itself into position, completely unaided... (should say something like "... the French established a battery")
  • Agree with Levi that the post-Waterloo period (even if it is of less interest to the casual reader) should be a little more elaborate than it is. You might want to consider reducing the number of promotions listed, and perhaps focus a bit more on the Aroostook War (a longer summary, possible description of his unit's role). You should also emphasize that the post-Waterloo postings were basically peacetime (assuming they were): "After the campaign he was put on half-pay, and then began a series of peacetime postings in 1821" or some such.

-- Magic♪piano 12:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Birks[edit]

Was recently rated as B-class, and I am looking for advice as to how to reach at least GA-class. ∗ \ / () 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian Rose[edit]

Very nice article. Without going through line-by-line, a few things that stand out:

  • Writing quality is very good and structure is logical, but you really need a more extensive lead for GA, ideally a couple of paragraphs.
  • I'd strongly recommend making that first pic after the infobox left-justified, as its current right-justification will cause a great deal of white space on some screen resolutions.
  • First World War seems to make more sense than Military years as the main section heading, given that he had military experience pre-war, as mentioned in Early life.
  • Like to see a bit more detail on his experiences in all those campaigns, rather than just a sentence or two, if anything further is available. GA was designed as a showcase for quality articles that were considered too short to make FA, but even so this left me wanting a little more especially since, as I say, the standard of what's there is high.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D[edit]

My comments are:

  • I agreee with Ian's comment on the lead being too short
  • Which Royal Artillery unit was Birks in while in Wales?
  • I also agree with Ian's comment that the coverage of Birks' experiences during the war is a bit short
  • It would be better to provide a detailed description of the VC action - reproducing the citation is a bit lacking as it doesn't provide much context Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Sweeney[edit]

Comments

  • In the lead Welsh-born Australian soldier of the First World War does not read right how about; was born in Buckley in Wales and later emigrated to Australia and served in the Australian Army during World War I
  • Do we know why he emigrated ?
  • starting a relationship with sixteen year-old Suzy Gelvin. Is there any need for the girls age unless we are insinuating he was doing something wrong.
  • Wikilink Shrapnel Shrapnel shell also wounded by a piece of shrapnel to was wounded by shrapnel
  • stretcher bearer links to Combat medic this is not right historically, stretcher bearers had no or litttle medical training.
  • The MM award following the ref does state he was awarded it for constant good services this seems to devalue the award the external link also states it was awarded in the field. Which may reveal some other reason for the award, is there another ref that may show just why it was awarded ?
  • The Belgium section does not read right;

On 20 September, Birks' platoon was advancing in Glencourse Wood, Ypres, Belgium. Birks, accompanied by Corporal W. Johnston, rushed forward to attack a pillbox. They were attacked with bombs, and the corporal was serioudly wounded in the confrontation. Birks continued alone to reach the rear of the pillbox, forcing the garrison to surrender.

  • To

On 20 September, Birks' platoon was advancing in Glencourse Wood, Ypres, Belgium. Birks, accompanied by Corporal W. Johnston, rushed forward to attack a pillbox. They were attacked with bombs, and Johnston was serioudly wounded. Birks continued on alone reaching the rear of the pillbox, he forced the occupants to surrender. Do we know how ? and disamb Pillbox

  • and

Not long afterwards, Birks attacked another strongpoint as a part of a small party, capturing up to sixteen men and wounding nine others. Part of a small party can we change party as it sound like they were going out to enjoy themselves. Could use unit, troop, platoon, section

  • Following the battle, Birks assisted in the reorganisation and consolidation of the allied units. How ?
  • All the external links look ok and overall a Good Article which just needs a bit of polish. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Patar knight[edit]

  • The lede needs to be expanded with a short description of how Birks earned the VC, and where.
  • "He attended the local Anglican school in Buckley, without being absent or late." should be clarified. Was he never absent or late? Or just usually not absent or late?
  • The "Belgium" section should be clarified to tell the reader that it was during the Battle of Passchendaele.

Good job on the article, and good luck with the GA nom. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

32nd Infantry Division (United States)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review in order to bring it up to 'good article' status

Thanks, Dodgerblue777 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

TechOutsider[edit]

  • First ref needs to be redone. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoid wikilinks in title or section headings. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • For the redlinks, or wikilinks to articles not yet in existence, try to provide a little explanation as to who/what they are. Or create the article, if it is notable.
  • Try not to be vague; you say at one point in the article the Allies "finally" broke into the Japanese lines. I fixed that for you.

Anyways, some additional comments about the body and prose. Try to avoid informal diction; avoid using words such as "but", "got", etc. The body also sounds a little like a retelling from someone. While there is nothing wrong with that style, try to make the prose flow more coherently. Since you are covering the events of several wars, there is always logic behind an infantry's decisions. Try to plan your article like that; one action leads into another. Doing so greatly improves how the article reads. Also, try to avoid vague words, such as "hurriedly". More to come later. TechOutsider (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

In the lead, try to be clear, thus concise. For example "The 32nd Infantry Division was a unit in the Army National Guard in World War I and World War II. In both wars". I suggest ommiting the "In both wars" part; as it is implied and makes the lead too wordy.

As for the external links in the Cultural Legacy section, try to incorporate information and pictures from the external links in the article. Exceptions include if the information is copyrighted.

More examples of vagueness. "The tide of the battle of Buna turned". Sounds like a retelling. Don't explicitly mention the fact the tide turned at first; give facts and supporting reasons as to why, such as turning points, etc. Imply, rather than say.

Ruhrfisch[edit]

Interesting article with a lot of work put into it. Here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly WP:MOS issues.

  • The lead needs to be a summary of the whole article and could almost certainly be four paragraphs. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself - I think the list of the other units in WWII is too much for the lead. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
  • The article seems overly detailed in places and may need fewer sections / headers - much of the material could be summarized briefly here and then put into full articles on the various battles and actions. This is done nicely for Operation Cartwheel and the Phillipines battles and should be done for the others as well - see WP:Summary style
Commment: I wrote portions of the article, especially the detailed section having to do with the Kapa Kapa Trail, and considered breaking that into a separate article like the Kokoda Track. But there really is not enough information to justify a separate article, and their trek, though notable within the Division, was not even a battle or part of a campaign. So I opted to keep the detail within the body of the article. -- btphelps (talk)
Commment: Moved section on Kapa Kapa Trail march to that article. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Article needs more references, for example the whole Operation Cartwheel section has no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
Commment: Added some references to Cartwheel section. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Commment: If author is known, I've included it in references. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs that break up the flow - these should be combined with others where possible, or perhaps expanded
  • The article uses {{cquote}} but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use {{blockquote}} instead.
Comment: As I recall, the problem with Template:blockquote is if the quote extends beyond a single parapraph, blockquote does not format the paragraphs correctly. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Think carefully about organization - the Notable members section lists people by war, then Medal of Honor recipients, but there is no indication for these which war they fought in. Fixed -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Explain abbreviations and provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

I can see that a lot of work has gone into this article which is very commendable. I have a couple of comments, though:

  • Introduction: I believe that the introduction needs to be rewritten. It does not summarise the whole article. I would suggest that the first sentence should begin differently, for example "The 32nd Infantry Division was a unit of the United States Army National Guard formed from units from the states of Wisconsin and Michigan. It was first formed in July 1917 and fought during World War I and World War II..." Also, the introduction should more clearly discuss the unit's history after the World Wars. As it is it does not mention that it was disbanded/inactivated after the war and then re-raised/formed again in 1961 leaves readers to fill that gap own their own.
Commment: The unit was not reorganized in 1961, but federalized. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Infobox — the dates in the infobox do not include the period it existed after WWII (I think the article says 15 Oct 1961 – sometime in 1967?).
This was fixed, but seems to have been reverted — was there a reason for this? AustralianRupert (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Endashes: date ranges (in Infobox and elsewhere) should have endashes;
  • In the Training in Australia section: you use two ranks for Cable (Sgt and then Corporal). Is this an error, or did the division use a double-rank system like the Grenadier Guards?
  • Also in the Training in Australia section: you refer to "four Australian territories" - this is not correct. They are most likely States. We have six States and two Territories.
  • Images: I believe that per the WP:MOS some images should be on the left, as well as the right (to be honest, I don't mind, but it is something that might come up at a later review).
  • See also section: I think that the see also section is usually used for internal links to other wiki pages. You are using it as a Further reading section. You may want to change it to that.
  • References section: I suggest making a separate Notes and References section. The notes section can be used for the in line citations (with limited bibliographical information — e.g. Rupert 2008, p. 1) and aside points and the References section could include all the bibliographic details of the cited sources.
  • Pre-World War I section: you begin the section discussing the 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry Regiment however it is not readily apparent why that is relevant to the topic of the 32nd Infantry Division. Also in that section, in the last paragraph you mention preceeding dates (i.e. 1899) after later dates (i.e. 1916 and 1917). This is confusing and probably should be re-worked to mention first things first so as to avoid confusing readers.
  • References: some of the external links in the references sections need to be repaired as they are not appearing in html.

Just a few ideas. On the whole I think you have done an excellent job on the article. Well done. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some further points:

:* In the World War II section, in the summary box there appears to be two figures given for Wounded in action: 1,680 and 7,268. Which one is correct? :* I believe that the lead section is still a bit vague. The opening paragraph is a bit confusing. It states in the first sentence that the unit was a WWI and WWII unit, then in the second sentence talks about the American Civil War. Also the post WWII paragraph does not mention when the Division was reactivated in 1961, although it does mention that in 1967 it was deactivated and reorganised as an independent brigade. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be something like: "The 32nd Infantry Division was an Army National Guard unit raised primarily from the states of Michigan and Wisconsin that served during World War I and World War II. Although it was formed in 1917, the Division takes its lineage from units that served during the American Civil War as part of the Iron Jaw Division. During World War I it acquired the French nickname Les Terribles... "

  • The infobox should also include post WWII dates (15 Oct 1961 – sometime in 1967). This was fixed earlier but seems to have been reverted for some reason.
On the whole, I think this article is progressing very nicely. Good work so far. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

btphelps[edit]

I moved a large section about their trek across the Kapa Kapa Trail to the article by that name and left a brief summary within the 32nd Division article. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 06:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Bosworth Field[edit]

Parallel peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Battle of Bosworth Field/archive1

I have greatly expanded the article and plan to bring it to Featured Article status. In this battle, Richard III of England died in glorious combat, one single men against a mass of footmen. On his death, his crown was picked up and placed on the head of Henry VII of England, starting the Tudor dynasty. With an article this big, it is best to solicit opinions from a greater field. I look forward to reading your comments and suggestions for this article. Jappalang (talk) 07:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hartfelt[edit]

Jappalang: I suggest that you consider eliminating your two-tier system of notes. It seems to me that the information in the nb notes may as well be woven into the text or put into a regular footnote. It is annoying to go to an nb note for a small nuggest of info and then have to go into the footnotes to find the source. The UK in WWI article now under peer review also had a two-tier system and the nb notes were all edited away w/o loss. Hartfelt (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved the little stuff that could be of pertinence to the text; those that are more trivial, I have eliminated. The two remaining nb notes, however, are chunky. While it adds context to the statements in the text, interjecting them into the main paragraphs seem to break up the flow. Any suggestions? Jappalang (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
My suggestions reflected in edits. Hartfelt (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I did some copyedits to your changes. Thank you. Jappalang (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Jappalang: I have read thru the Bosworth article in its entirety (once) and have the following comments. I offer them with respect for your efforts to date and only in the hope of helping you improve the article. In that regard, you definitely improved the article last night while building on my first editorial suggestion, so I am encouraged to share all of the following with you:

(1) Good, inviting intro (subject to my York/Lancaster comment below).

(2) Impressive research. Maybe too impressive, as there is a lot of background, etc. and, at the end of the day, only four paragraphs about the battle. You might ask yourself if you can pare out some of the material w/o loss. I wondered, for example, about all the detail on the Stanley feud with the Harringtons. Suggest you prune that para or sharpen writing to show relevance. Also, perhaps you can think of ways to build up the battle section itself.

(3) I believe there is room for improving the writing. You use the passive voice a lot (e.g., final para of intro almost entirely in passive voice), and the article would benefit from editing toward the active voice and shorter and simpler sentences.

(4) Context/transitions. I suggest that you work in more transitions to help the reader understand why he's being asked to read things. For example, why not a short intro under "Commanders" and before "Yorkist" that says something like "In a sense, the Battle of Bosworth brought to the field three forces: Richard III's Yorkist army, Henry Tudor's Lancastrian forces, and a force loyal to the fence-sitting Stanley family."

(5) York/Lancaster. The article somewhat backs into this important topic. Intro talks of Tudors and Plantagenets. "Yorkist" pops up in 3rd para; Lanncaster not until seventh? Suggest working in distinction earlier to orient the reader.

(6) Keeping all the people straight is a chore, especially with so many Richards, Edwards, etc. and the use of both surname and titles to refer to the same person. Suggest you read over carefully and take steps to help readers (especially American readers) keep people straight.

(7) The para about Francis II is confusing with present lead-in, as it seems initially to take reader back in time. Needs a better transition. Also, was Henry Tudor in effect a prisoner there?

(8) "Prelude" section seems to me to begin too abruptly.

(9) Exile/attainder. Would be helpful to describe in one place near beginning exactly what Henry Tudor's status was.

(10) Suggest most of para "Richard effectively lost" belongs at the end of the battle section, rather than at the end of the post-battle section.

(11) You have some nice illustrations. A few more would help in the "Commanders" section, a long patch of prose w/o illustration.

(12) Formally, I am thrown by style of "placing the period outside the quote mark".

Good luck from here. I will try to keep an eye on this page in case you want clarification of any of the foregoing. Hartfelt (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you are right. The article could do with some changes to make it easier for anyone not familiar with the Wars of the Roses (Battle of Bosworth Field) at the start, easing him or her further along the sections. There could be difficulties with the names of the people involved (I remember although I took to the names quite fast, my intitial readings on the Wars involved a bit of confusion). I will try my best to resolve this, but I think the pruning and transitioning would involve some big changes. My language is not at a professional level; hence, the active voicing and pruning might take some time. Jappalang (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I just resolved about almost everything (except pruning, quotes, and illustration in Commanders). Jappalang (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Werner Mölders[edit]

I rewrote the entire article. I think it is better than start class now. I am especially seeking feedback on style, grammar and language. My goal is to progress this article to GA and A-class shortly. Please let me know what you think. Thanks to all that help out. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

AustralianRupert[edit]

Hi, mate. This is a very good article in my opinion. I have updated the rating on the talk page to B class (that is as high as I can rated without the formal review processes). I don't think that